UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 1998 > Jun > Jun 2

Re: Alien Baloney

From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
Date: Tue, 2 Jun 1998 00:24:29 -0500 (CDT)
Fwd Date: Tue, 02 Jun 1998 07:24:47 -0400
Subject: Re: Alien Baloney

>Date: Mon, 1 Jun 1998 19:18:15 -0700 (Pacific Daylight Time)
>From: Nick Balaskas <nikolaos@YorkU.CA>
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>Subject: Re: Alien Baloney

>One may not fully agree with Derrel Sims' or Roger Leir's views
>or methods regarding UFO physical evidence but at least they are
>doing something with the help of many experts and scientists to
>get to the truth, whatever it may be.


Wrong! We disagree precisely because they *aren't* following
existing scientific protocols. As for the "help of many experts
and scientists," I'm afraid you've been reading too many Leir
press releases.

>Yes, it is very expensive to have any test done, especially at
>private labs.  Fortunately, I have been surprised at the large
>number of scientists at universities and other research
>institutions in Canada who were willing to donate their time and
>the free use of their research equipment to do tests on one or
>more of the dozen alleged alien implants and UFO artifacts that
>were forwarded to me by Derrel and Roger earlier this year.

Whoa! Derrell & Roger forwarded you a dozen or more examples of
alien implants within the last year, which you had subjected to
tests? Grateful, indeed, I would say! When I wasn't saying bull
shit.

<snip>

> It is sad
>when armchair ufologists or professionals such as journalists who
>get to share in these latest discoveries and insights not only do
>not appreciate the important work others have made, but attack
>them too.

What the hell is that paragraph supposed to mean?

>> John Velez seems upset that they say the tests so far are
>> inconclusive. Would you rather them make up some b.s. and say
>> that they're definitely alien or what? Science takes time. If the
>> tests turn out to be inconclusive in the end, then so be it.
>> Maybe we will never know.

Ah, Jesus!

>Even with some of the more unusual specimens (from Derrel and
>Roger and other sources) we have had the opportunity to examine,
>we may never be able to says for sure that this object or that
>implant is artificial and from out of this world.  As long as
>there are at least two explanations which can account for all the
>observed facts, one cannot accept the more exotic one as the
>correct one, even if a few of the observed facts have improbable
>Earthly explanations (eg. the un-Earthly isotope ratios) since
>they could still have been made here.

Yadda, yadda! Excuse my Anglo assholeness, because you won't get
it, nor should you.

>Later this year I hope to have tests done on additional alleged
>UFO crash wreckage from several new sources.  If, for example, it
>is discovered that one or more of these UFO artifacts from very
>different geographic locations have identical un-Earthly isoptope
>ratios as in previously tested UFO artifacts, then I think we can
>safely say that we are being visited by extraterrestrials from a
>single extrasolar planet - whose drivers are also worse than
>ours.

And you won't get this, either, but what? Are UFOs suddenly
falling out of the skies left and right?


[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |

UFO UpDates Main Index

UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp


Archive programming by Glenn Campbell at Glenn-Campbell.com