UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 1999 > Jan > Jan 2

[Fwd - Stephens] Re: Art Bell show

From: Robert A.M. Stephens <sti3818@montana.com>
Date: Sat, 02 Jan 1999 06:45:31 +0000
Fwd Date: Sat, 02 Jan 1999 11:27:44 -0500
Subject: [Fwd - Stephens] Re: Art Bell show

James Arthur wrote:

>Hello Robert. Now THAT was Radio! I thought it interesting that
>RCH did not deny sending the e-mails that you mentioned. But
>instead said something to the effect that What are you doing with
>private mails, and how do you prove they are from whom you say
>they are from. There was not (that I heard) any categorical denial.
>You should post those E-mails with follow up statements from those
>who have divulged to you that RCH has indeed done those things.

Super mail. I did give the fact that those referenced had not
only wrote me, unsolicited, but had called to and would be more
than anxious to come forward. Bell silenced this. Who: (Dr.
Richard Sauder, Joe Gill, Dr. Mavis French and a man named
Lindsey?)  Dr. Ralph Greenberg and Dr. Bruce Cornet also had
information to help me with as well as a publication called
NEXUS (?) had all sort of documented data. This all, along with
200 questions I had prepared directly from Hoagland's web page,
were in my sheaf for the debate. Some I had tried to get to
Hoagland (via Peter Gersten) for Hoagland to have as data so he
could defend himself. (normal grace in a debate format). They
were data that I got from Dr. Greenberg's page, (fine page) my
own data, all on the issue of 'recurrence' numbers such as 19.5,
and 33. I was going to devastate his claims. I wanted to take
issue with his lack of Heim data regarding orbital incidence of
spacecraft regarding constellations and such in the doctored and
stolen NASA photos he has on his site.

Out of 200 questions, I got 1 out and was cut off.

>One thing is for sure, you threw them for a loop. You blew them away so
>bad that the only defense they could put foreward was that they could
>not understand what you were saying. But when asked for the evidence
>that RCH was a liar, thats exactly what you did. This of course remains
>as well to be backed up by supporting data (IE the actual E-mails with
>documentation supporting their credibility).

See above.

>Your attack on Hoagland smacks of another scandal unfolding, Clinton
>refuses to admit he lied. Hoagland on the other hand did not admit to
>sending those E-mails, yet did not exactly dent it either. However, If
>he did send them, they seem to be of such a personal nature that he may
>actually BELIEVE the possibilities of this Nuclear strike to N.Y.

I didn't care. His personal dementia was not subject to
analysis. His pathos and lies were.

Thank you for the good assessing mail.

Let it be known: Hoagland is the dregs of things. I do not
undertand why he is tolerated. He isn't science. He is truly a
pathological liar out to do harm. And he does. I will no longer
edit the 'nice' guy stuff. Journalist should be forewarned.
Enough is enough.

Read the formal statement passing around on the internet by Dr.
Bruce Cornet for which we are getting together on a team effort
with some NASA folks, if possible, on his own compelling engima
and doing this effort from a real science point of view.

Dr. Cornet's situation is a classic to embrace. I will be
linking to his page along with Dr. Greenberg's also. I encourage
people to consult these gentleman's pages and sites. Cornet's is
totally new to me, as you are all aware since I am 'dumfounded'
by this field at this early stage. Dr. Greenberg's expresses the
freedom of math.


-- Robert A.M. Stephens
Contractor, NASA
Shuttle Documentation Program

[ 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