Alien Flyover of Arizona-March 13th

4 views
Skip to first unread message

auth...@webtv.net

unread,
Aug 24, 1997, 3:00:00 AM8/24/97
to

SHERILYN --- who keeps using different headers (or banners) to write in
this newsgroup, because answering questions or commenting under ALIEN
FLYOVER OF ARIZONA ON MARCH 13TH, is considered by SHERILYN as helping in
a propaganda campaign, is starting to get upset.

SHERILYN'S reasons are that no alien visitation of this planet has been
proven. Whether that has any bearing on the event of March 13th that
covered an area from Paulden AZ in the North to Tucson in the South, is
hard to understand.

SHERILYN is happy to comment or question under a banner (or header) that
mentions "Phoenix Lights" or "Phoenix UFO" because even though the event
was not confined to Phoenix, evidently these headline and sound bite
terms maybe have visited this planet? The UFO or Lights were not
confined to Phoenix. Cite, cite, cite.

SHERILYN --- answering an item mentioned by ALIEN VISIONS in a post, that
just didn't require an answer from the esteemed Sherilyn, wrote, "Take it
up with the San Francisco Examiner" and near the end of that post,
SHERILYN, stooped to using, "usual Roswell cultie tripe".

SHERILYN is becoming upset with ALIEN FLYOVER OF ARIZONA ON MARCH 13TH.
It must be that there were no lights, no ufo, no V-shaped object, nothing
happened on March 13th over Arizona at all, in SHERILYN's fantasy world.

SHERILYN ---- please keep looking up at Charing Cross Station, you may
see something that no one will ever believe, because their open minds
have a huge hole in them.

Doc in Phoenix

-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet

bob

unread,
Aug 24, 1997, 3:00:00 AM8/24/97
to

[snip]

> >
> >SHERILYN is becoming upset with ALIEN FLYOVER OF ARIZONA ON MARCH 13TH.
>>>>>

Sherilyn wrote:

> Could you explain this, Doc? I already told you I am not upset by it and
> am not going to change your subject lines one little bit. As I remarked
> earlier, this is a last desperate attempt to breathe some life into what
> is rapidly turning into a complete foil-helmet job.
>>>>>

You mean like it did in Lubbock, Texas back in 1951?

-bob t.

http://www.ufomind.com/ufo/place/us/tx/lubbock/

Sherilyn

unread,
Aug 25, 1997, 3:00:00 AM8/25/97
to

In article <8724751...@dejanews.com>, auth...@webtv.net writes

>SHERILYN --- who keeps using different headers (or banners) to write in
>this newsgroup, because answering questions or commenting under ALIEN
>FLYOVER OF ARIZONA ON MARCH 13TH, is considered by SHERILYN as helping in
>a propaganda campaign, is starting to get upset.

Ahem. I am?

By the Doc, your frequent use of block capitals is normally frowned on
in USENET. It makes people look like they are shouting at the top of
their voices, for some reason no doubt related to psychology.

[blether snipped]


>
>SHERILYN --- answering an item mentioned by ALIEN VISIONS in a post, that
>just didn't require an answer from the esteemed Sherilyn,

...it being addressed to a claim made by the SF Examiner and all...

> wrote, "Take it
>up with the San Francisco Examiner" and near the end of that post,
>SHERILYN, stooped to using, "usual Roswell cultie tripe".

Yes, it was a nasty thing to say. Bad, bad Sherilyn. Must remember to
treat the hundredth brainwashed Roswell cultie just as politely as the
first.

>
>SHERILYN is becoming upset with ALIEN FLYOVER OF ARIZONA ON MARCH 13TH.

Could you explain this, Doc? I already told you I am not upset by it and


am not going to change your subject lines one little bit. As I remarked
earlier, this is a last desperate attempt to breathe some life into what
is rapidly turning into a complete foil-helmet job.

[blether snipped]
--
Sherilyn
"[The scientific community ignores UFOs] because they don't want to be
associated with a field full of kooks and nuts. And the fact is, it is full of
kooks and nuts." -Kevin Randle, author of The UFO Crash at Roswell.

Paul Owen

unread,
Aug 27, 1997, 3:00:00 AM8/27/97
to


Sherilyn <Sher...@sidaway.demon.co.uk> wrote in article
<bgUp5ODE...@sidaway.demon.co.uk>...

> In article <01bcb26a$49f21290$15e42ac2@tfx>, Paul Owen
> <NOS...@netcomuk.co.UK> writes
> >There is certainly enough video
> >> footage of the UFO Flyover to warrant serious investigation.
>
> Please explain where this "alien flyover" video is available.

Oh, one other thing, when you go chopping the headers from replies be
careful you don't remove headers that refer to other peoples replies. For
example I did not write the text above, nor that below, but you removed the
appropriate header and thus it looks like I wrote that text (since only my
header remains). Please be more careful.

> >> Don't say its flares either! Don't even try that stupid excuse. I've
> >> seen flares dropped from airplanes, and I've seen the many videos of
the
> >> flyover. Its not flares!
>
> They may not have been flares, but they certainly weren't the things
> Mike Fortson has described--he is clear on that.


kov

unread,
Aug 27, 1997, 3:00:00 AM8/27/97
to

snip

> There is certainly enough video
> >> >> footage of the UFO Flyover to warrant serious investigation.
> >>
> >> Please explain where this "alien flyover" video is available.
> >

> >Find them for your self!
> >HOW (emphasis not shouting) is it possible that you are discussing
> the
> >very TOPIC (emphasis not shouting) of the "Pheonix UFO signting"
> without
> >having seen the videos?
>
> Kov snipped this bit:


>
> "They may not have been flares, but they certainly weren't the
>
> things Mike Fortson has described--he is clear on that."

Sorry I snipped this, but I have been trying to get Sherilyn to answer
just 1 of my questions. I try to get her to stay on track towards one
subject, but she is a talented debunker/dissinformation poster. Wether
she is doing it on purpose or just for fun.Very Good Sherilyn, what
exactly has Mike said to make what clear? He has simply tried to tell
his story. He is probably searching for answers and the truth. I know
thats a hard concept for you to grasp.

>
>
> I have seen March 13th Phoenix Lights videos. Where are the "alien
> flyover" videos of which you speak?
>

DISSINFORMATION tactic!I have specifically left the word "ALIEN" out of
all of my posts. Please look back if you don't believe me. I don't know
if the UFO spotted on March 13th over Pheonix was ALIEN in origin. I
tend to lean towards secret projects, by whomever. I am not saying
secret projects explain away every UFO sighting, but its the best
explanation available.

Ax

unread,
Aug 27, 1997, 3:00:00 AM8/27/97
to

In article <34045227...@e.com>, d...@e.com wrote:

> Hows _this_? Your parents met on a PETRIE DISH!

Much better, thank you.


Ax.

--

- I used to be indecisive; now I'm not so sure. -

Sherilyn

unread,
Aug 27, 1997, 3:00:00 AM8/27/97
to

In article <01bcb2cc$9c04bd00$dfe42ac2@tfx>, Paul Owen
<NOS...@netcomuk.co.UK> writes
>
>>> Please stop talking code. What is FOAS?
>>
>>
>> Please stop talking code. What is UAV?
>
>I'm a little surprised that someone interested in UFO's does not have any
>interest in military matters since more often than not the two go hand in
>hand. FOAS or Future Offensive Air System is the British project (still
>quite secret as to actual content) to find a replacement for the RAF's
>Tornado IDS (Interdiction/Strike) aircraft in around 2011/2013. BAe are
>supposed to be working on the project, one design (for a manned aircraft)
>is by all accounts termed HALO (High Agility Low Observability) and the
>design of this appears from many sources including at least two articles in
>Janes (a defence magazine) to be triangular in shape (not unsurprising
>given its title!). In addition the project is looking at UAV (Un-manned
>Aerial Vehicle) designs thus allowing many more craft to be purchased while
>reducing the size of the craft and hence improving its stealthiness. A
>number of UAV projects are underway and Lockheed-Martin (LM) of the U.S is
>known to be involved (again Janes Year in Review). Other systems include
>long range stealthy cruise missiles. Hope this clears things up for you ...
>but I would suggest you increase your knowledge base since you are arguing
>from a very weak standpoint if you don't know these terms or systems.

Thanks. I freely admit that I'm at a disadvantage when discussing
military hardware, in which, having at one time worked on guided weapons
systems, I have some rapidly-outdating relevant experience but no
particular interest. I have to point out, however, that an altavista
search on +uav +ufo* threw up inly some kind of games site, and a
similar dejanews search didn't seem much more enlightening.

Much that passes for "military hardware" discussions on flying saucer
newsgroups seems to involve hypothetical antigravity devices and
captured alien spaceships. I regard such speculation as of passing
interest only. There are, however, many on the saucer newsgroups and
on my home group, sci.skeptic, who obviously know far more than I about
current, actual military hardware and its capabilities.
--
Sherilyn
For the Snark was a Boojum, you see.

Sherilyn

unread,
Aug 27, 1997, 3:00:00 AM8/27/97
to

In article <34044E6B...@e.com>, kov <d...@e.com> writes

>>
>> Kov snipped this bit:
>>
>> "They may not have been flares, but they certainly weren't the
>>
>> things Mike Fortson has described--he is clear on that."
>
[ad hominems ignored throughout the following:]
...

>what
>exactly has Mike said to make what clear? He has simply tried to tell
>his story. He is probably searching for answers and the truth.


"All that is known about the 9:30 video is that it's LIGHTS.
Strange lights, but none the less lights."

In private email to me, Mike has repeatedly stressed his personal
opinion that the video just shows lights (he is also sure they are not
flares, I am not so sure) and that he thinks there were many different
things were in the air that night. I hope I have represented his
opinion correctly.


>
>>
>>
>> I have seen March 13th Phoenix Lights videos. Where are the "alien
>> flyover" videos of which you speak?
>>
>
>DISSINFORMATION tactic!I have specifically left the word "ALIEN" out of
>all of my posts. Please look back if you don't believe me. I don't know
>if the UFO spotted on March 13th over Pheonix was ALIEN in origin. I
>tend to lean towards secret projects, by whomever. I am not saying
>secret projects explain away every UFO sighting, but its the best
>explanation available.

And Kov lands flat on his face. The smoking gun: note the title, the
wording of my question, and the subject line, which Kov even altered
from a previous subject line without removing the word "alien".

From: kov <m...@exec.com>
Newsgroups: alt.alien.research,alt.alien.visitors,alt.conspiracy.area51,
alt.paranet.ufo,alt.ufo.reports,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Alien Flyover : SHERILYN hasn't seen video
Date: Tue, 26 Aug 1997 21:18:36 -0700
Organization: Exec-PC BBS Internet - Milwaukee, WI
Message-ID: <3403AA...@exec.com>

Sherilyn wrote:
>
> In article <01bcb26a$49f21290$15e42ac2@tfx>, Paul Owen
> <NOS...@netcomuk.co.UK> writes


> >There is certainly enough video
> >> footage of the UFO Flyover to warrant serious investigation.
>
> Please explain where this "alien flyover" video is available.

Find them for your self!
HOW (emphasis not shouting) is it possible that you are discussing the
very TOPIC (emphasis not shouting) of the "Pheonix UFO signting" without
having seen the videos?

SHERILYN (shouting) Please answer one of my questions before you ask me
another one.

Paul Owen

unread,
Aug 27, 1997, 3:00:00 AM8/27/97
to


Sherilyn <Sher...@sidaway.demon.co.uk> wrote in article

<u+CEe3Fa...@sidaway.demon.co.uk>...


> Thanks. I freely admit that I'm at a disadvantage when discussing
> military hardware, in which, having at one time worked on guided weapons
> systems, I have some rapidly-outdating relevant experience but no
> particular interest. I have to point out, however, that an altavista
> search on +uav +ufo* threw up inly some kind of games site, and a
> similar dejanews search didn't seem much more enlightening.

Well I wouldn't do a search for pages containing UAV and UFO ... since most
fervent UFO believers won't admit that such sightings may be quite
attributable to such craft ;)

As for discussion of military projects ... well I'm more interested in the
military than UFO's ... you will find me among other places on
rec.aviation.military and sci.military.naval (I'm the one defending the
EF2000 !! )

C.o.jones

unread,
Aug 29, 1997, 3:00:00 AM8/29/97
to

OK, let's get this straight from an eyewitness. There was NO alien
flyover. What I, and other saw was a formation of secret military
stealth helicopters. These are low radar signature with new design
rotors that muffle the normal wop-wop-wop noise associated with rotary
wing craft. These are an outgrowth of the M-D NOTAR (no tail rotor)
helicopter that has been in production for several years.

Here in Arizona, we have several military and government operations that
deal in clandestine activities. It is well-know that Ft Huachuca, near
Sierra Vista has long been a training facility for the CIA. They have
trained foriegn military and civilian agents there. Evergreen air used
to be a CIA-funded aircraft modification and repair facility. I
understand that they are now out of this involvement, or so they say.

There was also a facility at the Tucson airport in the 1980's that
rebuilt at least one C-47 (DC-3) that later crashed in Nicaragua with
much publicity. They stopped answering their phones shortly thereafter.

The point is, we cannot look at every unusual event and claim that it's
alien visitations. First, we look for more prosaic answeres, even if
they do not fit our agenda. That's how we establish credibility,
something the current UFO crowd does not have.

Jim Smith


--
"Man's most precious possessions are his delusions. Sufficiently
threatened, he will surrender his property, wife, and children, but he
will kill or be killed to keep his delusions." -- James E. Smith

petejanR...@spamblockc-zone.net

unread,
Aug 31, 1997, 3:00:00 AM8/31/97
to

Pete comments: Kov, sherilyn doesn't know how to
relate when truth is relevant. She has proven to
be inellectually dishonest over and over on alt.astrology.
So, why would you take anything posted by this
person as meaningful. If she hasn't learned about
telling the turth at this late stage, (she has to be over
50) - then of what value is any discussion?

regards, Pete

kov <d...@e.com> wrote:

>Sherilyn,
>What are you talking about? Really.
>You are being completely confusing. No doubt on purpose.
>
>To clarify my last post. I have not and will not use the word "Alien" in
>my posts (I will NOT delete it from your post though). I don't claim to
>know something is "Alien" until it can be proven it is not from this
>Earth.
>
>Sherilyn used the word "Alien" in a reply to my message as a tactic for
>getting off the real subject. Something she does often and on purpose.
>
>There is no "smoking gun" that I can find. I am still standing straight
>up (not on my face). What else will Sheilyn try next?
>
>Lets try to get back on the subject though. PLEASE.
>So, Mike F. says he saw "just lights".
>Whats your friggin' point. Thats all I see on the videos also. I want to
>know what the hell the lights were. So they were lights over Pheonix.
>Thanks for clearing that up. Duh.
>
>The lights were in formation and they were on longer then flares would
>burn. I've seen video footage where there are as many as 9 lights and as
>few as 5 in formation. I've seen video footage of a light that comes
>into view and joins an existing formation. These are by no means common
>or as Sherilyn wants us to believe "just lights" (Mike Fortson called
>them "strange lights").
>WHAT were they? Thats simply all I, like most, would like to know. Until
>we know for sure, we have to call the lights, UFO's.

>> Sherilyn wrote:
>
>> > >There is certainly enough video
>> > >> footage of the UFO Flyover to warrant serious investigation.
>> >
>> > Please explain where this "alien flyover" video is available.
>

>SHERYLYN DISSINFORMATION
>This is where the word "Alien" was introduced into this post by
>Sherilyn.
>I never refered to the sightings as "Alien". I do this specifically to
>prove Sherilyn is a professional and it has caught her. Wether she does
>it for fun or for a paycheck. Sherilyn is GUILTY of dissinformation and
>lying.
>
>p.s. I have never snipped out pertinent information, as we all know, you
>sometimes need to snip text in order to post.

J. Migneco

unread,
Sep 1, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/1/97
to

On Sat, 30 Aug 1997 10:47:29 +0000, "Bryan!" <be...@concentric.net> wrote:

>C.o.jones wrote:
>>
>> OK, let's get this straight from an eyewitness. There was NO alien
>> flyover. What I, and other saw was a formation of secret military
>> stealth helicopters. These are low radar signature with new design
>> rotors that muffle the normal wop-wop-wop noise associated with rotary
>> wing craft. These are an outgrowth of the M-D NOTAR (no tail rotor)
>> helicopter that has been in production for several years.
>>
>

>(big snip)
>
>Jim,
>
>The point is...if it was not alien, it is accountable. The federal
>government has a large playground to the southwest of Phoenix they can
>fly their super stealthy toys on, without creating a stir among the
>natives. The only explanations which will fit this scenerio, without
>someone needing to be accountable, are heat inversion (mirage), an
>unknown natural phenomenon, or alien craft.
>
<snip>
>cheers,
>Bryan!
Maybe the concept of hovering over a large city with hundreds of
eyewitnesses is PRECISELY the point. What better way to continue to
desensitize the general population to unusual crafts and bring this type
of activity into the mainstream counciousness. Whether or not there has
EVER been a capture and back-engineering of an alien airship, there seems
to be little doubt that the US gov't/military have some highly advanced
toys with capabilities unlike any we've ever seen publicly. I've never
felt that the flyover in Phoenix was anything but a Made in USA design.
They've been experimenting with disk shapes and alternative designs since
the early '50s.

Regarding accountability, since when did the darkest, most secretive
sectors of our government and military ever worry about that?? Denial has
always worked in the past -- tens of millions of people believe everything
they see on the evening news.
Jim Migneco

Remove "nospam" from address to reply by email.

tomi...@vegas.infi.net

unread,
Sep 1, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/1/97
to

On 1997-08-30 be...@concentric.net said:
>Newsgroups: alt.alien.research,alt.alien.visitors,alt.conspiracy.
>area51,alt.paranet.ufo,alt.ufo.reports,sci.skeptic
>X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold (Macintosh; I; PPC)
>Xref: news.infi.net alt.alien.research:24189 alt.alien.
>visitors:38247 alt.conspiracy.area51:7802 alt.paranet.ufo:26745 alt.
>ufo.r C.o.jones wrote: >

>> OK, let's get this straight from an eyewitness. There was NO
>>alien flyover. What I, and other saw was a formation of secret
>>military stealth helicopters. These are low radar signature with
>>new design rotors that muffle the normal wop-wop-wop noise
>>associated with rotary wing craft. These are an outgrowth of the
>>M-D NOTAR (no tail rotor) helicopter that has been in production
>for several years. >
>(big snip)

>Could you tell us more of what you witnessed. Why do you believe
>it was helicopters?

>> The point is, we cannot look at every unusual event and claim
>>that it's alien visitations. First, we look for more prosaic
>>answeres, even if they do not fit our agenda. That's how we
>>establish credibility, something the current UFO crowd does not
>have. >

>> Jim Smith

>We are not talking crowds here Jim. And if we are, I'm part of the
>human *crowd*...which *crowd* are you? :-)

>cheers,
>Bryan!

Is it now a flight of helicopters? I thought it was those NG
A-10s. Boy, they had quite a few craft flying in that airspace
for an International Airport and a military field. Why didnt
they just present the flight plans for all this traffic and warn
Sky Harbor. These are all a danger to commercial aircraft,
unknown craft in that ATC area.

Question on another government project.

I am often awake late at night due to much pain and I usually
tape the 3:00 a.m. movies on TCM. I started to one night on the
morning of th ePathfinder event and, since I didn't like the
move, I was jumping, surfing, and I unknowlingly captured a
report of a big round ball, light colored, with seams running
from pole to pole, sort of. A voice was saying, 'Wow, that must
have bounced 100-150 feet.' All it is is this ball bouncing
sort of from 10 o'clock and going out of the picture at 4 oclock.

Sometime later I wondered about it. It was apparently Pathfinder
bouncing on Mars. I didn't think about it until I thought,
'Hey, what took that picture?' It was up pretty close. Plus I
am legally blind and even on my big screen I lose things since
what I see is peripherally viewed. Then I realized, that must
have been an animation, the kind NASA does to show what happens
in different projects. It bounced amont a barren, rocky area.
Nice picture of the surace and rocks. When the photos came back
from Mars, even thouogh NASA said they id not know where it
would land or what they could expect, the animation seemed to be
right on. I couldn't tell so I asked my wife to look at them.
She thought they were very similar in rock shaps and locations
and surface, very, very similar. She thought that a couple of
the rocks looked identical.

I am getting a video capture system for some other experiments I
wish to do, but I thouoght: maybe I can superimpose the picture
of the animation over all the mars photos. Wouldn't it be a
fantastic coincidence if there were some perfect matches?

I know someone has said that it was fantastic luck that the
Pathfinder ball survived 18gs touchdown, followed by 15 more
bounces, nothing damaged, and it ended up perfectly upright and
level. Great stroke of luck. I wonder what the probabilities
would be that some rocks or formations in the animation would
match the rock and formations on the mars photos?

I never could find that single shot of Pathfinder animation
again. Anyone else get that? It might be valuable. I have put
it away with a friend for safekeeping.

I would not say that any luck was the result of activities in
concert, not at all. I would only comment that the guys at NSA
are prescient and very lucky.

tomitire

bob tarantino

unread,
Sep 2, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/2/97
to

[snip]

>-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet

Include me, Doc. I still have to see evidence that the lights prove that
there is a V-shaped aircraft flying over AZ. All I see are lights. Couldn't

be that they are a group of aircraft flying in formation? Suppose not, since
there
were NO aircraft flying at the time. I guess this doesn't include the alleged
airliner
making an approach on the Good Year flightline or the other pilot that,
allegedly
flew under the alien craft to try and identify it. What about their lights,
such as
wing tip lights and anti-collision? How come, when the whole incident was
reported, neither of these craft were present in the air, but now are
mentioned?
Did they shut off thier lights so that they wouldn't be abducted,
disregarding standard
air safety practices? I suppose they didn't want to identified as alien
craft. Lights
are proof of an alien presence, aren't they. Of course, the craft is
transparent,
therefore the lights are the only thing visible. Good thing Wonder Woman
didn't
use any lights. She would have been shot down or, at least, witnessed by
groups of people that came out to only stare at a group of lights flying over
a
city.

Seems to be some gaps in the story here, which some people are trying to fill
in becuase it doesn't match what they wish it to be.

And you wonder why Sherilyn doesn't want to make the jump from "Lights over
Phoenix" to "Alien Flyover"?

Whoops, once again, I make that damn mistake of hoping for REAL proof.
I must stop doing that, one of these days.
>>>>>>>>>

You state that "All I see are lights", yet fail to admit no explaination of a
known craft exists. This same formation has been associated with thousands of
UFO sightings dating back to the summer of 1951 in the southwest and in
Lubbock Texas where a boomerang shaped formation of lights was photographed,
and is one of the most well known of UFO sightings in ufology. This case was
covered in I believe several books by Jerome Clark and in "The UFO Casebook"
by Kevin Randle. In one of the videos from Phoenix (the one appearing closest
to the craft) the object appears to be outlined by the lights which seem to
shine away from a central object, but not shine inward. In the
Bentwaters-Woodbridge case of 1980, a witness to the craft said it appeared
that the "fabric of the craft" looked like glass that could only be seen near
the lights, as if the reflection of light near the surface revealed the
transparent hull these obects use. Dr. Ellen Crystall describes craft she had
seen in upper state NY in an identical way stating that the hull could be seen
only near the lights. Skeptics will continue to dig for a "plausible" answer,
but the obvious one is that we are being lied to. This case will remain as
the Lubbock lights case of 1951, as one of the most documented, and
unexplained events in ufology. I sincerely doubt any earthly answer will be
found.

-bob tarantino


zool

unread,
Sep 3, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/3/97
to

Say, did the Military say if the so-called "Classified" aircraft that
people mistook for UFOs, are STILL being "Classified"? If not, I sure
would like the FEDS to tell me WHICH aircraft in our Wonderful Military
arsenal I saw on a summer night in 1961 that resembled a brillant white
light that hovered over some power lines, dropped red sparks from the
bottom and then suddenly shot South in an arc. One of three people with
saw the object heading North. Sure as hell wasn't an F-4 or an SR-71
for that matter.
Or could it be those pesky Crash Test Dummies are at it a again?

ZOOL


P.S. This was in Portsmouth, VA., over the Hattonsville area.

>


> "Paul Owen" <po...@netcomuk.co.uk> wrote:
> >Sherilyn <Sher...@sidaway.demon.co.uk> wrote in article
> ><u+CEe3Fa...@sidaway.demon.co.uk>...
> >> Thanks. I freely admit that I'm at a disadvantage when discussing
> >> military hardware, in which, having at one time worked on guided weapons
> >> systems, I have some rapidly-outdating relevant experience but no
> >> particular interest. I have to point out, however, that an altavista
> >> search on +uav +ufo* threw up inly some kind of games site, and a
> >> similar dejanews search didn't seem much more enlightening.
> >
> >Well I wouldn't do a search for pages containing UAV and UFO ... since most
> >fervent UFO believers won't admit that such sightings may be quite
> >attributable to such craft ;)
> >

> ===
> It's obvious:
> When the U.S. military recently stated that half of early UFO sightings
> were due to classified aircraft - they are plainly advising the public not
> to get so paranoid about UFO sightings -occurring in recent years and in
> the future- because they are mostly due to new generations of more
> advanced, classified aircraf

shee...@micron.net

unread,
Sep 8, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/8/97
to

Howdy Bob:

Can you tell me how a group of lights proves that there is an explanation
for something other than known aircraft. While I don't know exactly
what the lights are, I can suspect that the lights are several aircraft
flying in a formation. There are a few military groups that do fly
similar formations. These do not have to be the Blue Angels flying in
F-16's, nor do they need to be the F-18's used by the Navy's stunt team.
Many military pilots fly formations that most people think are not standard.
I used to watch many F-111E's do much the same and more. After having
worked on several different type of aircraft over the years, I am aware of what
they can do.

I have yet to see proof that many sightings exceed the limits of aircraft that
are older than 30 years, which is the majority of my experience. I have been
around some that are over 20 years (F-15's, for example) that can perform
many maneuvers that are described as impossible.

As for flights of craft dating back to 1951, why not consider the SuperBee.
This was an extremely fast aircraft for its time. It was nearly nothing but
engine, with enough room left for flight control and the pilot. For it's day, I'm sure that
it could do stunts that were considered impossible. By the way, it was all fabric, too.

I will take a look at the reference that you provided. I am glad that someone
can provide something like that.


Bob

wyzguy

unread,
Sep 29, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/29/97
to

zool <dol...@infi.net> wrote:

> ZOOL

>>

Is that the reason we are being inundated with aliens,
T-shirts,movies, tv shows,books,and endless sightings. The hour when
we'll all findout must be soon approaching.


Shooty

unread,
Oct 8, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/8/97
to

In article <343C21...@noway.com>, John Dough <jdo...@noway.com> wrote:

SNIP
>
> Don't worry about who I am, you'll never find out. Your a "
sceptic ",
> that's a polite way saying you are closed minded or ignorant, for
> arguement sake we will assume you are ignorant. I have done " work "
> with advanced propulsion systems as well as some military work and have
> come by my knowledge quite easily. The U.S. Government is scared,
> because something is going on that they can't CONTROL. Aliens are real
> and have been visiting earth for a long time, we have evidence to prove
> that, for example: semi-electronic organic objects made of materials
> that were either created in a vaccuum or another planet. This object
> was subjected to carbon dating and the object is over 100,000 years
> old. Aliens are real, get over it and get on with your lives!

As Carbon dating is of no value on an object that old I seriously doubt
that you know what you are saying.

Shooty

Spike

unread,
Oct 8, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/8/97
to

>Sherilyn wrote:
>>
>> In article <01bcb2cc$9c04bd00$dfe42ac2@tfx>, Paul Owen
>> <NOS...@netcomuk.co.UK> writes
>> >
>> >

>> >Sherilyn <Sher...@sidaway.demon.co.uk> wrote in article
>> ><bgUp5ODE...@sidaway.demon.co.uk>...
>> >> Please stop talking code. What is FOAS?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Please stop talking code. What is UAV?
>> >
>> >I'm a little surprised that someone interested in UFO's does not have any
>> >interest in military matters since more often than not the two go hand in
>> >hand. FOAS or Future Offensive Air System is the British project (still
>> >quite secret as to actual content) to find a replacement for the RAF's
>> >Tornado IDS (Interdiction/Strike) aircraft in around 2011/2013. BAe are
>> >supposed to be working on the project, one design (for a manned aircraft)
>> >is by all accounts termed HALO (High Agility Low Observability) and the
>> >design of this appears from many sources including at least two articles in
>> >Janes (a defence magazine) to be triangular in shape (not unsurprising
>> >given its title!). In addition the project is looking at UAV (Un-manned
>> >Aerial Vehicle) designs thus allowing many more craft to be purchased while
>> >reducing the size of the craft and hence improving its stealthiness. A
>> >number of UAV projects are underway and Lockheed-Martin (LM) of the U.S is
>> >known to be involved (again Janes Year in Review). Other systems include
>> >long range stealthy cruise missiles. Hope this clears things up for you ...
>> >but I would suggest you increase your knowledge base since you are arguing
>> >from a very weak standpoint if you don't know these terms or systems.
>>
>> Thanks. I freely admit that I'm at a disadvantage when discussing
>> military hardware, in which, having at one time worked on guided weapons
>> systems, I have some rapidly-outdating relevant experience but no
>> particular interest. I have to point out, however, that an altavista
>> search on +uav +ufo* threw up inly some kind of games site, and a
>> similar dejanews search didn't seem much more enlightening.
>>
>> Much that passes for "military hardware" discussions on flying saucer
>> newsgroups seems to involve hypothetical antigravity devices and
>> captured alien spaceships. I regard such speculation as of passing
>> interest only. There are, however, many on the saucer newsgroups and
>> on my home group, sci.skeptic, who obviously know far more than I about
>> current, actual military hardware and its capabilities.
>> --
>> Sherilyn
>> For the Snark was a Boojum, you see.

> Don't worry about who I am, you'll never find out. Your a " sceptic ",
>that's a polite way saying you are closed minded or ignorant, for
>arguement sake we will assume you are ignorant. I have done " work "
>with advanced propulsion systems as well as some military work and have
>come by my knowledge quite easily. The U.S. Government is scared,
>because something is going on that they can't CONTROL. Aliens are real
>and have been visiting earth for a long time, we have evidence to prove
>that, for example: semi-electronic organic objects made of materials
>that were either created in a vaccuum or another planet. This object
>was subjected to carbon dating and the object is over 100,000 years
>old. Aliens are real, get over it and get on with your lives!

What other evidence do you have?


---

Rob

unread,
Oct 8, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/8/97
to

In article <343C21...@noway.com>, John Dough <jdo...@noway.com> wrote:

<snip>


> Aliens are real
> and have been visiting earth for a long time, we have evidence to prove
> that, for example: semi-electronic organic objects made of materials
> that were either created in a vaccuum or another planet. This object
> was subjected to carbon dating and the object is over 100,000 years
> old.

Prove this statement and you'll make a believer out of every skeptic
here. Funny how these things never seem to pan out, though.

Thomas Green

unread,
Oct 8, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/8/97
to

<snip>
. Aliens are real

> and have been visiting earth for a long time, we have evidence to prove
> that, for example: semi-electronic organic objects made of materials
> that were either created in a vaccuum or another planet. This object
> was subjected to carbon dating and the object is over 100,000 years
> old. Aliens are real, get over it and get on with your lives!
>

erm...sorry to disillusion you but radiocarbon dating only provides usable
dates up to 50,000 or 60,000 years before present (10 half-lives)...after
that other dating techniques must be used. I suggest you look at:

http://www2.waikato.ac.nz/c14/webinfo/index.html

Tom

Bob Casanova

unread,
Oct 8, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/8/97
to

On Thu, 09 Oct 1997 00:14:20 +0000, in sci.skeptic, John Dough
<jdo...@noway.com> wrote:

<snip>


> Don't worry about who I am, you'll never find out.

Do you imagine anyone actually cares?

> Your a " sceptic ",
>that's a polite way saying you are closed minded or ignorant,

No, it's an accurate way of saying a person doesn't believe what some
idiot says if there is no supporting evidence. But please continue
your fantasy.

> for
>arguement sake we will assume you are ignorant.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

> I have done " work "
>with advanced propulsion systems as well as some military work and have
>come by my knowledge quite easily.

Evidence, please? Organization, systems experience, and other
pertinent data would help. Or is this just more BS?

> The U.S. Government is scared,
>because something is going on that they can't CONTROL.

So you're familiar with Billary. So?

> Aliens are real
>and have been visiting earth for a long time, we have evidence to prove
>that, for example: semi-electronic organic objects made of materials
>that were either created in a vaccuum or another planet. This object
>was subjected to carbon dating and the object is over 100,000 years
>old.

Carbon dating is only good to approximately 50k yrs. Shame you didn't
know that...

> Aliens are real, get over it and get on with your lives!

Perhaps you should take your own advice. Except instead of "get on
with you life" it would be merely "get a life". And, if it's not too
much stress, a clue.


(Note followups, if any)

Bob C.

Reply to cas @ clark.net (without the spaces, of course)

"Men become civilized, not in proportion to their willingness
to believe, but in proportion to their readiness to doubt."
--H. L. Mencken

John Dough

unread,
Oct 9, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/9/97
to


Don't worry about who I am, you'll never find out. Your a " sceptic ",
that's a polite way saying you are closed minded or ignorant, for
arguement sake we will assume you are ignorant. I have done " work "


with advanced propulsion systems as well as some military work and have

come by my knowledge quite easily. The U.S. Government is scared,
because something is going on that they can't CONTROL. Aliens are real


and have been visiting earth for a long time, we have evidence to prove
that, for example: semi-electronic organic objects made of materials
that were either created in a vaccuum or another planet. This object
was subjected to carbon dating and the object is over 100,000 years

old. Aliens are real, get over it and get on with your lives!

Richard White

unread,
Oct 9, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/9/97
to

On 8 Oct 1997, Thomas Green wrote:

> <snip>


> . Aliens are real
> > and have been visiting earth for a long time, we have evidence to prove
> > that, for example: semi-electronic organic objects made of materials
> > that were either created in a vaccuum or another planet. This object
> > was subjected to carbon dating and the object is over 100,000 years
> > old. Aliens are real, get over it and get on with your lives!
> >
>

> erm...sorry to disillusion you but radiocarbon dating only provides usable
> dates up to 50,000 or 60,000 years before present (10 half-lives)...after
> that other dating techniques must be used. I suggest you look at:
>
> http://www2.waikato.ac.nz/c14/webinfo/index.html

Not to mention that carbon dating is only valid on things of
known isotope ratios, i.e. of earth origin.

Richard.


cdc

unread,
Oct 9, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/9/97
to

How do we know they are aliens it is more likely they are travelers from
another demonson or at least the use other deminsons to get to earth . FTL
travel is imposible unless you do something differant that is simular to
the warp technology on the sci-fi show Star Trek

Rob <shok...@well.com> wrote in article
<shokwave-081...@dialup-003-083.wc-aus.io.com>...
> In article <343C21...@noway.com>, John Dough <jdo...@noway.com>
wrote:
>
> <snip>


> > Aliens are real
> > and have been visiting earth for a long time, we have evidence to prove
> > that, for example: semi-electronic organic objects made of materials
> > that were either created in a vaccuum or another planet. This object
> > was subjected to carbon dating and the object is over 100,000 years
> > old.
>

Sherilyn

unread,
Oct 9, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/9/97
to

In article <01bcd4e5$bfba7b00$4705...@ns.3gcom.com>, cdc
<loc...@comsys.net> writes
>The thing about technology will some day be based on organics .

Wake up and smell the coffee! Already biotechnology is big business.
--
Sherilyn
Ai to seigi no, seeraa fuku bishoujo senshi! Seeraa Muun yo!

Royston Paynter

unread,
Oct 9, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/9/97
to


John Dough <jdo...@noway.com> wrote in article


> Don't worry about who I am, you'll never find out. Your a " sceptic ",
> that's a polite way saying you are closed minded or ignorant, for
> arguement sake we will assume you are ignorant. I have done " work "
> with advanced propulsion systems as well as some military work and have
> come by my knowledge quite easily.

With what advanced propulsion systems have you worked? Where, and when?

>The U.S. Government is scared,

> because something is going on that they can't CONTROL. Aliens are real


> and have been visiting earth for a long time, we have evidence to prove
> that, for example: semi-electronic organic objects made of materials
> that were either created in a vaccuum or another planet. This object
> was subjected to carbon dating and the object is over 100,000 years
> old.

What does "semi-electronic" mean? In what manner was it determined that the
object was created ina vacuum, or on another planet? If it comes from
another planet, of what use is carbon dating (which requires calibration
from tree rings or the like.) Where did you come by the information you
relate here?


--

Scientific skepticism, UFOs and the flying saucer myth
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Corridor/8148

Thomas Green

unread,
Oct 9, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/9/97
to

Richard White <wh...@csee.usf.edu> wrote in article
<Pine.SOL.3.95.971009061321.12180G-100000@grad>...

> On 8 Oct 1997, Thomas Green wrote:
>
> > <snip>
> > . Aliens are real
> > > and have been visiting earth for a long time, we have evidence to
prove
> > > that, for example: semi-electronic organic objects made of materials
> > > that were either created in a vaccuum or another planet. This object
> > > was subjected to carbon dating and the object is over 100,000 years
> > > old. Aliens are real, get over it and get on with your lives!
> > >
> >
> > erm...sorry to disillusion you but radiocarbon dating only provides
usable
> > dates up to 50,000 or 60,000 years before present (10
half-lives)...after
> > that other dating techniques must be used. I suggest you look at:
> >
> > http://www2.waikato.ac.nz/c14/webinfo/index.html
>
> Not to mention that carbon dating is only valid on things of
> known isotope ratios, i.e. of earth origin.
>
> Richard.
>
>

Good point! Forgot about that:-)

Tom

Will...@spam.net

unread,
Oct 10, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/10/97
to

In article <01bcd56a$d06411c0$440893c3@thomasgr> "Thomas Green" <tomg...@globalnet.co.uk> writes:
>From: "Thomas Green" <tomg...@globalnet.co.uk>
>Subject: Re: Believe it or not aliens are real.
>Date: 10 Oct 1997 10:54:11 GMT

>Adell <ad...@prodigy.net> wrote in article <343DBC...@prodigy.net>...
>> cdc,
>>
>> Wouldn't they still be aliens even if they were from another
>> demonsion???
>>

>If I remember my science right, it's a popular myth that things can exist
>in other dimensions....parallel universes might be more likely candidate
>but (1) can they exist? and (2)how would one form a link between them? Any
>theoretical physicists out there who could explain this?

>Tom
Other dimensions and creatures existing in them is one popular theory. I also
like to point out that, if this is possible, then we needn't always look up at
the sky for aliens, they could be standing right next to us or living among us
at all times without our being able to realize them, and vice versa.

Rob

unread,
Oct 10, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/10/97
to

In article <01bcd56a$d06411c0$440893c3@thomasgr>, "Thomas Green"
<tomg...@globalnet.co.uk> wrote:

> Adell <ad...@prodigy.net> wrote in article <343DBC...@prodigy.net>...
> > cdc,
> >
> > Wouldn't they still be aliens even if they were from another
> > demonsion???
> >
>
> If I remember my science right, it's a popular myth that things can exist
> in other dimensions....parallel universes might be more likely candidate
> but (1) can they exist? and (2)how would one form a link between them? Any
> theoretical physicists out there who could explain this?
>
> Tom

Pretty funny, Tom. "Science" has nothing to say about life in other
"dimensions" because the whole idea is hogwash. To say that there could
be a "fourth" or "eighth" dimension is just idle speculation. Just
because we can mathematically deal with the idea of additional dimensions,
it doesn't follow that they exist or that life is involved.

So, your statement is correct, "dimensions" as places are just the dreams
of crappy SF writers.

What about the "second" dimension, for example? Our three dimensional
world CONTAINS two dimensional stuff. Does this mean that a hypothetical
fourth dimension would CONTAIN this three dimensional world?

To a scientist, a "dimension" is just an aspect of something that can be
measured. Some problems in physics, for example, can be most easily
solved if you postulate some extra dimensions. The dimensions don't have
to be real or "places" in any sense for this to work.

Sherilyn

unread,
Oct 10, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/10/97
to

In article <01bcd587$8232cd80$b7d6...@etherman.mdc.net>, Etherman
<ethe...@mdc.net> writes
...
>
>My theory is that this Jon Dough is a government disinformation agent.
>In fact, he likely works for the Federal Disinformation Agency (FDA).
>Unfortunately the UFOlogical community is saturated with them (e.g.
>Bill Cooper). They're pretty easy to find because they tend to make
>bizarre claims with absolutely nothing but their good word to back
>them up.
>
Lessee, if that's your criterion, I don't want to name any names, but I
could make an _awfully_ long list. :)

Adell

unread,
Oct 10, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/10/97
to

Thomas Green

unread,
Oct 10, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/10/97
to

Adell <ad...@prodigy.net> wrote in article <343DBC...@prodigy.net>...
> cdc,
>
> Wouldn't they still be aliens even if they were from another
> demonsion???
>

If I remember my science right, it's a popular myth that things can exist

Thomas Green

unread,
Oct 10, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/10/97
to

> Pretty funny, Tom. "Science" has nothing to say about life in other
> "dimensions" because the whole idea is hogwash. To say that there could
> be a "fourth" or "eighth" dimension is just idle speculation. Just
> because we can mathematically deal with the idea of additional
dimensions,
> it doesn't follow that they exist or that life is involved.
>
> So, your statement is correct, "dimensions" as places are just the dreams
> of crappy SF writers.
>
> What about the "second" dimension, for example? Our three dimensional
> world CONTAINS two dimensional stuff. Does this mean that a hypothetical
> fourth dimension would CONTAIN this three dimensional world?
>
> To a scientist, a "dimension" is just an aspect of something that can be
> measured. Some problems in physics, for example, can be most easily
> solved if you postulate some extra dimensions. The dimensions don't have
> to be real or "places" in any sense for this to work.
>

Thought so...after all time and space are the 4th and 5th dimensions and
these aren't places! :-) I seem to recall that several of these "higher"
dimensions contain the solutions to cosmic string theory and the possible
m-theory, rather than alien life-forms......

Regards, Tom

Paul Titze VK2THN [HACK.AU.]

unread,
Oct 10, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/10/97
to

Bob Casanova wrote:
>
> On Thu, 09 Oct 1997 00:14:20 +0000, in sci.skeptic, John Dough
> <jdo...@noway.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > Don't worry about who I am, you'll never find out.
>
> Do you imagine anyone actually cares?
>
> > Your a " sceptic ",
> >that's a polite way saying you are closed minded or ignorant,
>
> No, it's an accurate way of saying a person doesn't believe what some
> idiot says if there is no supporting evidence. But please continue
> your fantasy.

Well I'm not a skeptic, I know life exists out there, I also know there are no
aliens visiting Earth right now.

> > for
> >arguement sake we will assume you are ignorant.
>

> Pot. Kettle. Black.

Usually the person who raves on about his latest alien encounter and or
experience is the complete ignorant, just by looking at their message content,
their ignorance in this subject is shocking for someone who is supposed to have
made an encounter and or discovery related to this subject. Pure fantasy is the word.

> > I have done " work "
> >with advanced propulsion systems as well as some military work and have
> >come by my knowledge quite easily.
>

> Evidence, please? Organization, systems experience, and other
> pertinent data would help. Or is this just more BS?

> > The U.S. Government is scared,
> >because something is going on that they can't CONTROL.
>

> So you're familiar with Billary. So?
>

> > Aliens are real
> >and have been visiting earth for a long time, we have evidence to prove
> >that, for example: semi-electronic organic objects made of materials
> >that were either created in a vaccuum or another planet. This object
> >was subjected to carbon dating and the object is over 100,000 years
> >old.
>

> Carbon dating is only good to approximately 50k yrs. Shame you didn't
> know that...
>

> > Aliens are real, get over it and get on with your lives!

Alien life somewhere else in our Universe has been real long before anyone
of us were around. However there are no aliens visiting Earth in flying
saucers or whatever you have dreamed of lately. Until we make first contact,
everything you read/hear about flying saucers, aliens visiting Earth etc is BS.
Not that my above statements will change anything to the mass hysteria in this
subject but don't say I didn't try ;)

Paul.

======================================================================
Email : pti...@astron.physics.usyd.edu.au
Website : http://www.physics.usyd.edu.au/~ptitze
Cyberspace: http://www.physics.usyd.edu.au/~ptitze/vrml/vk2thn.wrl
======================================================================

Michael C. Haller

unread,
Oct 11, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/11/97
to

Hi guys !
You probably won´t believe it, but I´ve been kidnapped by aliens last
summerholidays while laying on the floor in an irish pub. They wanted to
steal my brain but there hasn´t been much left.
If you faced some similar fate, please reply via email:

hi...@bwl.uni-muenchen.de

Frank Schnabel

unread,
Oct 11, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/11/97
to

Rob <shok...@well.com> wrote in article
<shokwave-101...@dialup-003-042.wc-aus.io.com>...

> To say that there could
> be a "fourth" or "eighth" dimension is just idle speculation. Just
> because we can mathematically deal with the idea of additional
dimensions,
> it doesn't follow that they exist or that life is involved.

I wouldn't call it 'idle' speculation. The fact is that there is no reason
why the universe can't have five or 10 or an infinite number of dimensions.
We travel freely throughout three dimensions, we perceive our journey
through the fourth (elapsed time can be considered a distance in the fourth
dimension). Without even knowing how to perceive a fifth (or higher)
dimension how can we possible describe it any way other than
mathematically.

Frank Schnabel

unread,
Oct 11, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/11/97
to

John Dough <jdo...@noway.com> wrote in article <343C21...@noway.com>...

<big snip>

> Aliens are real
> and have been visiting earth for a long time, we have evidence to prove
> that, for example: semi-electronic organic objects made of materials
> that were either created in a vaccuum or another planet. This object
> was subjected to carbon dating and the object is over 100,000 years

> old. Aliens are real, get over it and get on with your lives!
>

I really hate to thrust bad news upon you, but whoever gave you this
information seems to be playing on your ignorance. Because of the
relatively short half-life of carbon 14 (5730 years) radio-carbon dating is
unusable for organic material that is more than a few tens of thousands of
years old; 50000 years is roughly the upper limit.

smyke

unread,
Oct 11, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/11/97
to

Dave Bethke wrote:
>
> Ben Jacoby wrote:
> >
> > Ah, a little intelligence sparkles across the NET! For the clueless, the
> > little classic book "FLATLAND" is required reading.
>
> "FLATLAND"! Takes me back to high school, where it was required
> reading in a math class. (We won't say how many decades ago.) As I
> recall, there also were two other "lands" discussed. "Lineland" was a
> one dimension land and "Pointland" had no dimensions.
>
> "Pointland" was occupied by only one person or entity. It could not
> conceive of any person or object other than its self. Whenever
> something of another dimension affected this point, the Pointland
> resident could only think that this was a facit of its own capabilities
> that it had only then discovered. Our pointlander rejected any idea
> that did not fit the rules of its none dimensional universe.
>
> If we reject every idea or concept that seems impossible by the rules
> of our three dimensional "land", we become as narrow-minded and self
> centered as the lone citizen of "Pointland".
>
> --
> Dave Bethke - on the fringe of Houston
Ummmmm,...does this include the idea that inhaling plutonium might be
good for you?

S Singh

unread,
Oct 11, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/11/97
to

I think he was refering to hyperspace... hyper dimensional creatures are
entirely possible... In fact it's been said God is of higher dimensions ,
this proves why in the bible it's said god was like blobs of nonsense.. like
smog etc.. whatever... , this is exactly how a higher dimensional creature
would look to a lower dimensional creature.. you should read a book by a
physicist , Kaku or something like that..

not vince

unread,
Oct 12, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/12/97
to

In article <Q1i7cbAj...@sidaway.demon.co.uk>, Sherilyn
<Sher...@sidaway.demon.co.uk> writes

>>The thing about technology will some day be based on organics .
>
>Wake up and smell the coffee! Already biotechnology is big business.
>--
>Sherilyn
>Ai to seigi no, seeraa fuku bishoujo senshi! Seeraa Muun yo!
ow come on... tell me... what does
..

>Ai to seigi no, seeraa fuku bishoujo senshi! Seeraa Muun yo!
mean????? huh...huh..... please..huh.


--
Ufomystyk

The Grey Master has returned!

. .
\/
/(..)\ ......."Whats this about a Boojam?"
<(~~)>
< ( ) >
/_( )_\
/\
0 0


not vince

unread,
Oct 12, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/12/97
to

In article <LSdNl0Be...@sidaway.demon.co.uk>, Sherilyn
<Sher...@sidaway.demon.co.uk> writes

>>
>>My theory is that this Jon Dough is a government disinformation agent.
>>In fact, he likely works for the Federal Disinformation Agency (FDA).
>>Unfortunately the UFOlogical community is saturated with them (e.g.
>>Bill Cooper). They're pretty easy to find because they tend to make
>>bizarre claims with absolutely nothing but their good word to back
>>them up.
>>
>Lessee, if that's your criterion, I don't want to name any names, but I
>could make an _awfully_ long list. :)
>--
>Sherilyn
>Ai to seigi no, seeraa fuku bishoujo senshi! Seeraa Muun yo!
include me on that list.. I am one... but then I would say that wouldn't
eye so perhaps I'm not... then I would not say that...but i did...

erm Sherri...am I one?

Ben Jacoby

unread,
Oct 12, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/12/97
to

Frank Schnabel (fran...@interlog.com) spake thusly:

: I wouldn't call it 'idle' speculation. The fact is that there is no reason


: why the universe can't have five or 10 or an infinite number of dimensions.
: We travel freely throughout three dimensions, we perceive our journey
: through the fourth (elapsed time can be considered a distance in the fourth
: dimension). Without even knowing how to perceive a fifth (or higher)
: dimension how can we possible describe it any way other than
: mathematically.

Ah, a little intelligence sparkles across the NET! For the clueless, the
little classic book "FLATLAND" is required reading. It uses a mythical 2
dimensional land to get across the ideas of what to expect from
interactions with higher dimensional manifolds.

The key here is that interactions with higher dimensions tend to appear
as *magic* in lower dimensional worlds. For example take what to us
would be a simple sphere passing through "flatland". A simple three
dimensional (actually 4 dimensional including time) geometric process.
But to flatlanders, they witness a "miracle" as a "circle being" appears
out of nowhere, grows larger and larger; then smaller and smaller and
finally disappears!

For this reason one can extrapolate whereby "magical" or "religious
miracle" behavior (eg. ufo appears out of "nowhere" and then dissappears)
*may* have some unseen higher dimensional aspects.

Lets also go further and speculate about flatlanders existing in thier
own dimensions but *using* higher ones for transport. it works like this:
Say flatland was not flat. Say it was really a sphere and only appeared
flat to denizens because of it's large size. (meaning plane geometry
normally worked and spherical geometery didn't seem to be needed.)
No lets go even futher. Say, that it wasn't really a sphere at all but
more like the shape of a red blood cell. And even more so where the top
and bottom surface of the "cell" almost touched in the center. Now if a
flatlander had the technology, to suddenly become able to move in three
dimensions, he could "jump" or "warp" from one side of the flatland
universe to the the other in virtually no time! He would disappear from
where he was and reappear almost instantly half way round flatland.

Does any of this start to sound like some of the stranger reported UFO
properties? I thought so!

--
Benjamin Jacoby | "Some rob you with a six-gun and some with
| a fountain pen." ..........Woodie Guthrie

(SPAM GUARD! Delete the no spam letters in name to email.)

Sherilyn

unread,
Oct 12, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/12/97
to

In article <D8EmBSAR...@pagan1.demon.co.uk>, not vince
<gu...@gan1.demon.co.uk> writes

>In article <Q1i7cbAj...@sidaway.demon.co.uk>, Sherilyn
><Sher...@sidaway.demon.co.uk> writes
>>>The thing about technology will some day be based on organics .
>>
>>Wake up and smell the coffee! Already biotechnology is big business.
>>--
>>Sherilyn
>>Ai to seigi no, seeraa fuku bishoujo senshi! Seeraa Muun yo!
>ow come on... tell me... what does
>..
>>Ai to seigi no, seeraa fuku bishoujo senshi! Seeraa Muun yo!
> mean????? huh...huh..... please..huh.
>
I emailed you but it bounced.

Sherilyn

unread,
Oct 12, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/12/97
to

In article <HcEnJWAT...@pagan1.demon.co.uk>, not vince
<gu...@gan1.demon.co.uk> writes

>In article <LSdNl0Be...@sidaway.demon.co.uk>, Sherilyn
><Sher...@sidaway.demon.co.uk> writes
>>>
>>>My theory is that this Jon Dough is a government disinformation agent.
>>>In fact, he likely works for the Federal Disinformation Agency (FDA).
>>>Unfortunately the UFOlogical community is saturated with them (e.g.
>>>Bill Cooper). They're pretty easy to find because they tend to make
>>>bizarre claims with absolutely nothing but their good word to back
>>>them up.
>>>
>>Lessee, if that's your criterion, I don't want to name any names, but I
>>could make an _awfully_ long list. :)
>>--
>>Sherilyn
>>Ai to seigi no, seeraa fuku bishoujo senshi! Seeraa Muun yo!
>include me on that list.. I am one... but then I would say that wouldn't
>eye so perhaps I'm not... then I would not say that...but i did...
>
>erm Sherri...am I one?

Well, since you aren't given to making bizarre evidence-free claims, I
wasn't going to include you.

But since you ask to be included on the list and you haven't (to my
knowledge) made any bizarre evidence-free claims, then your claim to
belong on the list is in itself bizarre and evidence-free, so I _can_
include you.

By that logic, anybody who asks to be on the list can be on it. And
anybody who is nutty enough to want to be on it can be on it.

Except now that you have asked to be on the list and you are actually on
the list, I can't include you because your claim to list-membership
isn't bizarre and evidence-free.

Sherilyn was moved very deeply by the absolute simplicity of
this clause of Catch-22 and let out a respectful whistle.

"That's some catch, that Catch-22," she observed.

"It's the best there is," Doc Daneeka agreed.

[Acknowledgements to Joseph Heller, author of the novel Catch-22.]

Dave Bethke

unread,
Oct 12, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/12/97
to

Ben Jacoby wrote:
>
> Ah, a little intelligence sparkles across the NET! For the clueless, the
> little classic book "FLATLAND" is required reading.

"FLATLAND"! Takes me back to high school, where it was required

GOD

unread,
Oct 12, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/12/97
to
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==


Rob

unread,
Oct 13, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/13/97
to

In article <61o2c8$5g3$1...@neogeo.pacific.net.sg>, "S Singh"
<tom...@liquidnet.com> wrote:

> I think he was refering to hyperspace... hyper dimensional creatures are
> entirely possible... In fact it's been said God is of higher dimensions ,
> this proves why in the bible it's said god was like blobs of nonsense..

<snip>

Umm... you got a chapter and verse for the "blobs of nonsense" part?

Rob

unread,
Oct 13, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/13/97
to

In article <34407...@news2.infinet.com>, bnospm...@infinet.com (Ben
Jacoby) wrote:

> Frank Schnabel (fran...@interlog.com) spake thusly:
>
> : I wouldn't call it 'idle' speculation. The fact is that there is no reason
> : why the universe can't have five or 10 or an infinite number of dimensions.
> : We travel freely throughout three dimensions, we perceive our journey
> : through the fourth (elapsed time can be considered a distance in the fourth
> : dimension). Without even knowing how to perceive a fifth (or higher)
> : dimension how can we possible describe it any way other than
> : mathematically.
>

> Ah, a little intelligence sparkles across the NET! For the clueless, the

> little classic book "FLATLAND" is required reading. It uses a mythical 2
> dimensional land to get across the ideas of what to expect from
> interactions with higher dimensional manifolds.

Yes, I read Flatland about 30 years ago (and don't forget _Sphereland_,
for those who want to speculate about non-Euclidean "dimensions"). The
interesting thing about applying the concepts of Flatland to our present
world is that the Flatlanders live INSIDE our 3D world. This means that
WE would live INSIDE any hypothetical higher-dimension world.

Since my reply was initially targeted at folks who were speculating about
beings who lived in "some other dimension" and "traveled" to this one, I
still say BULLSHIT.

Ben Jacoby

unread,
Oct 14, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/14/97
to

Rob (shok...@well.com) spake thusly:

: Yes, I read Flatland about 30 years ago (and don't forget _Sphereland_,


: for those who want to speculate about non-Euclidean "dimensions"). The
: interesting thing about applying the concepts of Flatland to our present
: world is that the Flatlanders live INSIDE our 3D world. This means that
: WE would live INSIDE any hypothetical higher-dimension world.

Yes, yes, ...

: Since my reply was initially targeted at folks who were speculating about


: beings who lived in "some other dimension" and "traveled" to this one, I
: still say BULLSHIT.

No not BULLSHIT. If say there were 6 or 9 or even 100 other dimensions,
there is then whole regions of *3* dimensional areas that do not
intersect with *our* three dimensional area. it's like having this plane
that is "flatland" but since there really are other dimensions as well
there can other planes which represent other "flatlands" that do not
interect with the first flatland. So beings living on one or the other
plane would experience just a "normal" world. BUT if one group were to
get "advanced" and discover the technology to be able to move (which is
to say "travel") in the separating dimension, they would then have the
ability to "travel" back and forth from their world to the other one.

Thus these would be beings who "lived in another dimension" (even though
it was just like ours when you are over there), who then "traveled" to
this one. Not Bullshit, just plausible and logical...Um, given the
existance of "extra" dimensions.

And note the key thing that in "traveling" here they would just suddenly
"appear" like a miracle. Because they would be "moving" in the dimension
that we don't see, while standing stationary in the three that we do.

not vince

unread,
Oct 15, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/15/97
to

In article <3440E1...@ix.netcom.com>, Dave Bethke
<beth...@ix.netcom.com> writes

>
> "Pointland" was occupied by only one person or entity. It could not
>conceive of any person or object other than its self. Whenever
>something of another dimension affected this point, the Pointland
>resident could only think that this was a facit of its own capabilities
>that it had only then discovered. Our pointlander rejected any idea
>that did not fit the rules of its none dimensional universe.


this fits so snuggly with my own theory...

nobody else exists except in MY reality... When I converse with others..
they are figments of my imagination.. to make them interesting I give
these figments memories of what went on before they came into my focus..
they seem real.. then they move out of my focus.. I am continually
creating a temprary universe on my horizon ahead while removingthe
universe on my horizon past.....

YOU as a reader of this document did not exist prior to my creating this
occassion when you read this document... you seem real with memories and
emotions etc.. butI created you to read this then I may have created you
to reply, or not..(this being a subconcious creation that my concious
self is unaware of means that I can enjoy interreaction with you or not
whatever the case maybe)

therefore I am the GOD/CREATOR or the universe....
anything that comes into my perception is a result of my unconcious
creation.. good or bad harmful or helpful.. I like to keep ME on my
toes....

If you disagree its because thats how I created you...


--
Ufomystyk

The Grey Master has returned!

__________
| Equality |
| for |
| Boojam's |
|__________|
. . |
\/ |
/(..)\ |
<(~~)___#

Ben Jacoby

unread,
Oct 16, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/16/97
to

not vince (gu...@gan1.demon.co.uk) spake thusly:
: In article <3440E1...@ix.netcom.com>, Dave Bethke

Quite true. You are so powerful that by simply closing your eyes you can
make ME disappear! I'm impressed!

Ben Jacoby

unread,
Oct 16, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/16/97
to

Paul Titze VK2THN [HACK.AU.] (pti...@astron.physics.usyd.edu.au) spake thusly:

: Alien life somewhere else in our Universe has been real long before anyone


: of us were around. However there are no aliens visiting Earth in flying
: saucers or whatever you have dreamed of lately. Until we make first contact,
: everything you read/hear about flying saucers, aliens visiting Earth etc is BS.
: Not that my above statements will change anything to the mass hysteria in this
: subject but don't say I didn't try ;)

: Paul.

Ah, "proof by assertion"! Sure convinces me!

Robert Teague

unread,
Oct 17, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/17/97
to

Adell wrote:
>
> cdc,
>
> Wouldn't they still be aliens even if they were from another
> demonsion???

If you mean semantically, I'd think the answer is "yes". After all, someone from as
close as the country next door is called an 'alien'.

Robert

--
"Rainbow, I, uh, I hate hospitals. When I come due, will you be my midwife?"
"Why, I'd be honored, Terri! Thanks for asking!"
"Yahoo! Way to go, mom!"
--from "Catch a Falling Star"
Shanda the Panda #15 backup
story: Robert Teague
art: Carla Speed McNeil

The Official Shanda the Panda page: http://web2.airmail.net/egaban/shanda/
The Official Finder page: http://www.clark.net/pub/kludge/finder

Robert Teague

unread,
Oct 17, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/17/97
to

Ben Jacoby wrote:
> Ah, a little intelligence sparkles across the NET! For the clueless, the
> little classic book "FLATLAND" is required reading. It uses a mythical 2
> dimensional land to get across the ideas of what to expect from
> interactions with higher dimensional manifolds.
>

Along the same lines is "The Planiverse" subtitled "Computer Contact with a
two-dimensional world" by A.K. Dewdney.

Whole Earth Enviromental

unread,
Oct 18, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/18/97
to

>
> : therefore I am the GOD/CREATOR or the universe....
> : anything that comes into my perception is a result of my unconcious
> : creation.. good or bad harmful or helpful.. I like to keep ME on my
> : toes....
>
> : If you disagree its because thats how I created you...
>
>

>
> If you say so. Have you taken your medication today?

Mike.
>
>

jasonp

unread,
Oct 24, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/24/97
to Thomas Green


Thomas Green wrote:

> If I remember my science right, it's a popular myth that things can exist
> in other dimensions....parallel universes might be more likely candidate
> but (1) can they exist? and (2)how would one form a link between them? Any
> theoretical physicists out there who could explain this?
>
> Tom

It looks like no one tried to answer your question. Physics is sort of a
hobby of mine so I'll try. All of you holding degrees, or if you just know
more than me are welcome to correct me.

Parallel universes can be, according to lore formed by blackholes. There is I
think a czech author who recently put out a book called "Parallel Universes".
If you are familiar with the formation of a black hole then you know that it
starts with a star exceeding at the very least 1.4 solar masses collapsing in
on itself. It cannot support it's mass once thermal pressure and electron
degeneracy pressure are overcome by gravity(electron degeneracy pressure being
roughly illustrated like this. Put water in a ballon and imagine that you can
see the molecules of water vibrating back and forth. When you apply pressure
with both of your hands resistance increases the more you press on the ballon
until it explodes. This is sort of the way electrons act, their vibration is
increased in velocity as their space for movement is restricted.)and
collapse. Eventually the mass so collapses that it begins to warp space, or
dialate space more than it did before. Imagine stretching a piece of rubber
over the open end of a large box. Place a small but heavy metal ball in the
centeranjd watch how rubber sags and even started to fold around the ball(this
is only a two dimensional illustration, I don't have the narrative capability
to describe it in 3-D"). Eventually if the ball is heavy enough it rips rigs
through the rubber and the rubber bounces back to lay flat and the ball at the
bottom of the box. In the universe space dialates around the black hole. As
it become smaller and more dense it's gravity is eventually enough to dialate
space around it so much that it pinches itself off from the rest of the
universe without the corresponding hole in space like there would be in the
rubber.

What is in teresting and has led some physicist to believe that there are
other universes is that once this process has culminated with the black hole
shutting itself off from the rest of space. Somwhere isolated from our
universe you have a small very dense and hot point of matter with nothing but
infinite void around it.

Another Big bang? A Smaller Bang?

Who knows, our knowledge of the universe is not the end product of science it
is just another step towards finding the next question to ask ourselves.

--

-Jason

========================================================
Disclaimer: All opinions expressed are my own!

"Even though he was an enemy of mine, I had to admit that what he had
accomplished was a brilliant piece of strategy. First, he punched me,
then he kicked me, then he punched me again." -- Deep Thoughts, by Jack Handey

=======================================================

default

unread,
Oct 27, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/27/97
to

not vince wrote:

> [...]


> this fits so snuggly with my own theory...

> [...]


> therefore I am the GOD/CREATOR or the universe....
> anything that comes into my perception is a result of my unconcious
> creation.. good or bad harmful or helpful.. I like to keep ME on my
> toes....
>
> If you disagree its because thats how I created you...
>

In that case, I'll only ASK you a question... who created your folks?
You again? ;)

hugs everybody!

Sonho


Louann Miller

unread,
Oct 28, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/28/97
to

In article <34490A...@iamerica.net>,
whe...@iamerica.net says...
> >
> > : therefore I am the GOD/CREATOR or the universe....

> > : anything that comes into my perception is a result of my unconcious
> > : creation.. good or bad harmful or helpful.. I like to keep ME on my
> > : toes....
> >
> > : If you disagree its because thats how I created you...
> >
> > If you say so. Have you taken your medication today?

The thing about pure solpsism like this is its absolute
internal consistency. Logical argument is useless, for the
reasons stated above. One can use the Chesterton/Duane
method, i.e. hurt them unexpectedly and ask why they did
that to themselves, but I suspect our friend here has that
loophole sewed up too. Therefore (grin) the only rational
approach is to kill the solpsist and see if the universe
still exists afterward.

Not that I'm recommending that -- he *might* be right, after
all.

--
Our ISP is cyberramp.net -- you know the routine...

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages