From: Dennis Stacy <email@example.com> 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 <firstname.lastname@example.org> >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 - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp