A Couple of Questions for Tom Mahood
Ken MacGray
In article <5bhc5a$2...@dfw-ixnews7.ix.netcom.com>, gu...@ix.netcom.com(Gene
Huff) wrote:
> I think you many now know why I seldom do those interviews even though
> I get asked about once a month. Sorry about the lack of flames, you
> know how that disappoints the kids!:)
I notice how you managed to worm your way into the credits, however... :/
- Ken MacGray
----------========= Virtual Village BBS =========----------
ma...@tiac.net - www.tiac.net/users/mayor
Area 51 Images, Lore, News - www.tiac.net/users/mayor/a51
Gene Huff
Tom,
I've been a little busy lately and haven't even browsed the newsgroups
but I just took a look a moment ago. Someone called me after I came
home from Desert Blast last Sunday morning and told me to watch for
that program on the Discovery channel. I watched and there you were
telling an international audience that your gut feeling was that Lazar
was at S4.
I guess my first question is, What do you think of the way those
programs edit your interviews? I know your feelings on the Lazar story
change from time to time and they are complex. Do you feel they clearly
and accurately conveyed your feelings on the subject? Did you mean to
leave the audience with the impression that you feel Lazar worked at
S4? Of course you know that some of your most ardent followers will
need psychological counseling after hearing you say that!:)
Some of the more paranoid people around here feel that I must have
been a great force on that program to the extent that I saw to it that
the lighting was better for Lazar and worse for you and that was be
design to slant the story. Did you see any evidence that any of those
people gave a damn what I thought about anything, much less to the
extent that they'd slant the story at my request? I didn't think so.
I think you many now know why I seldom do those interviews even though
I get asked about once a month. Sorry about the lack of flames, you
know how that disappoints the kids!:)
Gene Huff
Tom Mahood
Gene Huff (gu...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: I've been a little busy lately and haven't even browsed the newsgroups
: but I just took a look a moment ago. Someone called me after I came
: home from Desert Blast last Sunday morning and told me to watch for
: that program on the Discovery channel. I watched and there you were
: telling an international audience that your gut feeling was that Lazar
: was at S4.
Gene, good to have you back. The newsgroups have been a boring, barren
desert without your effervescent presence!
At the time of the interviews, that was a feeling I had. Probably some sort of
chemical imbalance on my part, unless that was my evil twin...
: I guess my first question is, What do you think of the way those
: programs edit your interviews?
I think it's a crapshoot. You are totally at the mercy of the
interviewer, and if they have preconceived notions about the subject,
it's likely your response, however phrased, will be edited to meet
their agenda. This has occurred to me before involving other subject matter.
The Discovery piece is also good example. I think the Caltech yearbook
"evidence" is some of the weakest stuff I did. It really doesn't prove
anything, and I pointed that out to the producer. Yet, of all the
talking I did, that's what they chose to go with. I think it's because
they could have a good visual tie-in with Caltech. Ah, television!
: I know your feelings on the Lazar story
: change from time to time and they are complex. Do you feel they clearly
: and accurately conveyed your feelings on the subject?
Yes and no. The interview was done in two pieces, one over a year ago,
and one maybe 9 months ago. At the time, I was quite split in my
thinking on it, hence my "On paper he's a fraud, but my gut says he's
been there" position.
Since then, I have received info I wasn't previously aware of that
eliminated some of the "sticking points" I had with Lazar's story. I
am now reasonably satisfied that most, if not all, of Lazar's story is
fabricated.
Unfortunately, much of the newer data that allows me to reach this
conclusion is of a confidential nature, and I can't throw it out on the
web. This would be troubling to me if I were trying to support a
specific position (i.e., the guy's a fraud), but I've always tried to
take the stance (although perhaps not always apparent to the pro-Lazar
folks) of "Here's the info I found, make up your own minds." Since my
personal goal is to find out "what's going on?", I personally need to
know whether I should factor Lazar's story into the grand scheme of
things.
Were I to do the interview today, I doubt I would have used the same words,
and would have introduced a lot more ambiguity into it. If you listen to
Lazar, he comes across as quite sincere and believable. However, the
totality of the hard data and personal accounts I have strongly suggest
otherwise (at least to me).
: Did you mean to
: leave the audience with the impression that you feel Lazar worked at
: S4? Of course you know that some of your most ardent followers will
: need psychological counseling after hearing you say that!:)
At the time, I thought there was a reasonable possibility that Lazar could
have been at S-4. Today I think the possibility is much, much less, but I
will still grant a small possibility. (There will be some more Papoose
stuff popping up on my web site in the next few months) I try to stay
away from either-or scenarios in favor of probabilities because it allows
consideration of many diferent theories without becoming "attached" to any
one. As new information comes in, I readjust my weightings. As you've
already noted, I've shifted my position before. I may well again. This is,
after all, very weird shit.
I'm not too concerned what impression I leave, as to a great extent it's
out of my control due to editing and whatnot, and even individual
perception. All I can say is what I think, then duck.
: Some of the more paranoid people around here feel that I must have
: been a great force on that program to the extent that I saw to it that
: the lighting was better for Lazar and worse for you and that was be
: design to slant the story. Did you see any evidence that any of those
: people gave a damn what I thought about anything, much less to the
: extent that they'd slant the story at my request? I didn't think so.
Lighting has nothing to do with it....Lazar's just much more devilishly
handsome then myself. It was the best they could do with what they had to
work with.
Actually, I thought the show played around with Lazar a bit, distorting his
image at times, and cranking up the grain. It didn't do that with anyone
else. I suppose it could be written off as artistic license, but it was
noticable. As far as slanting the story, if anything I thought it slanted
against Lazar (Einstein quote, et al), so I don't think they were doing it
at your request.
:Sorry about the lack of flames, you
: know how that disappoints the kids!:)
You could have at least put in one for old times sake!
Tom
Gene Huff
In <tmahoodE...@netcom.com> tma...@netcom.com (Tom Mahood)
writes:
>Since then, I have received info I wasn't previously aware of that
>eliminated some of the "sticking points" I had with Lazar's story. I
>am now reasonably satisfied that most, if not all, of Lazar's story is
>fabricated.
-I know you're sincere, but you're wrong. It's not even possible for
you to gather that type of actual info this late in the game and that's
a problem. It sounds pretty fishy that you "received" it and can't
expose it. It sounds like info I get all of the time and usuallly it's
nothing. Sometimes I wish people like you and Goober had not shown up
on the scene so many years after the actual events happened. It's like
people trying to find out who actually shot Kennedy. If you'd been
around when this was happening, you'd know how comical your commentary
is to me, but probably not so to many others and I fully understand
that. Anyway, thanks for the chat. BTW, there will be two more specials
showing up in the not too distant future one by Transmedia and the
other on CBS. The one you were on was by far the most skeptical of
Lazar. Just to clarify matters, do you think there ever was an ET disc
back engineering program in central Nevada, which now may have been
moved to New Mexico, or do you think there never was such a thing?-
Gromozeka
I do not understand how proving credibility (or otherwise) of Lazar's
story whould add anything to the Area 51 research. Afterall, it is just
a story and there is no direct evidence to back it up. I got an
impression that the Discovery show made a fool out of Lazar, and I don't
think there was a need in doing that. Lazar's story was well based on
some well known scientific facts and theories, and, therefore, is
impossible to disprove logically. The CalTech yearbook is not covencing
- there is no picture of me in Moscow State Univ.'s yearbook and I can't
remember names of any professors there. There was a pearl of scientific
experiment in the Discovery show - trying to explain how's the alien
technology works using two magnets. I do not believe Lazar's story, at
least not entirely. But there was no need to poke fun at him.
Ken MacGray
In article <5blj22$6...@dfw-ixnews11.ix.netcom.com>,
gu...@ix.netcom.com(Gene Huff) wrote:
> -Actually, I didn't even know that had happened as that was their
> choice, not mine.
Yes Gene, but why would they have thought of you in the first place? They
heard that you are Lazar's personal trainer?
> Speaking of worms, who are you and what would you
> have to do with it? Never mind, I don't really care, I'm just
> interested in Mahood's response to my questions. He's suspiciously
> absent. I hope Goober didn't kill him out of jealousy for stealing some
> of Goober's spotlight.-
Much better. That's the Gene we all know and love!
Mike Smith
>
>-That's the one. It just hasn't been broadcast in the U.S. yet, at
>least as far as I know.-
I haven't seen the production either. Did they indicate what the name of the production regarding Lazar will be?
.. Have you and /or
>Bob had any death threats, after the single gunshot incident that made
>Bob decide to go public???
>
>-Bob had some over the phone, but that was years ago.-
Has Bob been restricted from traveling abroad since he has no birth records? You need a birth certificate to get a passport don't you? Has Bob traveled to any foriegn countries?
>>Finally, have you taken your rotorcraft around Groom and Papoose or do
>you just enjoy flying it in other places in the desert?
>
>-What rotorcraft would that be?-
I thought that I may have seen you sitting in a ultra light or rotocraft, but perhaps I was mistaken.
Smitty
Gene Huff
In <5bolqm$6...@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com> Mike Smith
<msmi...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>
>
>>-That's the one. It just hasn't been broadcast in the U.S. yet, at
>>least as far as I know.-
>
>I haven't seen the production either. Did they indicate what the name
of the production regarding Lazar will be?
-I didn't mean to imply that I haven't seen it as I have. I'm in that
one also and they sent us a copy. I forgot what the title is, but it's
good. They have a great clip of astronaut, physicist, moon walker, Dr.
Edgar Mitchell, who's personally met and spoke to Lazar at length,
stating that he thinks Lazar has been where he says he's been. He
doesn't think Lazar has a handle on all of the physics, but Lazar never
claimed that he did.-
>
>.. Have you and /or
>>Bob had any death threats, after the single gunshot incident that
made
>>Bob decide to go public???
>>
>>-Bob had some over the phone, but that was years ago.-
>
>Has Bob been restricted from traveling abroad since he has no birth
records? You need a birth certificate to get a passport don't you? Has
Bob traveled to any foriegn countries?
-His mother helped find his birth records. He's adopted and that's
where the problem was. However, he hasn't left the country lately.
(Unless it was Tijuana or something like that).
>
>>>Finally, have you taken your rotorcraft around Groom and Papoose or
do
>>you just enjoy flying it in other places in the desert?
>>
>>-What rotorcraft would that be?-
>
>I thought that I may have seen you sitting in a ultra light or
rotocraft, but perhaps I was mistaken.
-Oh, that was a helicopter with propane jet engines on the rotor. I've
never flown in it and the scientist who owned it died last year so I
don't think any of us will ever see it again.-
>
>
Gene Huff
In <mayor-ya02408000...@news-beta.tiac.net>
ma...@tiac.net (Ken MacGray) writes:
>
>Yes Gene, but why would they have thought of you in the first place?
>They heard that you are Lazar's personal trainer?
-I don't know who you are or what you're getting at, but since I have
my answers from Mahood I'll entertain your question before I leave.
When it comes to TV producers who do stories on A-51, I'm pretty well
known. I was there when the Lazar story went down and that news travels
well. I just don't do many interviews because it's not time yet. The
fact is that if it were not for me the segment we're now discussing
would not have even happened. Lazar turned them down at first but I
convinced him that if he didn't participate they would probably either
cancel the piece or fill it up with Glenn Campbell's irrelevant
nonsense and it would be anti-Lazar for revenge of him not
participating. As you saw, Campbell's BS was minimal and that was
because of my effort. I also provided them with the films of Lazar in
the jet car and some other things that weren't edited in. That's why
they gave me credit, even though I didn't ask for it and didn't know I
have gotten it. The fact is, they didn't even send us a copy prior to
broadcast. I get solicited for these things, I don't have to dress in
camo, rent a trailer in Rachel, and try and fool the world press into
thinking I'm a part of the story.-
Gene Huff
In <5bnb0q$c...@sjx-ixn7.ix.netcom.com> Mike Smith
<msmi...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>
>Would this be the same Transmedia of London, England fame that just
released a special called "Dreamland"? I believe Jacki Stableforth and
Bruce just produced this special with some claims that they were able
to get within a mile or two of the Groomlake base in a private plane??
-That's the one. It just hasn't been broadcast in the U.S. yet, at
least as far as I know.-
>
>Welcome back to the Useless net.I have a small nagging question
regarding the treat or threats on Bob and yourself. Have you and /or
Bob had any death threats, after the single gunshot incident that made
Bob decide to go public???
-Bob had some over the phone, but that was years ago.-
>
Ken MacGray
In article <5bo3bn$j...@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com>, gu...@ix.netcom.com(Gene
Huff) wrote:
> In <mayor-ya02408000...@news-beta.tiac.net>
> ma...@tiac.net (Ken MacGray) writes:
> -I don't know who you are or what you're getting at, but since I have
> my answers from Mahood I'll entertain your question before I leave.
> When it comes to TV producers who do stories on A-51, I'm pretty well
> known. I was there when the Lazar story went down and that news travels
> well. I just don't do many interviews because it's not time yet.
Hm. Are you forecasting some great revelation?
> I get solicited for these things, I don't have to dress in
> camo, rent a trailer in Rachel, and try and fool the world press into
> thinking I'm a part of the story.-
So, the press just waltzes right up to your palace, Sir Gene?
Tom Mahood
Gene Huff (gu...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: -I know you're sincere, but you're wrong. It's not even possible for
: you to gather that type of actual info this late in the game and that's
: a problem.
I work with what's available to me. I can understand our difference of
opinion, because you have been exposed to different events than I. Were you
only aware of the data I have seen, you would likely hold opinions similar
to mine. And were I in your shoes, perhaps I'd be a Lazar supporter.
Agreeing to disagree is a reasonable way to go, and is the only way any
progress is made in endeavours where people hold widely varying opinions.
: It sounds pretty fishy that you "received" it and can't
: expose it. It sounds like info I get all of the time and usuallly it's
: nothing.
No big deal about it. The more time you spend poking in to this subject, the
more people you meet. And the people who have substantive things to say, are
usually in, shall we say, sensitive positions, and want NO attention brought
to them whatsoever. But you are right about bad or useless info. There are
a lot of nuts out there.
: Sometimes I wish people like you and Goober had not shown up
: on the scene so many years after the actual events happened.
Ahhhh, come on! We add a certain spice to things. Besides, up until
recently our government handlers had us assigned debunking Billy Meier.
: It's like
: people trying to find out who actually shot Kennedy.
Dark Skies says it was aliens, but the X-Files says Cancerman.
: If you'd been
: around when this was happening, you'd know how comical your commentary
: is to me, but probably not so to many others and I fully understand
: that. Anyway, thanks for the chat.
You're quite welcome for the "chat", and I'm always happy to be of amusement
to you.
: Just to clarify matters, do you think there ever was an ET disc
: back engineering program in central Nevada, which now may have been
: moved to New Mexico, or do you think there never was such a thing?-
Good question, as my thoughts on that have shifted a bit. I now tend to think
there never was any operation at Papoose. (Certain other other areas of the
Nellis Range remain an open question with me) I do think there is or was some
thing(s) operating intermittently at Groom (perhaps out of the South Base
area) that gave the appearance of disc craft. Exactly what these something(s)
are, I don't know. They could in fact be discs, as that appears to best fit
the data. But they also could be some sort of relatively mundane (but
interesting!) experimental project concerning plasma research and radar,
holographic projections (that's a reach), EM countermeasures, or something
completely different. I just don't know.
I'm kinda lukewarm on the existance of a full fledged disc back-engineering
program that might have up and moved to White Sands. At one time that seemed
like a good theory to me, but my sources of info that gave rise to such a
concept have proven to be less reliable than I initially thought. I still
think it's a reasonable theory, but I have practically zilch to support it.
Tom
Dave B
> -I don't know who you are or what you're getting at,
Don't feel bad, Gene's been gone and is not up to speed on the Area 51
scene. WE all know who you are, even if some of us (myself) misspell
your name. :-)
Dave B on the fringe of Houston
Nick Humphries
On Fri, 17 Jan 1997 19:22:02 -0500, ma...@tiac.net (Ken MacGray)
wrote:
>In article <5bo3bn$j...@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com>, gu...@ix.netcom.com(Gene
>Huff) wrote:
>
>> In <mayor-ya02408000...@news-beta.tiac.net>
>> ma...@tiac.net (Ken MacGray) writes:
>
>> -I don't know who you are or what you're getting at, but since I have
>> my answers from Mahood I'll entertain your question before I leave.
>> When it comes to TV producers who do stories on A-51, I'm pretty well
>> known. I was there when the Lazar story went down and that news travels
>> well. I just don't do many interviews because it's not time yet.
>
>Hm. Are you forecasting some great revelation?
Just the usual book and movie releases, the latter of which ain't
going to happen.
Nick Humphries, ni...@the-den.demon.co.uk, at your service
If the Truth is Out There, what's In Here?