The Psychology of ‘UFOs’.

© Rae West 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001

Click for: unedited emails (this page, below)   | Click for Index to all my general interest items collected in one file | Click for Home page of entire big-lies.org site

    At the outset I should say that I accept the conventional view that the distances between stars are so great that space travel by 'aliens', and human beings, over such distances, is virtually impossible. Also that some objects in the sky are unquestionably 'unidentified'—especially if only one person's claim is the entire evidence. Personally, I also accept the view that governments routinely lie—at least about important things—so their claims can't be assumed to be reliable where evidence is missing. So what's going on here? Some notes...
new jews UFOs This small section added 8th October 2014 There are connections with Jewish media control and lies, and UFOs. After uploading my youtube Edgerton, Germeshausen, and Grier: Official Fakers to the Atomic Energy Commission! (8 Oct 2014; click, below, to watch), and thanks to chance Googling, I realised that Jews had several reasons to promote UFOs:
1 UFO sensations made it seem that remote galaxy visitors were concerned with the serious threat of 'nukes'! In other words, UFOs could be used to reinforce belief in nuclear weapons and power.
2 UFO claims made increasing security and secrecy and money seem necessary.
3 Given Jewish media control, there was money in publishing books and films by Jews. Spielberg for example has a large output of Jewish lies: why would he be concerned with Close Encounters and ET?
4 Reasoning backwards, Jewish media control is so intense, and censored topics so many, that it may be assumed anything in the Jewish media is there because of some specifically Jewish interest, real or supposed.
Edgerton, Germeshausen, Grier and nuclear films
Jews and UFOs reflections in nuclear truth site.
[NB Googling 'Jews UFOs' found me this First Light Forum but its frantic references to Nazis, scams, UFOs, niggers etc makes it easy to ignore]

    Adamski flying saucer; early 'UFO' No moving parts: when jet engines were invented about the end of the second world war, an air motor with no moving parts—or no visible moving parts—existed for the very first time. Futuristic films made before that war show planes as projections of what then existed—similar, but bigger, and with more and bigger propellers thrashing the air often somewhat like combine harvesters. I'd guess that before the invention of jet aircraft, hardly anyone could have believed in 'flying saucers', because they had no experience of a jet engine. Rockets (I think) were less important, since they were recognised as being difficult to fly inside in a safe routine way—a prejudice, if it is a prejudice, that still exists.
    Adamski flying saucer; early UFO Change from 'fast' to 'manoeuvrable': an article in the Skeptic pointed out that, when flying saucers were first seen [term coined June 1947—followed by the Roswell incident in July 47], all the emphasis was on speed: this seemed at the time the important feature. Later—after planes broke the sound barrier, and rockets became better known—this seemed less spectacular, and more emphasis was put on manoeuvring—they were described as being able to hover, for example, although I think probably this wasn't as important as erratic changes in direction, since helicopters and some planes could hover. This still seems to be true: a satisfactory media flying saucer has to shift fast and erratically.
hairless chimp or real spaceman?
Hairless chimp, or genuine spaceman?
    Adamski flying saucer; early UFO Animal experiments: it's not very well known, despite the obvious believability, that monkeys were used as 'pilots' in experimental planes and cockpits: for one thing, they're small, and can be used in reduced-scale models; and there's less fuss if they're killed. Since they tend to be hairy, an obvious thing to do is shave them: this makes medical examination of the results easier. My own guess is that some reports of little spacemen are based on this. A hidden bug might present us with this taped conversation: Journalist: "So what did you see, Mr Redneck?" "Why, I saw a li ol' mayun." "Can you describe him?" "Why, just a lil ol' mayun, kinda hunched an wrinkled?" "Thanks. Er, you've been very helpful." "Say, that makes me feel real good." [Well, I thought it was funny. Polyphthongs suggested by Kingsley Amis.]
    If this seems far-fetched, consider that there was a well-known, presumably true, incident in the Napoleonic wars in which a monkey from a French shipwreck was hanged by seaside villagers who thought it was a French spy.
    UFO Roswell Bomb?Roswell Record 8 July 1947 flying saucer headline. Bomb? If the Roswell object was just bits of a high-flying weather balloon, how could it be so misidentified at the time? Perhaps the emphasis on flying hid the possibility it might have been a bomb—perhaps a mother bomb casing, or experimental flying bomb. The attraction of this idea is that it would give a powerful motive for lying, since local people mightn't be enthusiastic about loose bombs falling around them. (There was considerable fuss when a hydrogen bomb was supposed to have been dropped in Spain, presumably in error, a couple of decades later). The 'Roswell Record' said Maj Gen Nathan F Twining said "Neither the AAF nor any other component of the armed forces had any plane, guided missle [sic] or other aerial device under development which could possibly be mistaken for a saucer or formation of flying disks." So the bomb theory can't be right, can it?
    Ignorance and UFOs Poverty of language: It's an amusing possibility that the now-standardised 'alien' (bald, big eyes etc) might just reflect the linguistic poverty of over-propagandised and under-educated people. All the short words (face, hands, eyes, nose) have their iconic equivalent in the supposed image, but the more difficult ones (pupils, nostrils, earlobes, eyelashes) have no counterpart. 'Bug-eyed' should mean having compound eyes, not just big ones. Questions such as "Did it have an exoskeleton?" or "How were the mandibles hinged?" or "Did it have adaptations for high-pressure surroundings?" are presumably excluded when 'debriefing'.
    Optical illusions and UFOs Lack of appreciation of photography/ videography: most people have little feeling for such things as depth of field and depth of focus, and even of reflection and refraction. There have been photos presented as UFOs which were taken from inside buildings, and show reflections of lights in the windows. There are videos taken in bright daylight, with little insects on the lens (kept relatively sharp by the small aperture) moving in a way suggesting a zig-zagging craft, and others with refracted parts of objects which give erratic visual effects. An interesting case is a report by Patrick Moore (famous in Britain as an astronomer, thanks to the BBC's promotion) who observed strange slowly-moving blurred dots through a telescope. He took a day or so to realise these were pollen grains drifting across the field of view. All this is quite apart from the much greater ease of faking pictures and videos thanks to computer editing.
    Optical illusions and UFOs Lack of appreciation of visual perception and optical illusions: the few visual clues in the sky (especially at night) make judgement of size difficult, as anyone can see by looking up at a clear sky, which appears to be dome-shaped, for some complicated perceptual reason. An odd example of this is quoted somewhere, I think in a book by Hynek, in which someone thought the full moon, low over the horizon, was a UFO: the moon near the horizon does seem exceptionally large. My guess is that the cylindrical flying things seen in Mexico at convenient times exploit this, and are a hoax using some ultra-high-powered centrifugally-stable rotating devices, used, as with Filipino healing, in effect, to extract money from US citizens. (What happens to the objects as they lose power seems never to be recorded).
Racehorses before photography. (From E Gombrich)
How horses were believed to gallop, before photography was invented
    Perception and UFO sightings Lack of appreciation of physical phenomena. Things behave in odd ways (see for example the debunking—if we're right—of 'superfluid helium' by Phil Holland and myself).
    Another expert error is the case of 'poly-water', starting in the late 1960s, when it wasn't realised that hot glass is reactive in a way cold glass isn't, and hundreds of papers were written on what turned out to be silica solution in water (something like 'waterglass'). Another example, hardly yet known about, is the assumption that clouds are all made of droplets of water.
    Yet another example is the possibility of rolling waves in Loch Ness caused by wind starting disturbances which are reflected from the very long parallel sides of the loch. Another unexpert example: I recall being assured by a builder that he'd seen concrete burning. It's impossible that people without experience of flying objects could predict their behaviour; and it's very likely that experts will be wrong when faced with new phenomena. I doubt, for example, whether the behaviour of fly-by-wire airplanes, designed to be unstable, could be guessed at by people who'd only seen older machines.
    Alien abduction by UFOs? 'Abductions': Presumably the psychology here is similar to that of people showing 'stigmata': first there has to be a self-dramatizing (or money-making) impulse, and second there has to be a framework which isn't disprovable too easily. There's a Darwinian process by which disprovable aspects are pruned away: so it happens that people show stigmata rather than (say) attempting to walk on water or see through opaque objects—having first worked out some mechanism for causing wounds in the officially approved places. (I recall a TV presentation showing a woman secretly making a cross on the skin of her arm with bleach put on by her fingers). And similarly to show contact with 'aliens' obviously it's impossible to produce actual evidence (photos, objects) and the event has to be invisible: hence 'abductions' seem to be almost the only available methodology for getting into 'UFOs', perhaps assisted by Star Trek with its low-budget way of moving around, avoiding the tricky business of filming landing/take-off sequences with doors or hatches opening/closing.
      The 'medical experimentation' fear seems to be a semi-permanent modern neurosis. Cf. for example the X Files film, which has antiquated material on AIDS despite this having been exposed years ago. However, possibly this just reflects the strength of the medical/pharmaceutical lobbies and the desire to evade other possibilities.
    UFOs/alien abduction Influence of films/ books/ comics: A caption under a reproduced cover of Astounding Stories comic (1935) in John Spencer's UFO Encyclopedia says: 'Those who believe that stories of abduction reported by witnesses must be literally true because there is no cultural image from which to draw the story should consider some of the early science fiction. This illustration, has all the main features of the abductions reported in the 1960s and beyond.' [Picture shows 'bug-eyed' man-like thing with pale female body on an operating table, admittedly in a stone building, while another man-like thing grips the half-dressed hero trying to save the woman.] Another caption states '.. modern day stories.. are remarkably similar to the fairy abduction stories of Celtic myth' although the text only lists 'reality distortion', time lapses, and 'changelings' as similarities.
    God and UFOs What's the impulse behind the belief? Is there a need to believe in superior beings, or a hope that there are such beings who might perhaps save the world? Is it a similar feeling to the belief in 'God', a transfer of parental feeling elsewhere, when parents are found to be sadly lacking in omnipotence? Maybe.
      Even your doctor doesn't have all the answers is supposed to contain pearls of US wisdom. Perhaps UFOs are an unofficial subject, in a world where knowledge is parcelled up between countless experts, or supposed experts. The now-discredited Cyril Burt quoted, somewhere, a schoolboy whose main interest in life was ghost stories. When he was asked why, the boy said "because I know more about them than the school inspector".
    Fear and UFOs Fear: The site http://www.magonia.demon.co.uk/ethbull/mms28.html had Phantom Airship Scares 1909-1918, the title of a book by Nigel Watson and others. Click for the review (it opens in a new window; you must scroll down past other items). Invasion scares, war fears, foreign threats, rumours of terror weapons have played their parts in impairing sense and humanity.
    false witnesses and UFOs Problems with Witnesses: and with their presentation. Typical (but this example was accessible only to UK people) was a 4 November 1999 BBC1 TV programme, Mysteries. This was a New Zealand case, with the unusual feature that a UFO was filmed by a 'genuine film team'. The genuine film in fact showed just a detail-less dot, which the camera operator had had difficulty focussing on; the clip only lasted a few seconds. The cameraman was not interviewed, so it was impossible even to tell whether the camera was pointing up, down, or across. And yet the eye witnesses, or actors playing them (it wasn't clear which), said for example that there was a 'large light' and that it moved up and down 'thousands of feet'.
    Motive for cover up about UFOs Purpose of blurred distinction between 'UFOs' and 'Extra-terrestrials': these things are often blurred together; many people speak of them in the same breath. And there seems to be an official movement to legitimise both (for example, Yahoo!'s site on the subject has at least nine out of ten sites in favour, in a section linking 'extraterrestrial life'—for which there's minimal evidence—with 'UFOs'. Just one example.) But, obviously, it's possible that there may be true UFOs, unidentified flying objects, piloted by people (or unpiloted), with absolutely no 'alien' connection.
    The best explanation I have is that it's a cover for testing experimental aircraft, in slightly the same way that English smugglers used to spread stories that the countryside they operated in was haunted. Thus (e.g.) Concorde and other supersonic planes have engines developed in the 1950s. You might view this as showing how slow progress has been since then—or how large progress under secrecy might be.
    The SR71 'Blackbird' Mach III spyplane, designed after the U2 incident, was designed to be so fast it couldn't be shot down. An observer interviewed on a TV program recently identified a modified refuelling tanker he'd seen, and added behind it was a black triangular craft the like of which he'd never seen. Other technologies presumably must have been tried. What new designs of flying objects may have been developed? And what for?
    (Since writing this I found a remaindered book, Projekt UFO, by W A Harbinson, first published in 1994, which is subtitled The Case for Man-Made Flying Saucers. It appears to be entirely based on other books, which are listed as Sources but appear not to have been very reliably checked. Unusually, Ernst Zündel of the Zundelsite is described and quoted—and misspelt.)

 
Click for Index to all my general interest items collected in one file
Click for Home page of entire big-lies.org site
Comments or ideas on UFOs? Click to e-mail
Click for other peoples' unedited emails on UFOS, directly below.

HTML Rae West. First uploaded 98-10-06. Revd 99-02-27, 99-06-18, 99-09-13, 99-09-23, 99-10-30, 99-11-10. Cosmetics 2000-04-12. Magonia link, Harbinson 2000-11-01. Patrick Moore 2001-03-31.


Unedited UFO emails

Click for Index to all my general interest items collected in one file
Click for Home page of entire big-lies.org site
Return-path: <JAdams7730@aol.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Sep 1999 13:22:58 EDT

Very nice work.

However, next time I suggest that you make your studies of ufos and other-worldly visitors a thorough one. Your arguments are pathetic and weak. A skeptic such as yourself, can do a vast amount of damage in the minds of unsuspecting people who are just now starting to awaken from this spell of ignorance that has dominated man's thoughts for thousands of years.
You assume that there is not a civilization anywhere in the universe that can travel these so called great distances. But, my narrow minded friend, technology advances in just this galaxy alone are not currently in position to be measured for their age.

To: JAdams7730@aol.com
Subject: CASTER. What?
Date: Fri, 17 Sep 1999 22:58:42

>However, next time I suggest that you make your> studies of ufos and other-worldly visitors a thorough one. Your > arguments are pathetic and weak.
    ** Why don't you produce a strong argument then, such as evidence? All that's needed are a few reasonable photos, samples, specimens etc etc.

> starting to awaken from this spell of ignorance that has dominated man's
> thoughts for thousands of years.
    ** Why should these stories suddenly start now? If 'aliens' existed, they've had thousands of years to say hello. For that matter, why should they only appear in areas where people watch silly US TV? Why not in big cities? Why not in other parts of the world?

> in the universe that can travel these so called great distances. But, my
> narrow minded friend, technology advances in just this galaxy alone are not
> currently in position to be measured for their age.
    ** I assume the distances are far, because they certainly seem to be - the fastest moving things take millions of years, and of course there's no way of knowing exactly how big the 'universe' is. So your comments, such as they are, appear rather feeble. Why don't you try to develop some feeling for weighing evidence? You might become less narrow-minded.

Regards
Rae West

X-From_: JAdams7730@aol.com Sat Sep 18 19:23:22 1999

Do not dance with unknown forces. You have no clue as to whom you are conversing with. The e-mail adress is a far cry from my actual designation.

We use simple, and suttle means to get the point across. There is no possible way for you to win. We have inbedded ourselves in every aspect of your culture, and all of the others around this dark, and severly repressed planet.

Remember, you are the ones who set up this period of time with it's luxuries, crimes, passive brain-washings, and so-called myths designed to be thrown into the realm of impossibility forever.

But, the ignorance will not thrive forever. Nothing ever does.

We were here before your kind, and we will remain after your kind has been destroyed by there own hands.

Have nice dreams this week fool.

X-From_: JAdams7730@aol.com Sat Sep 18 19:42:17 1999
Return-path: <JAdams7730@aol.com>

Look between the lines for the important spelling.

I can arrange a moon landing for your brain while you sleep. I work better in my own domain. As I said, have nice dreams this week fool.

From: JAdams7730@aol.com
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1999 18:39:11 EDT
Subject: Re: moonland
We play game, no?       Moonland fun!!!!       Know me, you do!!!!

Delivery-date: Sat, 18 Sep 1999 03:27:57 +0100
Date: Fri, 17 Sep 1999 22:27:34 EDT
Subject: ufos

Dear mind controller,

You seem to want to under mind many people and you are not good at it.

What you said about u.f.o.s. is not true, just because there is life out there does not mean you will control it. If some finds out that no one person can control them, then you are in trouble of loosing your.

jms marrujo.

Delivery-date: Sun, 19 Sep 1999 20:25:51 +0100
From: JMSMarrujo@aol.com

A moon landing is a moon landing, people who had an opportunity to land on the moon. You seem to for get who runs the world. The few people that enjoy total freedom have the freedom to enjoy new things. They are never under mind and they always stay beside you. We live in a world of control the mind, always living in the world appointed to you. Just pretend Mother Earth is a 7-11 we are just a pit stop.   Just pretend that life in space is like the water at sea, try to live with your immagination. Then just pretend you are going through the motions. To live is to live with freedom when teachnology passes immagination, You end up in a world of trouble.

JMS MARRUJO.

 

From: DSu2025715@aol.com
Date: Sat, 18 Sep 1999 20:19:25 EDT
Subject: Nice Web Site

UFOs do exist. However, not quite the way people have portrayed them OR the entities they call ETs. Furthermore, UFOs are NOT the remote prolific strange things people have made them out to be. While theologians have long since accepted that Ezekiel was taken into heaven by a UFO, it is not something that they would like to share with its congregation.

Keep up the good work!

White Thunder

From: ONEhotBIKE@aol.com
Date: Sun, 19 Sep 1999
Subject: (no subject)

Believe it or not i spotted around 15 ufo's in Brooklyn New York at incredable heights at 11.15 am sunday morning. My partner and i were watching a migration of Monarch butterflys when we've noticed these small oval shiny reflecting objects glittering in still, then move in formations. This was in broad daylight for approximately ten minutes. Heights were way above clouds and no planes were flying when these objects were present. Some moved at incredable speeds in straight lines so i ruled out balloons or birds. At moments they formed to what it appeared to us to be horoscope like figures so i thought we were watching stars because they glittered, but again stars dont move. Whoever i told this to thinks im nuts and my partner is just excepting this sighting if it is one. I wish i had pictures or video because i believe i will never see that again. The military must have something up there sleeves.

From: Rrumble
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1999 09:29:00 EDT
Subject: UFO's....naturally
To: ufos@littleton.prestel.co.uk

Well, I can't imagine anyone devoting so much energy to debunking something, but for what its worth...

First..you obviously have never seen one of these objects, or your main theme would be (as those who have seen one) one of wonder as to what you'd seen. I'm 52, have flown in the military during the Viet Nam war, commercially, privately, and in flight test. I own a home, am retired and raising a four year old. I am degreed in science, and I am listed in the who's who of business and finance..a publication which honors only 1500 individuals. I say this only to underline..I'm not your stereotyped "Southern Hick Chewing Straw" which seems to get giggles from "Limeys"...I dated a girl from Newcastle on Tyne for 7 years..I got tired of her putting everyone down.

Apparently if you speak Cockney everyone looks down on you..so coming here was her way of "moving up in class and being respected..which never would have happened in UK.. You don't need to put a class of people down to prove a point..it only shows a character flaw, and weakens your position.

That being said..the first problem in viewing UFO's is that we use a "present" state of technology to try to explain them, and also place their ability to travel either through space or interdimensionally in the pigeon hole marked "impossible", simply because we, ourselves cannot do it. So I am going to start right there...

We presently have the ability to surpass light speed. In fact, music has been sent at a rate of 3.5 times light speed by a French scientist. So right there we have the old Einsteinian theory of the speed of light being an "absolute", is no longer true. We have just not been able to aply it to spaceflight...yet.

Let's see, we've had flight only since 1903..and in the late 1960's we landed on the moon. Suppose another planet in our Solar system, or another, evolved thousands of years before we did. Let's also presume their planet has different chemical compositions on their world to work with that we do not. They may have evolved differently, use entirely different metals, different propulsion systems, and may have even learned to use gravity. We have discovered there are two types of gravity. Gravity is created in "waves" just like sound, and they can be "amplified" and "lensed" as waves, and could at a later date be used as a propulsive force.

Of course our limited thought processes say.."we can't do it..so they must not be able to."

I have seen a number of UFO's..up close and personal..like watching one hovering over a beach in Malibu only a hundred yards away for three minutes, and then watching it depart silently in an instant. This isn't "our" stuff. What I have seen makes our technology pale in comparison. We aren't even close.

Say what you will...make fun of others who actually have seen something beyoun their ability to describe it..it's out of their frame of reference..and when you do see one you're awestruck.

We are like Aboriginees trying to grasp the concept of Orbital Dynamics or Lunar Orbital Insertion Parameters...and that's just on our own planet.

You need to broaden your perspective...and this is WORLD WIDE, friend...not just in the deep South of the USA.

To: Rrumble

Thanks for your e-mail. I'm reminded of Nazi Germany, when (it's reputed) people like you believed in astrology, ice theories of the earth, and so on.

Let me explain why your email is so unimpressive. First of all, you show no awareness of the psychology of perception or of anything to do with the design of flying objects. There seems no more reason to suppose you capable of assessing such objects than a bus driver is of assessing some new vehicle.

On the subject of southerners etc, you miss the point. Cockneys are (or were) part of a major city and had developed their own outlooks, views etc. In the far areas of the US, people are subject to relentless modern propaganda. This may, or may not, be something new in human experience, but is the point at issue.

It's true that flight has developed in the last 100 years. It's also true that not everything is known, although you can presumably not expect anyone to be impressed by your popular quasi-science. The key issues, such as why the earth appears to have been untouched for billions of years, or why UFOs should appear only to single observers or people in remote places, aren't addressed by you.

The final question is whether your testimony is worth anything.

Regards
Rae West

From: DAnde10285@aol.com
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1999
Subject: Vast distances.

You're devotion to the belief that stars are just to far apart to travel to is the same unintelligent belief the roman catholic church had when they believed the earth was the center of the universe.

To: DAnde10285@aol.com
Subject: Re: Vast distances.

> You're devotion to the belief that stars are just to far apart to
> travel to is the same unintelligent belief the roman catholic church
> had when they believed the earth was the center of the universe.

Then why has there been no evidence of interstellar traffic for the last few billion years? If it's easy or possible to travel, why aren't there bases, shops, trading posts, all over the universe? [NB the official dogma also is that the speed of light is a limit; if so, galaxies a few million light years away would take at least a few million miles in travel time]

Regards
Rae West

Envelope-to: RaeWest@littleton.prestel.co.uk
Delivery-date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 20:46:13 +0100From: DAnde10285@aol.com

I am not saying that it is easy to travel from star system to star system. I am saying that it is possible and that it does not have to take millions of years. As far as having no evidence of star travel; how would we know what evidence to look for? Do you have to see the wind to prove that it is there?
Perhaps dimensional side stepping is a possibilty. Perhaps advanced civilizations use ships that nullify all the effects of traveling faster than the speed of light on the inside of the craft. Perhaps these ships have the capability to instananeously be somewhere else as they travel through space, meaning they can be a step ahead of the effects of mass versus speed.
Regards, Dave

Another way to put it, is how would the ancient Egyptians know how to build a computer.

From: Raeto West <Rae West>To: DAnde10285@aol.comSubject: Vast distances and other things
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1999 09:11:28 +0100

> I am not saying that it is easy to travel from star system to star
> system. I am saying that it is possible and that it does not have to
> take millions of years. As far as having no evidence of star travel;
> how would we know what evidence to look for? Do you have to see the
> wind to prove that it is there? Perhaps dimensional side stepping is a
> possibilty. Perhaps advanced civilizations use ships that nullify all
> the effects of traveling faster than the speed of light on the inside
> of the craft. Perhaps these ships have the capability to
> instananeously be somewhere else as they travel through space, meaning
> they can be a step ahead of the effects of mass versus speed.
> Regards, Dave

    ** Yes; maybe these things are possible, or not - it's impossible to be certain. (I mean, if everything were known, presumably it would be possible to state unquestionably whether quick interstellar travel or whatever could be done). But you seem to want to have it both ways. The usual UFO claim is that, now, and particularly in almost unoccupied parts of the US, there are definitely 'ships' controlled by non-earth life. These 'ships' are visible in the usual way and are recognisably 'ships' in some sense - I think it's fair to say that. If you broaden the argument to 'anything is possible' etc why have such a modest claim? I think these people are a bit like followers of the Bhagwan (?) who think that 'flying' means jumping in the air a bit. They haven't realised that if they really could nullify gravity, they'd fly off forever. It's their limited imagination, not mine, or presumably yours. So we're down to the question of evidence, and so far as I've seen in my survey of popular books etc it shows the same sort of fingerprint as e.g. 'satanic abuse', spoonbending, ESP, and church miracles, i.e. careful investigation of any one case demolishes it. What I'm saying in my piece is that there are various psychological mechanisms, all pretty obvious, which investigators ought to be aware of.
Regards
Rae.

From: DAnde10285@aol.com
Message-ID: <0.14e7bbaf.2549ca3b@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1999 11:48:11 EDT
Subject: Re: Vast distances and other things

I am not quite sure I understand your position. You say that all ufo sightings are explainable in one way or another. This is the standard skeptic line and I understand that your type are sick and tired of all the claims, photo's and the like., But what I do not understand is your lack of openmindedness on the possibilty that there is evidence all around and we may not be able to recognize it. We need to open other doors of research and investigative processes in regard to this matter. Most science is also closed minded to this approach. I do not understand how we are supposed to produce evidence of E.T. and space travel when we do not have the tools or the experience to do so. I am engaged in this type of new way of thinking. I have worked for the U.S. military on this subject and believe me they are extremely interested in solving the E.T. problem. Regards Dave.

To: DAnde10285@aol.com
Subject: Re: Vast distances and other things

Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 11:09:33 +0100

> I am not quite sure I understand your position. You say that all ufo
> sightings are explainable in one way or another. This is the standard
> skeptic line and I understand that your type are sick and tired of all
> the claims, photo's and the like., But what I do not understand is
> your lack of openmindedness on the possibilty that there is evidence
> all around and we may not be able to recognize it. We need to open
> other doors of research and investigative processes in regard to this
> matter. Most science is also closed minded to this approach. I do not
> understand how we are supposed to produce evidence of E.T. and space
> travel when we do not have the tools or the experience to do so. I am
> engaged in this type of new way of thinking. I have worked for the
> U.S. military on this subject and believe me they are extremely
> interested in solving the E.T. problem. Regards Dave.

>Another way to put it, is how would the ancient Egyptians know
>how to build a computer.

    ** I get a bit tired of people accusing others of not being open-minded. I'm completely open-minded about the possibility. It's the complete lack of evidence of any contact of any sort that's relevant.
For all you know, the earth might be controlled by a giant elephant positioned under the Atlantic. Or half the people in the world might be dinosaurs in disguise. Or sheep might be planning a revolution in the year 2000. Or a can of beans might weep genuine tears of blood. Or the laws of physics might be preparing to change themselves. Or ice might cease to be solid if three magic words are spoken. Or there may be exactly 173 gods, and a big fight is scheduled to break out tomorrow. Or time might begin to work backwards. Any number of hypotheses can be invented, and looking at evidence seems to be the only way to check whether they're likely. If evidence can't be recognised, it's difficult to see how your 'new way of thinking' can have any effect, isn't it?
Regards
Rae West

I'm not sure what your comment on the Egyptians is supposed to prove. So far as I know, nobody has claimed they had CPUs, floppy disks, monitors etc. But perhaps your special method can detect these.

Delivery-date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999
DAnde10285@aol.com
Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 11:33:34 EDT
Subject: Re: Vast distances and other things

Your answer is very amusing but it really doesn't help much to think that way. I am glad that you have an open mind on the subject. I do not think that you really understand what I'm Trying to say, I propose that the evidence IS there but we do not have the tchnology to discover it. Just like we did not have the technology 50 years ago to find dark matter, just like we did not have the technology 50 years ago to start the S.E.T.I. project. We need new ideas to hunt for evidence. I believe our communication capability compared to advanced cultures is in the smoke signal era and there is no way we are going to be able to talk to any advanced people unless we upgrade our technology in this matter. I do not believe that physics have to change to accomplish this task. I would like to see more web sites dedicated to this possibility. Most people are tired of the same old rhetoric from both sides and a new approach is needed. What input do you have on this changing way of looking at the subject? Regards Dave.
    P.S. I believe the sheep revolt myself.

Received: from DAnde10285@aol.com
From: DAnde10285@aol.com
Date: Mon, 1 Nov 1999 10:58:48 EST
Subject: Re: Vast distances and other things

I completely disagree with you. By creating new technologies through aggressive research you can open up new worlds of science, thanks for answering my questions but I think I will move on to other people with more vision than yourself. Goodby.

From: DRAGONSTONEFARM@aol.com
Date sent: Thu, 25 Nov 1999 09:01:46 -0000
As far as the "psychology of believers" goes, what have you to say about the equally interesting stand of skeptics such as Phillip Klass, who have written at great length about such cases as the Travis Walton case (i.e. 6 people cannot pass a lie detector test identically)??

Are you familiar with this case? As to the lack of physical evidence, isn't Walton himself physical evidence?

What goes through the mind of a skeptic who puts so much energy into debunking cases?

What is there to be protected by debunking? Status Quo? What is the agenda? What service do you provide?

Thanks for your email. If you have any evidence for extra-terrestrials, please let me know it!
Thanks.
Rae West.

From: DERWOLFE@aol.com
Date sent: Wed, 15 Dec 1999 19:11:51 EST

IF THERE WAS REALLY A CRASH THAT TOOK PLACE AT ROSWELL, WHERE DO YOU THINK THAT THE SPACE CRAFT, OF THAT SIZE COULD BE HIDDEN ALL THIS TIME. PLEASE REPLY. IT IS HARD TO PICTURE A SPACE SHIP STILL HIDDEN ACCORDING TO SOME PEOPLE.

THANK YOU
MICHAEL GROSS

From: Raeto West, Rae West
To: DERWOLFE@aol.com

** Please reply? OK. My view on UFOs is that (i) in a sense, they exist - there must be experimental planes, satellites, flying objects which people can't identify; (ii) the supposed connection with 'aliens' is almost certainly nonsense, and muddies the water, either deliberately or through sensationalism.

On Roswell, I suspect the may have been some sort of experimental aircraft, but of course it's hard to know. But I don't think there would be any difficulty in hiding whatever was found. There are plenty of large storage facilities in the US! I don't believe for a minute anything 'alien' was found. But, if it had been, it wouldn't be difficult to hide it, either, would it.

Regards
Rae West

From: MarutKhan@aol.com
Subject: Re: Not Bad considering.....
Date sent: Sat, 8 Jan 2000

But one must take into account the nature of the events prior to 1947.
It is apparent that this has been going on for quite some time, in the order of many 1000's of years.
Yet despite what should be clear an incontrovertible proof, we are no closer now than when this whole thing started, and I think that therin lies the answers.
I think that UFO's are terrestrial, but not human I think that they are intelligently built designed, and operated, but for the express purpose of hiding the nature and origin of the intelligence behiond them.
I think that all UFO's are fakes, only some of which are done by humans.
I will be willing to explain if you so desire
marutkhaniDarkAngel

To: Marutkhan
It is apparent that this has been going on for quite some time, in the order of many 1000's of years.
  ** In fact, this is not so; perhaps you can produce some evidence that there have been 'UFOs' for thouands of years?

I will be willing to explain if you so desire
  ** I'd be perfectly happy to hear your explanation. In fact, I may add it to my email collection.

From: "stan mcgee"
Date sent: Fri, 22 Jan 1999

Your site is really cool I was looking for this kind of site for a while.It  would be perfect if some was in french because i need to translate some  of this.

If you know a French translator willing to do some of it, let me know!
Rae West

From: JLackman@about-inc.com
Subject: UFOs Resource
Date sent: Fri, 18 Feb 2000Hello,
I was browsing the Web and came across your email address and thought you might be interested in checking out About.com's UFOs site (http://ufos.about.com/).

Here are some highlights:

- Articles & news updates
- A guide to UFO terms, places, and events
- A timeline of major UFO events from 1897 until now
- A database of sightings, updated regularly
- Active forums and chat rooms
- Polls of current beliefs about UFOs and aliens
- Annotated links to 100s of the best UFO sites
- An email newsletter

Perhaps the best thing about the About.com UFOs site is its attention to detail. Your Guide, experienced UFO researcher Loy Lawhon, has meticulously sifted the available information on UFOs to bring you the most revealing resources and the most objective analysis around.

I'd like to invite you over to take a look at http://ufos.about.com. We welcome your feedback, and if you find our site of use, please pass this note on to your colleagues and consider linking to us from your site. In anycase, thanks for checking us out.

I should mention that, if you're interested, About.com offers anaffiliate program that will pay you 5 cents for every visitor that clicks through to our site - sign up at http://affiliates.about.com

Thanks,
Jon Lackman
Science Editor, About.com... each site is created by a qualified About.com Guide, a company-certified subject specialist who's responsible for helping you get the most out of your time online.

From: Tcscousin@aol.com
Date sent: Thu, 9 Mar 2000
Subject: nice sceptical talking

Your type of site is very uncommon, because people are in the pursuit of self fulfillment and money. One example is an english man who video taped the shuttle coming in, he moved around to make the shuttle look like it was moving sideways. There is proof governments test and use secret air craft, and the possibilities of other life are very high. But that has nothing to do with little grays from zeta reticula and all this other fantasy. You can't be arrogant or gullible, or a LIER as many are, or you'll never know forsure. I do believe in God, but because I read the bible, some believe Jesus was an alien and all the bible stories are told right in english, but they don't even read it. Thank you, but don't close your mind, just filter it of all the trash.

From: SLicKVick1465@aol.com
Date sent: Sat, 11 Mar 2000

u suck rip offs

From: OZZY***@aol.com
Date sent: Sat, 25 Mar 2000
Subject: ufo's

my  name is  ryan Lee

im 16 years old living  in la,ca
i have red book after on people's theries on  this "fling disk".
i  know i will never come to  a conlution but i need more info on this matter. so if  have any info on this  please  send  it to me.
ryan

Hello, Ryan.
Do yourself a favor and try to find some well-written books (not the usual sort of mass-produced junk) and try to teach yourself to read and write English. It will be an investment for you.
Regards
Rae West
yeah!!!!
that sounds like info ill look into a good book.
i really think they are real but everyone has thare  belefs on how they fly,how do you think they fly?Or do you know of any kind of perpalltion i dont know of ?
from: ryan


Click for Index to all my general interest items collected in one file
Click for Home page of entire big-lies.org site
WAS http://www2.prestel.co.uk/littleton Uploaded 99-11-10. Rev 2000-04-12. This standalone version more or less identical first uploaded 29 July 2016