UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 1999 > Jan > Jan 9

Re: The Credibility of Edgar Fouche'

From: Tim Matthews <matthews@zetnet.co.uk>
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1999 23:10:30 -0000
Fwd Date: Sat, 09 Jan 1999 15:40:35 -0500
Subject: Re: The Credibility of Edgar Fouche'

>From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>To: UFO UpDates Subscribers:;
>Subject: UFO UpDate: The Credibility of Edgar Fouche'
>Date: 09 January 1999 06:17

>From: Rebecca Fouche' <FMa1@email.msn.com>
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>Subject: The Credibility of Edgar Fouche'
>Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1999 16:59:39 -0600

>>From: Tim Matthews <matthews@zetnet.co.uk>
>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>>Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: Bell Cuts-Off R.A.M. Stephens
>>Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1999 08:38:31 -0000

>After several days of contemplation, I have decided to address
>the following statement made by Tim Matthews:

>>As far as I and many colleagues are concerned Stephens is
>>another Ed Fouche - big on talk and totally lacking in remotely
>>credible evidence.

>I am in the unique position of knowing the character of Edgar
>Fouche', author of Alien Rapture-The Chosen, better than Mr.
>Matthews or anyone else, for that matter, as I am his wife.
>While that position intrinsically generates a measure of
>prejudice, it does not render me blind nor stupid--nor unable to
>access character and motivation.

>Ed publicly stated on many occasions that he chose to write
>Alien Rapture as fiction because he would not produce the
>sources which passed the information on to him.  Any
>conscionable reporter would endorse that this stance is oftimes
>a necessity.

Well at least we're clear on this being fiction.

>Since the publication of the book, respected
>members of the UFO community have verified the content of the
>work--including the existence of the TR3B flying triangle--and
>have called to confirm that it reflected information their own
>research had uncovered.

>That individuals who are interested in this kaleidoscopic field
>will disagree is inevitable--that they seem compelled to slander
>others in the process never ceases to amaze me.

Not slander, just a request for some proof..... like any
evidence for the existence of an inertial drive unit or
so-called 'antigravity' system.

Do you or your husband have a view on Senator Moynihans' recent
comments that scientific advances cannot be hidden for more than
a few years??

>Tim Matthews
>has chosen to publicly malign Ed

NO! Just to ask serious and detailed questions about his
"evidence", which by any standards can best be described as

Ed is playing to the conspiracy/black tech market where a good
story beats some important (though complicated) scientific

I haven't heard him talking about smart materials and structures
and polymer matrix composites - even though these are essential
in the most advanced aircraft of the future. What voltage would
he or his associates suggest that scientists use to achieve
their goal in this field?

>on more than one occasion,
>which I find curious, as he has never met nor even spoken to
>him.  Ed has found the situation mildly humorous,

Whilst he'd having a laugh and earning money, people are being

>as he is
>confident in his sources and of the accuracy of content of the
>information he has released.

>Ed does not purport to be an expert

But I thought he knew all about the aerospace industry - and
this is the impression given in his various earlier and totally
factless postings.

Let's be honest about this for a moment.

I think that Ed is on the ol' Groom Lake bandwagon. The best
thing about it is that he knows that there is very little way of
proving whether he (or his sources) was ever there.

I have not heard anything from him that would convince me that
he is/was telling the truth. I have spoken with numerous
aviation and black projects researchers and NONE support what he
was said and/or written. If he was a technical expert he would
know things in minute detail - and he doesn't. He would not have
made the huge, glaring technical and factual errors in his
previous postings.

Here are just a few:

 - I don't think you can see the wingtips of an SR-71 from the
cockpit. Even if you had mirrors in the c/pit I think Ed might
find the engine pods in the way, but that's just an opinion.

 - is Ed aware that nobody has ever confirmed the existence of
the TR3A 'Manta' and that there is even a suggestion in some
quarters that this designation was confused with "Tier 3"/AARS?
The TR3B would be a two-seat variant of the TR3A.

I'm sure that some sort of similar aircraft, a counterpart to
the F-117A, does exist but not an anti-gravity triangle!!

I know what Ed will say; 'ah well, this is what I was told'.

Well he should have checked his sources - although most UFO
authors never appear to check their sources and it is the case
that in the US particularly there is a market for this kind of

Ed also said that the TR1/U-2 was a glider. No doubt the jet
engines are just there for emergencies.....

Ed has provided us with NOTHING new! I really wish he had
provided us with reasonable and checkable information. My book -
'UFO Revelation' - has pages of reference material even though
it concludes that there are some extraordinary things flying

>and is relatively new to the
>field of UFOlogy.  He was simply the recipient of a body of
>information which he felt to be an important piece of the ET
>puzzle, and was entrusted by the providers of that information
>with task of making the information public.

And he did this all from the kindness of his heart and donated all
the money to charity to greater human understanding?

Don't think so!

>As to his
>credentials, they have withstood the examination of directors
>and producers at the BBC,

Well that doesn't mean a damn thing. Wake up! They have people
talking about animal mutilations and abductions on the BBC.

Have you seen 'Teletubbies'? That's a BBC 2 flagship programme!

For many years the BBC has been under serious competitive
pressure and it's standards have dropped.

>his illustrious co-author Brad
>Steiger, Diana Botsford, Publisher of the MSN UFO Community/host
>for an upcoming weekly talk show on Talkspot Network, and many
>others in the field.

This means nothing! I've been on dozens or radio and TV
programmes and assisted with various documentaries. That doesn't
mean anything in terms of credibility because, as we are
painfully aware, the makers of UFO documentaries are only
interested in selling their programme, making sensational
claims, and finally "just good TV".

Even news reports I see on TV have glaring factual errors in them......

>It not my style to retaliate; I rarely respond to the inevitable
>small-minded denigrations inherent to public exposure.  However,
>to equivocate Edgar Fouche' to a self-proclaimed hoaxer is
>ludicrous.  He is a man of character and a seeker of truth.

I'm sure Ed is a very nice guy but his claims about secret alien
technology don't hold water - although they are good currency
these days......

I don't think I said that he was "self-proclaimed hoaxer".....
If I did I apologize...

He may well be seeking the truth but he told us that he HAD the
truth already. He, in my ever-so-humble and non-Area 51 insider
opinion, is just seeking to make a fast buck. Many people appear
to have concluded that Ufology is little more than entertainment
and wish-fulfilment.

Under these circumstances Ed is giving people what they want,
and I am glad that he is. Good luck to him I say!

Come on Ed, give us something tangible!!

Happy new year, I'm off to watch a second-rate soccer game!

Tim Matthews.

>Would that all soldiers of ufology

Yuk! I left the Army years ago!