UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 1999 > Jan > Jan 7

Re: NASA's Stephens Admits to CAUS That He is a

From: Roger Evans <moviestuff@cyberjunkie.com>
Date: Thu, 07 Jan 1999 00:48:17 +0000
Fwd Date: Thu, 07 Jan 1999 07:25:12 -0500
Subject: Re: NASA's Stephens Admits to CAUS That He is a


>From: Peter Gersten <UFOLAWYER1@aol.com>
>Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1999 01:46:34 EST
>Fwd Date: Wed, 06 Jan 1999 20:36:18 -0500
>Subject: Re: NASA's Stephens Admits to CAUS That He is a Fraud

>>From: Roger Evans <moviestuff@cyberjunkie.com>
>>Date: Tue, 05 Jan 1999 10:32:16 +0000
>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>>Subject: NASA's Stephens Admits to CAUS That He is a Fraud

Okay, kids...

Get out the TV trays and fix yourself a snack cause this is
gonna take a while to sort out.

Bright and early this morning, I received the following email
from an obviously agitated Peter Gersten regarding my response
to his cry in the wilderness about how "WE" were all fooled by
"Savior Stephens". As this post has recently appeared in its
entirety, I shall snip here and there while retaining the most
vital info. I'm sure Mr. Gersten will let me know if I've
avoided anything important.

Previously, I had written:

>>I am stunned.

>>If you have been reading this list at all, I think you'll find
>>that virtually NO ONE took Stephens seriously, much less thought
>>of him as a 'savior'.

Peter replies:

>You got me there....I do not read your list.

Obviously, this is not true as illustrated by the following post:

>>From: UFOLAWYER1@aol.com
>>Date: Wed, 24 Jun 1998 20:27:07 EDT
>>To: updates@globalserve.net
>>Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Seeking Info on Wurtsmith 1975 Sighting

>>In a message dated 6/24/98 3:38:44 PM US Mountain Standard Time,
>>updates@globalserve.net writes:

>>>I'm looking for a reported UFO incident relating to Wurtsmith,

>>>Michigan in 1975.  I need to know the exact date or dates and
>>>what was believed to have happened.

>>Diana,

>>I have the documents on Wurtsmith and will send them to you.

>>Peter

Peter's email to me then goes on to ask:

>Didn't know it [the list] was
>required reading. Would have saved me alot of time and
>trouble...huh?

It might, at that, Peter. Though it would seem that time and
trouble are things you have in short supply since we've seen
very little of either, lately from you.

Moving on, I had written:

>>His "swordsmanship", as you put it, was so severely lacking
>>that even most armchair ufologists didn't even give him a second
>>thought.

Peter replied:

>Really now? Armchair ufologists? Not even a second thought? So
>why are you e-mailing me?

This, of course, is another error on Peter's part as indicated
by ebk:

>[Legal 'Eagle' Peter Gersten is not paying attention to the
>evidence - Roger didn't send him the 'offending' mail _I_ did,
>as a 'Bcc;' --ebk]

Again, if Peter had taken the "time and trouble" to READ the
header, then he would have realized that it was sent by UpDates
and not me.

Moving on, I had declared:

>>The fact that _you_ were fooled doesn't mean that the majority
>>was also.

Amazingly, he now asks:

>How was I fooled my friend?

Well, Peter, the following is taken directly from YOUR post:

>>Mr. Stephens was able to fool us for over 80 days. Shame on us. We
>>are so eager, CAUS included, to find the truth, that we will embrace
>>any 'savior' who presents himself cloaked in the garb of 'knowing
>>the truth.'

I'd say that pretty much answers that question. However, Peter
now wants to know the following:

>Majority of what? My 6500 members?
>How many People are on your list? Did your poll the list? And
>why would I care whether 'your list' was fooled or not.

Actually, I don't think that you are gaining any credibility by
maintaining that only the CAUS members were fooled. Of course,
you do bring up a valid point with the following:

>My
>CAUSupdates go to CAUS members which, the last I looked, you are
>not a member of.

Correct. Besides, why would I want to be a member of the only
group on this planet that, according to you, was fooled by
Robert Stephens?

However, you really should do more research when you write:

>Doubt that 'updates@globalserve' is [a member] either.

Again, ebk provides us with the REAL truth:

>[No? There are about 200 posts - directly from your list -
>sitting in my archive here. Missing the evidentiary clues
>again Mr. Gersten? And I'm quite sure that a few of the
>_many_ knowledge-able subscribers to UpDates will be most
>happy to respond to you via this List. I'll be sure to pass
>them on to you. --ebk]

Ultimately, I had stated:

>>With all due respect, Mr. Gersten, you need to speak for
>>yourself. The picture you paint is one of justification for
>>your own gullibility and you can leave me out of it.

Peter responded with this nonsense:

>You have been left out of it...by your own choice. Unless of
>CAUS you have some UFO accomplishments that I am not aware of.
>So why are you getting involved now? You can be sure that my
>'we' had nothing to do with someone as intelligent and wise as
>you.

Well, for starters, the term "WE" means just what it states;
you, me, everybody concerned. But since you seem intent on
making a point of this, I'll play your game. Earlier you had
stated:

>>We are so eager, CAUS included, to find the truth, etc, etc, etc.

So, here's a little lesson in sentence structure.

Ready?

If "we" already included CAUS members, then why add "CAUS
included"? If the statement was intended to be read by CAUS
members _only_, wouldn't they already know who "we" signified?
Obviously, Mr. Gersten, you intended this statement for a larger
audience; in fact anyone that would listen and cut you some
slack for your unwise support of Mr. Stephens.

Now, rounding out this panarama of illogic are the following
additional emails from Mr. Gersten concerning his post:

>I assume, in all fairness, you will be posting my response
>to your mailing list..since I am not a member.

Of course, again, all he had to do was take the "time and
trouble" to read the header of his OWN outgoing email to know
that he had _already_ done that. The email I received this
morning was a 'Cc:' of his post _clearly_ addressed to UpDates.
In fact, at the very moment he was questioning me about whether
I would send it in, ebk had already received it from Peter and
was formatting it for the list.

When I pointed this out to Peter, he replied:

>Since I am not a member, I would assume it was not
>posted...even though I sent it to your list. Did you see
>it posted? I have not. So please post it..if only to
>respond to it.

>And now I request that both my responses be posted on
>your list. Please note that this one is not addressed to
>your list...so no lame excuse please.

Lame? I'll give you lame, Hotshot.

First off, how would you expect to see it, at all, if you don't
read this list? Ah, but of course, you really do...

Second, how do you think I read your original post in the first
place if it wasn't on Updates? Ah, but of course, it was...

Third, as you so wisely pointed out, I'm not a CAUS member, so
you know _you_ didn't send me a copy. Ah, but maybe you weren't
sure. After all, you don't seem to remember _who_ you send
emails to, do you?

So what have we learned here, today?

1) We know that Mr. Gersten reads this list when he claims not
to.

2) We know that he doesn't give his own list members much credit
for having snap enough to see through Robert Stephens.

3) We know that Mr. Gersten conveniently "forgets" what he wrote
when backed into a corner; i.e. "How was I fooled, my friend?"

4) We know that Mr. Gersten does not bother to check his facts
as illustrated by his confusion over something as simple as
email.

5) We know that Mr. Gersten is obviously embarrassed by his
association with Robert Stephens and would really like nothing
more than for me to go away right now and quit pointing out the
flaws in his justifications for what he wrote.

It should be noted that, after receiving his email this morning,
it took me no more than five minutes and one phone call to clear
up the mystery of why Peter thought I had sent him an email of
my post.

Five minutes.

And I did it the hard way. All Peter had to do was access the
kludge lines of his incoming post at the click of button.
According to my research, he uses AOL V4.0 and has Windows 95,
sub 236 which should allow him that kind of info. And even if
there was some funky AOL related problem to prevent that, at the
least all he had to do was _read_ the damn header.

How do I know all this? I did a little research from the comfort
of my armchair. Didn't even break a sweat.

5 minutes.

I accessed info from the web regarding Stephens' bogus Naval
SEAL background in less time than that. Given Gersten's claim
that Stephens fooled him for over 80 days, I calculate that
Peter had over 23,040 missed opportunities (at five minutes
each) to check on Stephens' bogus background. So why didn't he?
For the same reason he didn't check out his own damn email, I
guess.

Finally, Peter Gersten offered this early in the post:

>Roger Evans? Do not
>think I have heard that name before. But I am sure it is simply
>an oversight on my part. So please enlighten me as to your
>contribution to the UFO movement.

You were just a part of it, Peter.

Later,

Roger "Lazee-boy" Evans



[ 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