UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 1999 > Oct > Oct 19

Re: Alien Ineptitude

From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 1999 02:37:14 EDT
Fwd Date: Tue, 19 Oct 1999 17:08:33 -0400
Subject: Re: Alien Ineptitude

 >Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 16:11:21 +0200
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
 >From: Christophe Meessen <meessen@mailclub.net>
 >Subject: Re: Alien Ineptitude


 >I would like to answer some pertinent questions of M. Polanik.

 >>From: Joseph Polanik <jpolanik@mindspring.com>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
 >>Subject: Re: Alien Ineptitude
 >>Date: Sat, 16 Oct 1999 20:53:55 GMT

 >>>Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 16:11:21 +0200
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
 >>>From: Christophe Meessen <meessen@cppm.in2p3.fr>
 >>>Subject: Re: Alien Ineptitude

 >>>When trying to understand why ET are mutilating animals, we must
 >>>be careful to avoid asumptions.

 >>How reasonable is it to theorize, from what little evidence we
 >>have, that ETs are the ones responsible for animal mutilations?

 >Exactly. So we must be carefull. For now it is only an
 >hypothesis since we don't have any proof for that.  But this
 >does not mean that this hypothesis is false. I personnaly use it
 >as my current working hypothesis.

 >>>In your case you assume that they are interested in getting huge
 >>>quantities of the substance itself.

 >>Someone questioning the ETMT (ET as Mutilator Theory) might ask
 >>'Why would ETs want to mutilate cattle?'.

 >>It _is_ far more reasonable to suppose that ETs are probing and
 >>measuring than it is to suppose that they need the precious BRS
 >>for their own use.

 >>However, we should be able to question this theory (if we can
 >>assume that this supposition is a full grown theory) by asking
 >>'Why would they have to kill the cattle?'.

 >At first I would say that we have no idea. I guess that the
 >samples they need like all the blood, flesh parts and organs
 >like the eyes and so may not allow the animal to survive after

 >>If ET was genuinely concerned about secrecy, why would they
 >>leave all those dead cows lying around? Why not use the same
 >>sample extraction techniques on the cattle as they do on the

 >If ET where "genuinely concerned about secrecy", leaving the
 >cattle carcass make no sense. So maybe we have to reconsider the
 >assumption that there are "genuinely concerned about secrecy".
 >Of course they may also be "illogical" ;-)

 >I'm not sure there are so concerned about secrecy. They also
 >show a sort of offhandedness in this secrecy process. I tend to
 >attribute this to a sort of self assurance of the supriority
 >complex. They are just as secret as needed to avoid panic, to
 >keep things under control and not be bothered in their projects.
 >This is of course only my current interpretation of the
 >phenomenon based on the data I had in hand so far. This may thus
 >be subject to revision but currently make more sense regarding
 >to global pattern.

There may be another reason for the apparent cavalier attitude
in use by ET, on the assumption that it is ET performing
mutilations for whatever purpose.  Perhaps these actions and
more (i.e., abductions, crop circles, UFO appearances over
populated areas, and etc.) are being performed with the
knowledge that the goobers goobering in the goobermint are not
only aware, but have given tacit approval to these acts.

Maybe ET is getting something for giving something.... maybe.  I
only know one thing for sure, they gotta pay me for Gripple.  Of
course, it's none of your beeswax how or how much, eh?

I've often wondered why it is that so called black helicopters
are often seen around UFO's and sometimes, in the areas of
abductions, UFO appearances et al.  The helicopter is not a fast
aircraft, so it is not used to "pursue" the enemy.  It is not
nearly as well armed as fighter aircraft are.  Why helicopters?

They are slow, not heavily armed and often show up following,
not "chasing" UFO's.  Uh, duh, maybe they aren't chasing or
chasing away, maybe they are merely "escorting?"  I mean, just
in case some SOB cattle farmer decides he's had one too many
three thousand dollar bovines boned and decides to take a crack
at them thar flyin saucer machine thingies, eh?

NOTE: Please excuse the number of "eh's" eh? I am trying to get
on the good side of Doctor Kanappy.  He still owes us money.
Thank you.

 >>Conversely, if ET is genuinely concerned with secrecy, is it
 >>reasonable to suppose they they'd use their use their advanced
 >>surgical techniques on cattle but not on abductees where they
 >>leave all sorts of scars, scoop marks, burns and blotches?

 >I would be more cautious when reasonning in that direction. It
 >is true that we have some information, but we must also keep in
 >mind that we might bot have all the information. Currently, far
 >what we know, we can't outrule the possibility that humans where
 >also found mutilated as the cows. In France there are more than
 >2000 human disaperance reported to the plice per year. There is
 >plenty of room for this human mutilation hypothesis event if it
 >is only one human per year for instance. I don't say that it
 >happens. I just want to say that it is possible and that we
 >might not know about because some people prefer to keep it
 >confidential for some obvious reasons. Thus I dont think it is
 >reasonable to make an assumption that this does not happen. We
 >don't know.

Maybe some folks do and are not saying, eh?

 >>>There is a similar question with abduction. ... If they know how to
 >>>engeneer and modify genetical material why do they bother keeping
 >>>collecting sperm and eggs samples ? ... Wouldn't it be much simpler to
 >>>collect a few humans and start a breeding program on their own planet
 >>>or spaceship ?

 >>A very good question.

 >>Of course, any ETs capable of doing this could also raise their
 >>own cattle.

 >Good point. Sooo ... if ET exist, if ET are comming on earth to
 >mutilate cattles, .... it forcibly implies that they have good
 >reasons to do so. There are many. First. cattle may simply not
 >survive in their environement. Second they may need sampling of
 >cattles in the context they where picked from. For a pollution
 >study or for comparing with their own breads, etc.

 >Human scientists do this all the time. They are picking samples
 >and some just pick what they need and live the rest as scaps.
 >For flowers and sometime even with animals.
 >So theorizing on those points is in my opinion an adventurous
 >process. We might explore this when trying to understand what we
 >are talking about. But I would certainly be very carefull when
 >tempted to use those reasoning in a demonstration that the
 >phenomenon is true or false, and make sense or not. We don't
 >have enough data yet in my opinion.

 >They simply may be "illogical" from our point of view and this
 >could explain anything ;-) But this would also be an easy answer
 >that will probably not satisfy you and most sceptics ;-)

Christophe, those last few sentences speak volumes. And what I
find so darned fascinating, is that those who claim to have the
truth or otherwise believe they do, are always the ones who say
it loud and clear.  But those who do have the truth, say

On the assumption, of course, that somebody knows the truth,
which I frankly doubt.  But it would be a gas to be in a
position to have a camcorder recording the look on the face and
the sounds from the throats of those who have been shouting so
loud and so clear, just how much of the truth they know when
they hear the real truth.

Ah, but God would not allow me, a sinner, to have such happiness
in this lifetime.  I have not been good enough.  Not even to my
friends. Friend. Excuse me.

J. Jaime Gesundt

[ 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