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

KN4M 06-03-02

Expand Messages
  • robalini
    Please send as far and wide as possible. Thanks, Robert Sterling Editor, The Konformist http://www.konformist.com Alien Abduction News 5/31/02
    Message 1 of 1 , Jun 3, 2002
      Please send as far and wide as possible.


      Robert Sterling
      Editor, The Konformist

      Alien Abduction News

      Hi Everyone,

      At the request of our readers, Alien Abduction Experience and
      Research (AAER) brings you the latest news of alien abductions, UFOs,
      and research from around the world.

      A Russian scientist shares his exciting UFO encounter with AAER
      readers in this close encounter report called Russian Scientist
      Encounters UFO. The scientist describes the perplexing dilemma of
      scientific investigation of UFO's in Russia experienced by himself
      and his colleagues. Read all about the Russian KGB interference at

      A dramatic new non-fiction book on George Adamski called Looking for
      Orthon - The Story of George Adamski is reviewed at www.abduct.com.
      Author Colin Bennett portrays Adamski as an innovative man in search
      of the truth about aliens. As the first man to achieve international
      attention for his alleged alien contact, Adamski commandeered a
      dedicated group of followers into remote areas in his quest for
      proof of alien contact. Unlike other recycled UFO books, this book
      presents fresh new historical events and people previously
      unmentioned elsewhere.

      The Reclamation Project by Ruth Marie Davis is an exciting
      exploration into a possible secretive human-alien connection in
      ancient Egypt. The story revolves around the "what if" supposition
      that ancient Egyptians had established deep roots with aliens.
      Through research into ancient civilizations, Ms. Davis provides a
      plausible connection between ancient Egyptian culture and alien
      contact. The book is reviewed at www.abduct.com.

      Best Impressions welcomes www.ufoconspiracy.com to its server.
      Created by Robert Collins, this remarkable web site provides readers
      with provocative information on aliens, UFOs and conspiracies. You
      can get the same GOOD DEAL ON WEB SITE HOSTING from Best Impressions.
      See their ad on AAER's home page or write to

      Abductees frequently suffer from insomnia and restlessness. Get over
      it fast with Gail Seymour's CD Just Relax. . .Relaxing to Sleep
      designed especially to solve these problems. Special discount price
      for AAER readers: Take $2 off your CD order by mentioning AAER.

      Readers continue to respond to Alien Symbols and Alphabets. See their
      comments and symbols at www.abduct.com and let us know what you

      Readers can post questions about alien abductions and read other
      people's messages at the very popular Alien Abduction Discussion
      Group. The link is on the AAER home page.

      Want to know more about what aliens are doing to you? Then read
      AAER's e-Book called Alien Abduction Answer Book at www.abduct.com.

      For address changes, requests to unsubscribe, advertising
      information, or a copy of this newsletter as a Word document, contact
      abductions@.... Items can be quoted from these announcements as
      long as the date and web site is referenced.

      Marilyn Ruben
      Alien Abduction Experience and Research


      There Is A Firestorm Coming And It Is Being Provoked By Mr. Bush
      By Robert Fisk Commentary
      The Independent - London

      More and more, President Bush's rhetoric sounds like the crazed
      of Osama bin Laden...

      So now Osama bin Laden is Hitler. And Saddam Hussein is Hitler. And
      George Bush is fighting the Nazis. Not since Menachem Begin
      fantasised to President Reagan that he felt he was attacking Hitler
      in Berlin - his Israeli army was actually besieging Beirut, killing
      thousands of civilians, "Hitler" being the pathetic Arafat - have we
      had to listen to claptrap like this. But the fact that we Europeans
      had to do so in the Bundestag on Thursday - and, for the most part,
      in respectful silence - was extraordinary.

      I'm reminded of the Israeli columnist who, tired of the wearying
      invocation of the Second World War to justify yet more Israeli
      brutality, began an article with the words: "Mr Prime Minister,
      Hitler is dead." Must we, forever, live under the shadow of a war
      that was fought and won before most of us were born? Do we have to
      live forever with living, diminutive politicians playing Churchill
      (Thatcher and, of course, Blair) or Roosevelt? "He's a dictator who
      gassed his own people," Mr Bush reminded us for the two thousandth
      time, omitting as always to mention that the Kurds whom Saddam
      viciously gassed were fighting for Iran and that the United States,
      at the time, was on Saddam's side.

      But there is a much more serious side to this. Mr Bush is hoping to
      corner the Russian President, Vladimir Putin, into a new policy of
      threatening Iran. He wants the Russians to lean on the northern bit
      of the "axis of evil", the infantile phrase which he still trots out
      to the masses. More and more, indeed, Mr Bush's rhetoric sounds like
      the crazed videotapes of Mr bin Laden. And still he tries to lie
      about the motives for the crimes against humanity of 11 September.
      Yet again, in the Bundestag, he insisted that the West's enemies
      hated "justice and democracy", even though most of America's Muslim
      enemies wouldn't know what democracy was.

      In the United States, the Bush administration is busy terrorising
      Americans. There will be nuclear attacks, bombs in high-rise
      apartment blocks, on the Brooklyn bridge, men with exploding belts -
      note how carefully the ruthless Palestinian war against Israeli
      colonisation of the West Bank is being strapped to America's ever
      weirder "war on terror" - and yet more aircraft suiciders. If you
      read the words of President Bush, Vice-President Dick Cheney and the
      ridiculous national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, over the past
      three days, you'll find they've issued more threats against Americans
      than Mr bin Laden.

      But let's get back to the point. The growing evidence that Israel's
      policies are America's policies in the Middle East - or, more
      accurately, vice versa - is now being played out for real in
      statements from Congress and on American television. First, we have
      the chairman of the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee announcing
      that Hizbollah - the Lebanese guerrilla force that drove Israel's
      demoralised army out of Lebanon in the year 2000 - is planning
      attacks in the US. After that, we had an American television
      network "revealing" that Hizbollah, Hamas and al- Qa'ida - Mr bin
      Laden's organisation - have held a secret meeting in Lebanon to plot
      attacks on the US.

      American journalists insist on quoting "sources" but there was, of
      course, no sourcing for this balderdash, which is now repeated ad
      nauseam in the American media. Then take the "Syrian Accountability
      Act" that was introduced into the US Senate by Israel's friends on18
      April. This includes the falsity uttered earlier by Israel's Foreign
      Minister, Shimon Peres, that Iranian Revolutionary Guards "operate
      freely" on the southern Lebanese border. Now there haven't been
      Iranian Revolutionary Guards in Lebanon - let alone the south of the
      country - for 18 years. So why is this lie repeated yet again?

      Iran is under threat. Lebanon is under threat. Syria is under threat -
      its "terrorism" status has been heightened by the State Department -
      and so is Iraq. But Ariel Sharon, the Israeli Prime Minister held
      personally responsible by Israel's own enquiry for the Sabra and
      Shatila massacre of 1,700 Palestinians in Beirut in 1982, is -
      according to Mr Bush - "a man of peace". How much further can this
      go? A long way, I fear.

      The anti-American feeling throughout the Middle East is palpable.
      Arab newspaper editorials don't come near to expressing public
      opinion. In Damascus, Majida Tabbaa has become famous as the lady who
      threw the US Consul Roberto Powers out of her husband's downtown
      restaurant on 7 April . "I went over to him," she said, "and told
      him, 'Mr Roberto, tell your George Bush that all of you are not
      welcome - please get out'." Across the Arab world, boycotts of
      American goods have begun in earnest.

      How much longer can this go on? America praises Pakistani President
      Musharraf for his support in the "war on terror", but remains silent
      when he arranges a dictatorial "referendum" to keep him in power.
      America's enemies, remember, hate the US for its "democracy". So is
      General Musharraf going to feel the heat? Forget it. My guess is that
      Pakistan's importance in the famous "war on terror" - or "war for
      civilisation" as, we should remember, it was originally called - is
      far more important. If Pakistan and India go to war, I'll wager a lot
      that Washington will come down for undemocratic Pakistan against
      democratic India.

      Across the former Soviet southern Muslim republics, America is
      building air bases, helping to pursue the "war on terror" against any
      violent Muslim Islamist groups that dare to challenge the local
      dictators. Please do not believe that this is about oil. Do not for a
      moment think that these oil and gas-rich lands have any economic
      importance for the oil-fuelled Bush administration. Nor the pipelines
      that could run from northern Afghanistan to the Pakistani coast if
      only that pesky Afghan loya jirga could elect a government that would
      give concessions to Unocal, the oddly named concession whose former
      boss just happens to be a chief Bush "adviser" to Afghanistan.

      Now here's pause for thought. Abdelrahman al-Rashed writes in the
      international Arabic daily Asharq al-Awsat that if anyone had said
      prior to 11 September that Arabs were plotting a vast scheme to
      murder thousands of Americans in the US, no one would have believed
      them. "We would have charged that this was an attempt to incite the
      American people against Arabs and Muslims," he wrote. And rightly so.

      But Arabs did commit the crimes against humanity of 11 September. And
      many Arabs greatly fear that we have yet to see the encore from the
      same organisation. In the meantime, Mr Bush goes on to do exactly
      what his enemies want; to provoke Muslims and Arabs, to praise their
      enemies and demonise their countries, to bomb and starve Iraq and
      give uncritical support to Israel and maintain his support for the
      dictators of the Middle East.

      Each morning now, I awake beside the Mediterranean in Beirut with a
      feeling of great foreboding. There is a firestorm coming. And we are
      blissfully ignoring its arrival; indeed, we are provoking it.



      The Gist
      Michelangelo Signorile
      Spreading Drudge's Sludge

      Cybergossip Matt Drudge may say that he is not gay, but one thing is
      clear, no matter his sexual orientation: he's a nasty faggot.

      Last week Drudge reported on his website that David Brock, author of
      Blinded by the Right, the bestseller that conservatives have not been
      able to discredit with reasoned argument, had a "breakdown" while
      writing the book and checked into a hospital, something Brock
      reluctantly confirmed when Drudge called him. What this was supposed
      to mean in terms of Brock's credibility, I don't know, but it was
      pretty lame. Some of the greatest authors in history, after all, have
      had nervous breakdowns–even including some well-known conservative
      pundits I've heard about in recent years–not to mention a good
      percentage of Hollywood and Wall Street.

      And delving into Brock's private medical matters when they have no
      relevancy was not only sleazy; it was profoundly transparent coming
      from Drudge, who must be seething over the riveting Blinded, knowing
      so many people are reading it. This is the second book that outs
      Drudge (Jeannette Walls' Dish in 2000 was the first), even though
      he's denied that he is gay, perhaps fearing that the homo-hating
      legions at FreeRepublic.com and elsewhere will drop him like a hot
      potato. (Not to worry Matt: Brock's own journey showed conclusively
      that they'll accept a house homo as long as you'll bend over for them
      and get down on your knees for people like George W. Bush, something
      Andrew Sullivan has proved as well.) And this time the outing was
      coming straight from the horse's mouth: Brock claims he and Drudge–
      who reveled in exposing Bill Clinton's sex life–dated once; Brock
      says he received an e-mail in which Drudge pined on about how he
      wished they were "fuck buddies," all of which is in the book.

      You'd think that no respectable journalist would further the new
      Drudge sludge on Brock, at least not without a fuller explanation
      that included Drudge's possible motives. But The Washington Post's
      Lloyd Grove–who fancies himself the respectable gossip columnist–
      jumped on it quicker than a rabbit in heat, and curiously only gave
      half the story. Grove conveniently forgot to mention, even in a G-
      rated way, the "fuck buddies" e-mail–and in fact even forgot to
      mention that Drudge was criticized in Blinded, not to mention outed,
      or that he would have any reason at all to slam Brock. He also forgot
      to call any liberals for their take on Drudge's attack. But Grove did
      manage to get quotes from three (!) archconservatives who salivated
      over it and who smeared Brock further with generalized statements,
      such as: "there had been suspicions there was something wrong [with
      Brock] for a while." Could Grove's sudden amnesia and loss of
      journalistic clarity and vision have something to do with the fact
      that his much-publicized girlfriend is conservative pundit Amy
      Holmes, who came up through the right-wing Independent Women's Forum
      and was a loyal foot soldier of IWF's cofounder Ricky Silberman, who
      was savaged in Brock's book? Blinded by the right indeed.

      Washington Post media critic Howard Kurtz, meanwhile, Mr.
      Journalistic Ethics himself, who sometimes even lobs a softball at
      his own paper, has yet to criticize Grove for this insidious crap,
      and it's doubtful he will. (He did mention the Drudge item and
      Grove's story in his cut-and-paste online column, floating the story
      further, and quoting Eric Alterman's criticisms of Drudge, but Kurtz
      did not take Grove and Drudge to task himself.) I read both Grove and
      Kurtz regularly, often enjoy them and have nothing against them in a
      general sense. But it is galling that they hold themselves up as the
      arbiters of proper–and objective–journalism in such matters, as if
      for them politics, not to mention personal friendships, never enter
      into the picture (and in the case of Kurtz, pontificating on everyone
      else's journalism).

      Last year, when I penned an article about Andrew Sullivan's racy
      online advertisements for "bareback" (condomless) sex and the
      contradictions his behavior posed with regard to his moralistic
      crusade against other people's sex lives, the Post duo wouldn't go
      near it. Grove in fact told a journalist friend of mine that he
      absolutely didn't believe that the story about "Andrew" was true.
      Sullivan of course later confirmed it all. Even then, Grove and Kurtz
      wouldn't touch it. Both men continually shot the story down when
      readers in the Post's live online chats asked, several times over
      several weeks, why they didn't cover it. The two journalists claimed
      that the fact that I was a longtime critic of Sullivan was reason not
      to cover it, in addition to claiming that it was private information.

      So what is the difference now with Brock? Actually, I see differences
      that, from a journalistic perspective, make the Sullivan story much
      more reportable than the Brock story, which should never have made
      its way into The Washington Post. Unlike Sullivan with his bareback
      ads, Brock didn't put his medical information on a website for anyone
      to eventually figure out. Brock didn't then meet people through that
      website and identify himself as the person connected to that medical
      information, thus making the information public on his own. And
      having a breakdown did not contradict Brock's work; if anything, it
      only confirms the arduous and stressful journey he lays out in the
      book. (Jeez, anyone who hung out with vipers like Ann Coulter and
      David Horowitz is bound to have a nervous breakdown!) If Sullivan
      were to have a breakdown, or if Grove or Kurtz or I do, for that
      matter, would that negate everything we've written, every position
      we've taken, every change of mind we've had?

      But Sullivan's reckless behavior–advertised publicly on a website–in
      light of his ranting condemnations of Bill Clinton's sex life, his
      pontificating on gay male culture and, most importantly, his
      pronouncements on AIDS, was certainly relevant to report on and
      discuss. And even if you don't agree with that, how do you justify
      ignoring the Sullivan story but then reporting on Brock's private
      medical information, exposed for political reasons?

      Kurtz's bias toward Sullivan–who calls him "Howie," in that clubby
      Beltway manner–has been evident for a long time. Two weeks ago, when
      Sullivan claimed that he'd been "banned" from The New York Times, Mr.
      Journalism wrote an embarrassingly unsubstantiated piece in the Post
      that positioned Sullivan as the poor victim of censorship. Sullivan
      claimed he was let go by Times executive editor Howell Raines because
      of his criticisms of the Times, but no one at the Times–not even
      unnamed sources–gave Kurtz a comment, let alone confirmed Sullivan's

      Nonetheless, in a startling summarizing line Kurtz wrote: "Sullivan's
      opinions also cost him his weekly `TRB' column in the New Republic,
      where he is still listed as a contributor." With that one sentence
      Kurtz not only accepted as fact that Sullivan was fired from the
      Times for his opinions, but also claimed as fact that the same thing
      happened at The New Republic–but again, he had not one source from
      The New Republic, named or unnamed, stating that. (The next day,
      Slate's Jack Shafer, after making a few calls, reported that sources
      at the Times surmised that Sullivan's often-discussed sloppy
      journalism was the true culprit.)

      These are some of our so-called paragons of journalism, spreading
      Drudge's sludge, as well as that of his pals, like Sullivan, while
      pontificating about what's unethical and irresponsible about
      journalism today. Ain't that a hoot?

      Michelangelo Signorile can be reached at www.signorile.com.

      Volume 15, Issue 22


      Libya Denies Lockerbie Compensation Offer
      Wed May 29,11:58 AM ET

      LONDON (Reuters) - The Libyan government denied on Wednesday it had
      offered $2.7 billion to compensate families of the 1988 Lockerbie
      airliner attack as part of a deal to ease sanctions against it.

      State-run Jana news agency, monitored by the London-based BBC, quoted
      a Libyan spokesman as saying: "Libya is not part of this issue...As
      far as the Libyan state is concerned, it has not been accused in this
      issue...and it has nothing to do with any accords."

      Jana quoted the spokesman as saying that all Libya knew was that
      Libyan businessmen, joined by legal experts, held meetings with
      families of the victims and did not inform Libya officially of the

      A New York law firm said earlier that Libya offered $2.7 billion to
      compensate families of the victims of Pan Am Flight 103, which
      exploded over Lockerbie, Scotland, in 1988 -- but U.S. and U.N.
      sanctions against Libya must be lifted first.

      In a letter sent to Lockerbie victims' families, the firm of
      Kreindler and Kreindler said Libya would automatically release the
      money -- $10 million for each of the 270 families -- in batches from
      an escrow account as conditions were met.

      It said 40 percent of the money would be released when the now
      suspended U.N. sanctions against Libya were lifted, another 40
      percent after U.S. commercial sanctions were removed and the
      remaining 20 percent handed over when Libya was taken off the U.S.
      list of states sponsoring terrorism.


      The letter said Libya would put the money into an escrow account in a
      non-U.S. bank, probably British, selected by the law firm. The money
      would automatically be released to a plaintiff's committee account in
      New York as the conditions were met and Libya would not be able to
      deny payments or pull the money back.

      The offer first must be accepted by the victims' families, who sued
      the Libyan government in 1996. The sanctions were imposed after the
      explosion that killed 259 mostly American passengers and crew, and 11
      residents of Lockerbie.

      Earlier on Wednesday the British government and British relatives of
      those killed in the bombing reacted cautiously to the reported Libyan
      offer of compensation.

      In January 2001 a three-judge Scottish court sitting in the
      Netherlands found Libyan Abdel Basset al-Megrahi guilty of the
      bombing, sentenced him to life in prison and said it accepted
      evidence he was a member of Libya's Jamahariya Security Organization.

      The court freed his co-defendant, Al-Amin Khalifa Fahima.

      Megrahi appealed against the verdict but Scottish appeal judges in
      the Netherlands in March upheld his conviction. Libya has denied any
      role in the bombing.



      Halliburton Shares Sink On
      News Of Investigation

      DALLAS - Shares of Halliburton Co. (HAL) traded as much as 7.5
      percent lower on Wednesday after the oilfield services and
      construction company said securities regulators were investigating
      its practice of accounting for cost overruns on some construction
      projects as revenues.

      The Dallas-based company said late on Tuesday that the U.S.
      Securities and Exchange Commission had begun a preliminary
      investigation and that it expected to receive a formal request for
      documents or a subpoena in the next few days.

      Halliburton said it planned to cooperate fully with the
      investigation, which it believes was triggered by a New York Times
      article on May 22 alleging that the company adopted "aggressive"
      accounting policies to boost its revenues.

      Shares of Halliburton dipped to $17.90 in early trading but later
      recovered and closed at $18.72, down 63 cents, or 3.3 percent. The
      stock was the seventh most actively traded on the New York Stock
      Exchange, with 10.6 million shares changing hands.

      The accounting policies under investigation were adopted in 1998
      while Vice President Dick Cheney was chief executive of Halliburton.
      He held that post from 1995 to 2000.

      Cheney spokeswoman Jennifer Millerwise referred questions about the
      SEC probe to Halliburton.

      The New York Times article quoted accounting specialists who said
      Halliburton had stretched, and may even have broken, accounting

      Halliburton said it believed the accounting practices under
      investigation are in accordance with generally accepted accounting
      principles for the construction industry.

      Under the policy adopted in 1998, Halliburton began to recognize some
      of its unresolved claims against engineering and construction clients
      as revenue, even though the amounts of money at stake were still in

      Halliburton's shares came under heavy selling pressure in December
      and early January, touching a 15-year low of $8.75 on Jan. 4, because
      of investor concerns about the company's exposure to hundreds of
      thousands of asbestos damages claims.

      The shares subsequently recovered following repeated management
      reassurances that the company will not be ruined by its asbestos

      If you are interested in a free subscription to The
      Konformist Newswire, please visit:


      Or, e-mail konformist-subscribe@egroups.com with the
      subject: "I NEED 2 KONFORM!!!"

      (Okay, you can use something else, but it's a kool
      catch phrase.)

      Visit the Klub Konformist at Yahoo!:

    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.