Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

RE: From Linda Moulton Howe, June 27, 2007

Expand Messages
  • Tim Ventura
    Hmmm.... These CARET pages on the Coast site make me feel funny about this whole thing. Do I owe Linda an apology? Could be...
    Message 1 of 1 , Jun 27 9:33 PM
    • 0 Attachment
      Hmmm....

      These CARET pages on the Coast site make me feel funny about this whole
      thing. Do I owe Linda an apology? Could be...
      http://www.coasttocoastam.com/gen/page2097.html?theme=light

      Kim has an excellent point about the text in those pages, but it is more
      lucid than the word-salad that I usually see (although I skimmed, so I could
      have missed some big blunders).

      I DO have some very stupid questions, though:

      1. The thing in the sky is MUCH larger than the prototype in those photos. I
      can understand the funky alien text on the prototype, but presumably if we
      have a large-scale reverse-engineered drone it would have human markings,
      not alien.

      2. There are "color" photo blowups from the photos in the book. What are
      those blowups supposed to be from? Were they separate photos in the report,
      or closeup shots OF the report itself. If so, was the original report in
      color? Also, notice that the bottom photo of the two ring-segments is larger
      than the cropped version in embedded in the page (which is why I asked)

      3. In my experience, trained scientists are absolutely loathe to use the
      word "antigravity" - it's only picked up popular usage in the last few years
      (I'd like to think because of me). A few years back, though, people were
      calling it everything but AG, so it seems odd to see it used to casually in
      this text.

      4. Why are sections of the text blacked out? Is this supposed to be a FOIA
      document? Cause if so, that kind of damages the credibility right there.
      Based on the content of these pages, I'd bet that if you did a FOIA request
      they'd just send you the black magic-marker and keep the pages themselves to
      save time.

      Tim

      _____

      From: Jack Sarfatti [mailto:sarfatti@...]
      Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2007 9:14 PM
      To: Kim Burrafato
      Cc: Linda Moulton Howe; RAY HUDSON; Dr Harold E Puthoff; Stan Friedman;
      Creon Levit; S-P Sirag; Sarfatti_Physics_Seminars;
      SarfattiScienceSeminars@YahooGroups. com; Mark Pilkington; Nick Cook;
      nick@...; GRELET CHRISTOPHE; Vladimir Poponin; colin
      bennett; caryn anscomb; Dan Smith; Mark Pesses; Kit Green; Eric Davis; Joe
      Firmage; askscience@...; Michael Shermer; bruce maccabee; John
      Brandenburg; Gary Bekkum; Sharon Weinberger; art wagner; Paul Murad; Tim
      Ventura; tom tum; Massimo Teodorani; Diego Lucio Rapoport; Edgar Mitchell;
      George Knapp; John Alexander; Bruce Cornet; ryguy@...;
      Stephen Broadbent; Kerry Cassidy; Waldyr Jr.; Joe Stefula; noory George;
      art; alan parker; Ronald Pandolfi; Gordon Novel; Jim Marrs; RICK DOTY
      Subject: Re: From Linda Moulton Howe, June 27, 2007


      That's too Rube Goldberg Kim. Wishing won't make it so. Simplest explanation
      is, it's a fraud. Everyone has read Phil Corso - easiest thing in the world
      for a misinformation agent to connect it to Corso. The litmus test is to say
      something startlingly interesting. All any of these goofy reports show is a
      low-level mentality with nothing but cliches out of some 50's Grade B sci-fi
      movie. Colin Bennett said it very well better than me. Until I see some real
      scientific information beyond comic book fantasy I reject all such reports
      as empty of useful information. Clearly it's a covert debunking operation.

      Kim Burrafato <lensman137@...> wrote:

      Linda and Jack et al

      Jack, Ray, and others have a good point in noting that there's really
      nothing of any substance in the pages of the alleged photocopied report. No
      "real physics or math." And they're just being careful and honest., as we
      all have to do when evaluating information like this. But let me play
      devil's advocate. These are allegedly pages from a 4th quarter research
      report. Remember, "Isaac" said their primary mission was to filter this ET
      technology down into to the mainstream, via the private sector. Where have
      we heard this before? Phil Corso ring a bell? So, any executive briefing
      would not be filled with esoteric math and theories. It would be straight
      to the point. In this case (and I'd bet this isn't the only case) they
      didn't really get anywhere. The Rosetta Stone hasn't been found yet, it
      would appear. Put an automobile in front of a group of apes, and they'd
      probably go through a number reaction stages, from fear, to awe, curiosity,
      indifference, and maybe even hostility. Sooner or later, one of the apes
      would get enough nerve to mess with the engine. He or she might figure out
      how to yank a cable off or loosen a nut or screw. But what would they
      really know about the object? We may be in a similar situation with regards
      to understanding this alleged ET technology. I know that messes with a lot
      of egos, but that may really be the case.

      I would like to have seen more quantitative data here, but it wasn't
      forthcoming. But I'm not willing to dismiss this as an elaborate hoax out
      of hand. If it is a hoax. it was likely done by the USG, or rogue elements
      thereof. The detail of the photos and linguistic charts is pretty amazing.
      Which leads to another interesting correspondence. I'm sure many of you have
      noticed the striking similarity of some of the "linguistic analysis" graphs
      to some of the more complex crop circles that have appeared. Of course, the
      skeptics will immediately chorus "well crops circles are all man made
      fakes!" I'm not going to go there now, as it's off point. There's also the
      correspondence with the glyphs on the Roswell wreckage reported by Jesse
      Marcel and others. But Jack raised some important points when he said:


      What is obvious now is that there is an elaborate
      misinformation/disinformation conspiracy to use Linda Moulton Howe, Coast to
      Coast AM and other UFO media venues. The ultimate goal is two-fold

      1. To recruit gullible "True Believers" into a cult.

      2. To ultimately debunk all UFO research by later revealing the fraud.

      It is absolutely essential that all pro-UFO media people check their stories
      with us first so we can at least tell if there is any real technical
      information in them. Photos and videos cannot be believed without serious
      technical evaluation.

      By "us" I include Ray Hudson, Bruce Maccabee, Colin Bennett et-al


      But I'm always distrustful of people who are too quick to dismiss.
      Criticism is fine, and necessary. But in this case, I think there's some
      reason to more open minded than some of us might normally be. The real test
      will be if "Isaac" reveals more. It's unrealistic to assume that the people
      he allegedly worked for, won't eventually figure out who he is. And if he's
      for real, he'll know this and "come out." That would be his best defense
      against reprisal. Time will tell. I guess.

      So, Isaac, if you're out there monitoring all this, do the right thing and
      go public and release everything you have. You'll be protected.



      On Jun 27, 2007, at 2:58 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:


      Hi Linda
      Again these reports are worthless and I write it off as more attempts to
      fool you. Until I see some specific technical information that is startling
      pointing to how the thing really flies I am only convinced that there is a
      group of conspirators trying very hard to fool you and other key media
      people like George Noory and Art Bell. :-)

      On Jun 27, 2007, at 11:28 AM, Linda Moulton Howe wrote:


      Dear Ray:

      Here is an excerpt from an email I received yesterday from a person who has
      worked in black projects:

      "I can absolutely confirm that black programs are conducted out of
      non-descript offices. We were in an office at one point on one program -
      however the windows were plywooded, and sound was injected between the
      external window and the plywood. From the outside it just looked like dark
      smoked glass office windows. It was a fortress.
      - the building was extremely well guarded, however, not from a public
      standpoint. If someone got past the guard on the outside - not likely, they
      would only see a rather standard reception desk. They would get no further
      however.

      When I was read into one program - I was told to go to a particular dentists
      office in las vegas - I did not ask questions. This was a dentists office,
      however it was also a polygraph center - AFOSI - cameras, microphones
      dropped from the ceiling, and one way mirror room where you could be
      observed. I was "hooked up" to the polygraph by a woman who never gave her
      name.
      - I do have one thing that is perplexing me - In my case you had to poly
      "clean" to get out of the program. So espionage was a big big big no no and
      being a patriot anyway - and not having the added burden of having been read
      into non-terrestrial technology - I of course poly'd clean. However - you
      are never officially read off........ the leash remains for your entire
      life. Although my primary involvement beside reverse engineering - was
      development of low observable technology. because of my involvement - I
      was read into most of the programs and had free reign to wander pretty much
      where I wished, at the main site. However - I had punches on my badge
      except one, and that was "area 8" I was told that this was S4. I will not
      speculate - I did not have a need to know - and I learned very early on to
      lose my sense of curiosity. My suspicion now however is that we were a layer
      or two of the onion "whiter" than other black programs.

      On the "X CARET doc's
      I saw no portion nor top and bottom classification markings on any of the
      doc's - this rings true. Most of our stuff was just marked as "site
      sensitive" and nothing more. If its a black program you do not want to draw
      attention if something is compromised."


      Linda Moulton Howe
      Reporter and Editor
      www.Earthfiles.com
      and Investigative Reporter
      Premiere Radio Networks;
      Dreamland Online

      P. O. Box 21843
      Albuquerque, New Mexico 87154


      TEL: 505-797-7727
      FAX: 505-797-7908


      e-mail: earthfiles@...
      website: www.earthfiles.com <http://www.earthfiles.com/>




      On Jun 27, 2007, at 11:52 AM, RAY HUDSON wrote:



      What I am curious about, Linda, is how you would explain-away the obvious
      inconsistency that I have pointed out with regards to lack of classification
      markings?

      I believe this seriously impeaches at least THAT source. But I find this is
      a trait of "true believers". they never wish to admit when certain pieces of
      the story are impeached. There is NO WAY the kind of work described would
      have been performed under the security conditions described without each and
      every research report coming out of that group being properly labeled as
      classified information. There are other details of safeguards which I
      cannot and will not discuss which are also missing if we are to accept that
      these documents rise to the level of TOP SECRET.

      I appreciate your investigative work, Linda, but only to the point where you
      fail to throw-out obvious problematic data as irrelevant.

      Ray

      _____

      From: Linda Moulton Howe [mailto:earthfiles@...]
      Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2007 9:51 AM
      To: Jack Sarfatti
      Cc: Dr Harold E Puthoff; Stan Friedman; Creon Levit; S-P Sirag;
      Sarfatti_Physics_Seminars; SarfattiScienceSeminars@YahooGroups. com; Mark
      Pilkington; Nick Cook; nick@...; GRELET CHRISTOPHE;
      Vladimir Poponin; colin bennett; caryn anscomb; Dan Smith; Mark Pesses; Kit
      Green; Eric Davis; Joe Firmage; askscience@...; Michael Shermer;
      bruce maccabee; John Brandenburg; Gary Bekkum; Sharon Weinberger; art
      wagner; Paul Murad; Tim Ventura; tom tum; Massimo Teodorani; Diego Lucio
      Rapoport; Edgar Mitchell; George Knapp; John Alexander; Bruce Cornet;
      ryguy@...; Stephen Broadbent; Kerry Cassidy; Waldyr Jr.;
      Joe Stefula; noory George; art; RAY HUDSON; alan parker; Ronald Pandolfi
      Subject: From Linda Moulton Howe, June 27, 2007
      Importance: High

      Am curious, Jack, why you are ignoring the 1987 Barksdale AFB eyewitness of
      a dragonfly-shaped "drone" in a hangar; the 1995 Arizona eyewitness near
      Heber; the 2005 eyewitness in Sequoia National Park; the 2006 mother and
      sons in Yosemite National Park, the Birmingham, Alabama, military
      subcontractor eyewitness; and the Northridge, California eyewitness - all
      before 2007?

      Sincerely,


      Linda Moulton Howe
      Reporter and Editor
      www.Earthfiles.com
      and Investigative Reporter
      Premiere Radio Networks;
      Dreamland Online

      P. O. Box 21843
      Albuquerque, New Mexico 87154

      TEL: 505-797-7727
      FAX: 505-797-7908

      e-mail: <mailto:earthfiles@...> earthfiles@...
      website: <http://www.earthfiles.com/> www.earthfiles.com






      On Jun 27, 2007, at 10:45 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:



      What is obvious now is that there is an elaborate
      misinformation/disinformation conspiracy to use Linda Moulton Howe, Coast to
      Coast AM and other UFO media venues. The ultimate goal is two-fold

      1. To recruit gullible "True Believers" into a cult.

      2. To ultimately debunk all UFO research by later revealing the fraud.

      It is absolutely essential that all pro-UFO media people check their stories
      with us first so we can at least tell if there is any real technical
      information in them. Photos and videos cannot be believed without serious
      technical evaluation.

      By "us" I include Ray Hudson, Bruce Maccabee, Colin Bennett et-al

      On Jun 27, 2007, at 9:07 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:




      Begin forwarded message:

      From: "RAY HUDSON" < <mailto:rainman.hudson@...>
      rainman.hudson@...>
      Date: June 26, 2007 9:24:45 PM PDT
      To: "'Jack Sarfatti'" < <mailto:sarfatti@...> sarfatti@...>
      Subject: RE: Important from Linda Moulton Howe, June 26, 2007

      Jack,

      I read thru everything, including the "documents" offered as evidence. The
      most glaring inconsistency is what dooms this as yet another hoax:

      The author impresses upon us just how tight security was with gun-toting
      military officers (and perhaps enlisted folk), not to mention the literal
      strip-searches. And yet when you look at the alleged contractor report from
      1986 there is not ONE SINGLE CONFIDENTIAL MARKING on this document that
      would be required by standard DoD classification requirements. In 1986 I
      was working as a new engineer at General Dynamics, Pomona Division on Naval
      missile technology. It was when I first was granted a SECRET clearance,
      which means that I know what sort of markings should be present on actual
      classified documents. These documents show absolutely NONE of those
      markings. There is no way this can be real given this inconsistency between
      the story and the alleged evidence.

      Feel free to pass on,
      Ray



      On Jun 26, 2007, at 4:05 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:




      If anyone notices a brilliant but sloppy physicist patrolling the streets of
      Baghdad in the next couple weeks, I'd be willing to guess how he got there.
      (I kid, of course, as I certainly hope that hasn't actually happened in this
      case)


      Is he talking about me?

      Linda, I took a quick look. Not impressed. I think you and C2C are being
      fooled. I see no information that is compelling that this guy's story is not
      fiction. :-)
      On Jun 26, 2007, at 3:19 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:



      Thanks Linda. I don't have time right now to focus on this, but will soon.
      Of course my bias is disbelief that someone may be feeding you more SERPO
      disinformation. I could tell in an instant if I saw some real
      physics/technical details.

      On Jun 26, 2007, at 1:42 PM, Linda Moulton Howe wrote:



      Think the background to the dragonfly-shaped drones has surfaced. According
      to this information, it's anti-gravity, cloaking device ET technology. But
      still not clear if 2007 "drones" are actual ET technology or result of
      American back-engineering.

      Please see:

      <http://www.earthfiles.com/news.php?ID=1277&category=Environment>
      http://www.earthfiles.com/news.php?ID=1277&category=Environment

      <http://www.earthfiles.com/news.php?ID=1278&category=Environment>
      http://www.earthfiles.com/news.php?ID=1278&category=Environment


      Would appreciate your feedback,
      Linda


      Linda Moulton Howe
      Reporter and Editor
      www.Earthfiles.com
      and Investigative Reporter
      Premiere Radio Networks;
      Dreamland Online

      P. O. Box 21843
      Albuquerque, New Mexico 87154

      TEL: 505-797-7727
      FAX: 505-797-7908

      e-mail: <mailto:earthfiles@...> earthfiles@...
      website: <http://www.earthfiles.com/> www.earthfiles.com


















      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.