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

Fwd = [ufologyinuk] Jenny Randles: Covering Up Roswell

Expand Messages
  • Frits Westra
    Forwarded by: fwestra@hetnet.nl (Frits Westra) Originally from: ufologyinuk-digest-help@smartgroups.com Original Subject: [ufologyinuk] Digest 2 Nov 2001
    Message 1 of 2 , Nov 2, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      Forwarded by: fwestra@... (Frits Westra)
      Originally from: ufologyinuk-digest-help@...
      Original Subject: [ufologyinuk] Digest 2 Nov 2001 00:18:09 -0000 Issue 119
      Original Date: 2 Nov 2001 00:18:09 -0000

      ========================== Forwarded message begins ======================


      Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 13:50:24 -0000
      From: "Jenny Randles" <nufon@...>
      Subject: Covering Up

      From: Jason Leigh

      >Jenny: In answering your question below about 'the dummies,'
      and 'who suggested I had?' As I recall--YOU mentioned them in a
      previous post. Recall?

      Hi,

      Sorry, Jason. I dont think that I did.

      You appear to be seeing things that are not in my messages . I
      certainly do not support the crash dummies story, never said
      that I did and never even discussed the issue on this list.

      >What is wrong with this picture is you write with such profound
      authority.

      I dont write with any authority, profound or otherwise. I write
      purely from my own experience and express my opinion. No more,
      no less. If you dont agree with it, okay, then I am not going to
      worry unduly about that.

      > You dismiss the testimony (for instance) of the Roswell
      elders--who were forced into submission by the USA FEDs and
      Army--with 'death threats' if they were to come forward--which
      they tried to do back in 1947.

      I dont recall dismissing the testimony of any 'elders'. Like
      where?

      What I suggested was that the events in l947 were regarded as a
      security threat. So the people on base either didnt know what
      they were dealing with at first (and clearly did suspect it was
      a real UFO) or some did know and were mindful it had national
      security implications.

      Either way I dont doubt they bullied some people into silence
      since it is obvious that they did not want it debated in public.

      In that period in history (post WW II when the US were caught
      snoozing at Pearl Harbor and at the onset of times when they
      were fearing a Communist threat) there was mounting paranoia. So
      such a reaction is not only likely it is almost inevitable.

      >You dismiss the FACT that the Roswell radio station was
      threatened by the FEDs to revoke their F.C.C. license if they
      didn't stop reporting on the Roswell crash--in 1947.

      I have dismissed no such thing. I said, if you read my message,
      that they planted a cover story about a weather balloon to
      silence the media and I am quite happy with the idea that they
      probably threatened radio stations too. A cover story about a
      weather balloon means just that - they tried to make people
      believe that's what it was but it wasnt. Otherwise it would not
      have been a cover story it would have been a true story.

      Obviously, the thing was 'not' a mundane balloon. But equally
      obviously it was sufficiently like one for that ruse to have had
      any effect. Ponder that important point.

      If the wreckage had, for example, looked like a downed space
      shuttle then seeking to fob folk off with a weather balloon tale
      would have gotten nowhere because the difference between what
      was actually reported by eye witnesses and what the Pentagon
      tried to claim was really present would be immediately apparent
      and plainly absurd.

      Yet in reality the Roswell debris, as described, was not wildly
      at odds with the balloon fiction - and the similarities were
      enough to make the cover story plausible at the time.

      I dont profess it 'was' a weather balloon, but the above
      suggests some kind of balloon like technology with perhaps some
      state of the arts plastic / or radio equipment that might have
      been used in a classified experiment. The witness accounts of
      the Roswell debris do not immediately conjure up images of
      something well equipped to shuttle at light speed across the
      universe - or, come to that, anything remotely akin to 99.999%
      of the UFOs that have been reported since l947. Why does nobody
      see the warning of that? Or was the alien ship at Roswell a one
      off model sponsored by Goodyear?

      Unfortunately, too many people judge Roswell on its post modern
      impressionist imagery as sketched in by countless movies and TV
      'documentaries' that always make it out to look like a
      spacecraft. But what you have to do - like I said in my last
      message - is go back to the original statements by witnesses -
      and interpret Roswell l947 not Roswell 2001. When you do that
      you reasonably should ask yourself does this really sound like a
      wrecked spaceship or some kind of earthly experiment.

      But none of the reaction by the powers that be at the time has
      much to do with whether the object involved 'was' actually an
      alien spaceship. Only with the fact that it was considered a
      sensitive issue at the time - which is something not in doubt as
      far as I am concerned.

      You cannot assume that behind every apparent cover up even of
      an apparent UFO story there lies an actual cover up of an actual
      alien saucer. Hiding our own technology happens all the time.

      > The testimony of the station's owner--and the manger are all
      out there: you just either haven't read them--or you refuse to
      believe personal testimony from elderly people who have
      absolutely nothing to gain--who relate this great truth with
      tears in their eyes. Why would they lie?

      Dont be so patronising. Of course I have read them.

      Perhaps we should be asking why you are leaping to wild
      conclusions and putting words in my mouth that I have never
      used. Like supporting crash dummy tests and accusing the above
      witnesses of fibbing. Neither of which have any relationship
      with what I wrote.

      >I was the cameraman who interviewed Major Jesse Marcel before
      he died, and I can tell you: the man was honest--with one foot
      in the grave when we interviewed him: "It all really happened."
      Even his son (Jr.), a respected medical doctor--relates that he
      held the pieces of the wreckage in his hands. Why would he lie?

      I repeat it is your silly allegation that I have suggested that
      he did. I believe Marcel told it basically as he experienced it
      and offered his views of what he thought of this in the late
      l970s. But he didnt 'know' it was an alien craft any more than
      you or I do now.

      >There is proof that Roswell and Randlesham really happened--you
      simply haven't found it yet, or you refuse to believe the
      testimony of HONEST people.

      I trust list members will appreciate why I will not bother with
      further replies. I dont have hours of the day to give over to
      responding to ill mannered rants that accuse me of stuff that is
      simply fiction. Or pointedly to use words like 'Randlesham' when
      presumably Jason does know its real name.

      But when is saying that I believe there may be an explanation to
      a case (and most cases 'do' have explanations - not all of them,
      of course - but most) - tantamount to, as you suggest, claiming
      the case didnt happen?

      I have never for one second intimated that either Roswell or
      Rendlesham did not happen - as patently they both do involve
      some kind of puzzling incident.

      But isnt the job of the UFOlogist to try to explain what
      happened, if we can, and only accept that a case is unresolved
      if thats the best bet? Isnt that also the scientific method? It
      is not the job of the UFOlogist to cry spaceship and cover up
      every time a case seems mystifying. This should be a last resort
      not the thing we are all hoping for each time.

      I think that is a fundamental problem. Some UFOlogists are here
      to prove their own beliefs, others simply to learn what may be
      going on. There is room for both but they address the issues
      from such widely differing perspectives that it is pointless
      trying to win a battle of worldviews since these disparate
      groups are never going to agree.

      What you appear to be saying (apologies if I read this wrong) is
      that if I dont buy your interpretation of either case then I am
      accusing witnesses of lieing and I am naive and I am denouncing
      the cases.

      But frankly that is nonsense.

      >Dearest Jenny: what folks like you don't stop to realize, nor
      consider: is YOU CANNOT PROVE THAT THERE IS NO UFO COVER UP--now
      can you?

      I have never suggested that I could. All I have ever done is
      told you what I think is the best interpretation of the
      conflicts of evidence.

      But if as you suggest here I must somehow 'prove' that there is
      no cover up and since I cannot do this than (I assume you mean)
      therefore there has to be one - must we also assume that you are
      a giraffe, because I cannot prove that you are not a giraffe on
      the evidence I have seen.

      Of course the above is silly and no offence is intended here.

      I made this analogy deliberately daft to show that it is not
      reasonable to be asked to prove a negative unless the view that
      you are being required to disprove is the most likely truth.

      Obviously, we all know you are not a giraffe - even though I
      certainly could not prove it right now if asked. So it is a moot
      argument to suggest we ought to have to prove that you are not a
      girafee. Or indeed that I am not. Or indeed that anyone on this
      list is not.The silliness could go on indfefinitely.

      All people make value judgements based on available evidence.
      I said, clearly enough, what I think. The powers that be are
      bothered by UFOs owing to their public relations consequences,
      that they were railroaded into handling them as a defence issue
      owing to their perceived defence implications at the very start
      of the mystery and that they dont actually know what some UFO
      events reflect so they prefer not to admit that they would have
      to call some UFOs unexplained.

      This is largely because saying that would be immediately seized
      upon by some folk as an admission that the government are
      admitting UFOs are alien, even though being unexplained and
      being alien are in reality totally different things.

      Thats how I read the evidence. I dont consider it my job to
      prove to you that this interpretation 'must' be true - or that
      your interpretation (which I presume to be that proof of alien
      contact is being deliberately concealed) is false. If you want
      to prove the cover up, in that stronger sense, please go ahead.
      If you achieve it I will be happy to congratulate you. I dont
      have any real desire one way or the other as to whether there is
      / is not a cover up of aliens. My only concern is to make a
      reasonable estimate based on the available evidence. Which I
      have tried to do.

      >Therefore, it shouldn't be such a profound passion for you.

      What shouldnt be? I dont have a particular passion regarding the
      cover up. I have simply offered my views in response to
      questions on this list that were posed about it to me. If I had
      not replied I would be accused of running aaway / failing to
      answer. If I do reply I am accused of having a passion.

      Whats the point. I might as well not answer as I cannot win
      either way.

      I regard the so-called cover up as a minor (and distracting)
      issue within UFOlogy. The real questions to me concern what UFOs
      are - not what some bureaucratically challenged government
      department may or may not think. The powers that be cannot sort
      out world hunger, getting hospitals to run efficiently and
      running trains on time. I hardly think they would be the place
      to where I would turn for some definitive answer about UFOs. Why
      do you think it is?

      It is UFOlogists who make the MoD out to be more than they ever
      can be with regards to UFOlogy. The only people who can solve
      the UFO mystery are UFOlogists - and if we spent more time
      trying to do that instead of arguing round in circles over some
      perceived (but in my view) non existent government conspiracy to
      keep us in the dark, we might get somewhere.

      Its a bit like saying - the weather is cold, I need a fire. I
      have a fire but am not turning it on because I 'know' there is a
      conspiracy to stop power stations providing adequate heat so the
      best way to get warm is to attack the government and demand they
      'free' the power stations and let my fire work properly.

      Or, you could switch on your fire!

      Stuff the government. UFOlogy supposedly exists to investigate
      UFOs. What does it matter what some shady department is up to -
      if its up to anything much of real relevance to us (which I
      doubt)?

      Yes, I have a passion for understanding UFOs, but like I have
      said on this list this week, I do believe there are unexplained
      phenomena behind some UFO cases - things that science could
      benefit from exploring. So why shouldnt I have?

      >It is for people like me who have seen them with their won
      eyes--videotaped them--took photographs of them--or who have
      simply drawn pictures of them--that it is such a 'passion.' As I
      call in one of my articles: "Desperation to be believed . . ."

      But when I have ever said that I dont 'believe' witnesses? I
      usually believe they have seen something that they consider
      strange, because that is usually true. I sometimes believe
      (after studying the evidence) (although rather less often) that
      they might have seen something truly interesting and novel - ie
      a 'real' UFO, since I am sure these exist too .

      I dont even deny that it is possible they might have encountered
      aliens; although I am not persuaded of that in the absence of
      substantive proof of that possibility.

      So just exactly where does what I am actually arguing come close
      to the extreme interpretation you offer as to what I am arguing?
      As far as I can see it doesnt.

      And with that I intend to respectfully withdraw from this
      circuitous argument.

      Best wishes,

      Jenny Randles

      ------------------------------

      ========================== Forwarded message ends ========================
    • Roger Anderton
      Jenny says okay, up to : It is UFOlogists who make the MoD out to be more than they ever can be with regards to UFOlogy. The only people who can solve
      Message 2 of 2 , Nov 4, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        Jenny says okay, up to : >>>>>>It is UFOlogists who make the MoD out to be
        more than they ever can be with regards to UFOlogy. The only people who can
        solve
        the UFO mystery are UFOlogists - and if we spent more time
        trying to do that instead of arguing round in circles over some
        perceived (but in my view) non existent government conspiracy to
        keep us in the dark, we might get somewhere.

        In UFONET listing: How Churchill chased Flying saucers

        Churchill asked for a report on flying saucers. His advisors thought the
        subject was a National Security threat.

        >>>>The phenomenon terrified the top brass on both sides of the
        Atlantic. Generals were worried that reports of flying saucers
        could be used by the Soviet Union to disguise an earthly attack
        or that the sightings were giving the Russians a clue that
        Britain's radar network was faulty and easy to penetrate - which
        was actually true but unknown within the Soviet bloc.

        '>>>>This was a time of great paranoia and fear. The Government took
        a decision to throw a blanket over the UFO scare and say as
        little as possible about it,' said Clarke.

        >>>>>'There certainly was a cover-up, but what was being covered up
        was Cold War paranoia and our fears over our radar system. It
        was nothing to do with aliens.'

        i.e there was a UFO Cover Up at that time to cover up the fact that the
        governments did not know the answer as to what UFOs were.
        So, when Jenny says there was a nonexistent UFO conspiracy, she is wrong the
        conspiracy was not to cover up 'aliens as the answer to UFOs' the conspiracy
        was to cover up 'they didnt know what UFOs were', if we believe this report!

        Unfortunately the UFO subject has fed too many paranoia feelings, and the
        Churchill listing says:
        >>>>>>Even today, the report is unlikely to dispel the convictions of
        thousands of British UFO-believers, despite a collapse in the
        number of sightings and the closure ear lier this year of the
        British Flying Saucer Bureau. 'Believers will say that this
        report is fake or a decoy and that the Government is still
        hiding something. You cannot win,' said Roberts.

        So some people will believe that there is a conspiracy to cover up aliens.

        But whether you believe the report or believe it a decoy, the part of the
        conclusion that remains the same is that THERE WAS A UFO COVER UP. The
        difference in opinion is to what is being covered up.

        ----- Original Message -----
        From: "Frits Westra" <fwestra@...>
        To: <UFOnet@yahoogroups.com>
        Sent: Friday, November 02, 2001 9:35 AM
        Subject: [UFOnet] Fwd = [ufologyinuk] Jenny Randles: Covering Up Roswell


        >
        > Forwarded by: fwestra@... (Frits Westra)
        > Originally from: ufologyinuk-digest-help@...
        > Original Subject: [ufologyinuk] Digest 2 Nov 2001 00:18:09 -0000 Issue 119
        > Original Date: 2 Nov 2001 00:18:09 -0000
        >
        > ========================== Forwarded message begins ======================
        >
        >
        > Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 13:50:24 -0000
        > From: "Jenny Randles" <nufon@...>
        > Subject: Covering Up
        >
        > From: Jason Leigh
        >
        > >Jenny: In answering your question below about 'the dummies,'
        > and 'who suggested I had?' As I recall--YOU mentioned them in a
        > previous post. Recall?
        >
        > Hi,
        >
        > Sorry, Jason. I dont think that I did.
        >
        > You appear to be seeing things that are not in my messages . I
        > certainly do not support the crash dummies story, never said
        > that I did and never even discussed the issue on this list.
        >
        > >What is wrong with this picture is you write with such profound
        > authority.
        >
        > I dont write with any authority, profound or otherwise. I write
        > purely from my own experience and express my opinion. No more,
        > no less. If you dont agree with it, okay, then I am not going to
        > worry unduly about that.
        >
        > > You dismiss the testimony (for instance) of the Roswell
        > elders--who were forced into submission by the USA FEDs and
        > Army--with 'death threats' if they were to come forward--which
        > they tried to do back in 1947.
        >
        > I dont recall dismissing the testimony of any 'elders'. Like
        > where?
        >
        > What I suggested was that the events in l947 were regarded as a
        > security threat. So the people on base either didnt know what
        > they were dealing with at first (and clearly did suspect it was
        > a real UFO) or some did know and were mindful it had national
        > security implications.
        >
        > Either way I dont doubt they bullied some people into silence
        > since it is obvious that they did not want it debated in public.
        >
        > In that period in history (post WW II when the US were caught
        > snoozing at Pearl Harbor and at the onset of times when they
        > were fearing a Communist threat) there was mounting paranoia. So
        > such a reaction is not only likely it is almost inevitable.
        >
        > >You dismiss the FACT that the Roswell radio station was
        > threatened by the FEDs to revoke their F.C.C. license if they
        > didn't stop reporting on the Roswell crash--in 1947.
        >
        > I have dismissed no such thing. I said, if you read my message,
        > that they planted a cover story about a weather balloon to
        > silence the media and I am quite happy with the idea that they
        > probably threatened radio stations too. A cover story about a
        > weather balloon means just that - they tried to make people
        > believe that's what it was but it wasnt. Otherwise it would not
        > have been a cover story it would have been a true story.
        >
        > Obviously, the thing was 'not' a mundane balloon. But equally
        > obviously it was sufficiently like one for that ruse to have had
        > any effect. Ponder that important point.
        >
        > If the wreckage had, for example, looked like a downed space
        > shuttle then seeking to fob folk off with a weather balloon tale
        > would have gotten nowhere because the difference between what
        > was actually reported by eye witnesses and what the Pentagon
        > tried to claim was really present would be immediately apparent
        > and plainly absurd.
        >
        > Yet in reality the Roswell debris, as described, was not wildly
        > at odds with the balloon fiction - and the similarities were
        > enough to make the cover story plausible at the time.
        >
        > I dont profess it 'was' a weather balloon, but the above
        > suggests some kind of balloon like technology with perhaps some
        > state of the arts plastic / or radio equipment that might have
        > been used in a classified experiment. The witness accounts of
        > the Roswell debris do not immediately conjure up images of
        > something well equipped to shuttle at light speed across the
        > universe - or, come to that, anything remotely akin to 99.999%
        > of the UFOs that have been reported since l947. Why does nobody
        > see the warning of that? Or was the alien ship at Roswell a one
        > off model sponsored by Goodyear?
        >
        > Unfortunately, too many people judge Roswell on its post modern
        > impressionist imagery as sketched in by countless movies and TV
        > 'documentaries' that always make it out to look like a
        > spacecraft. But what you have to do - like I said in my last
        > message - is go back to the original statements by witnesses -
        > and interpret Roswell l947 not Roswell 2001. When you do that
        > you reasonably should ask yourself does this really sound like a
        > wrecked spaceship or some kind of earthly experiment.
        >
        > But none of the reaction by the powers that be at the time has
        > much to do with whether the object involved 'was' actually an
        > alien spaceship. Only with the fact that it was considered a
        > sensitive issue at the time - which is something not in doubt as
        > far as I am concerned.
        >
        > You cannot assume that behind every apparent cover up even of
        > an apparent UFO story there lies an actual cover up of an actual
        > alien saucer. Hiding our own technology happens all the time.
        >
        > > The testimony of the station's owner--and the manger are all
        > out there: you just either haven't read them--or you refuse to
        > believe personal testimony from elderly people who have
        > absolutely nothing to gain--who relate this great truth with
        > tears in their eyes. Why would they lie?
        >
        > Dont be so patronising. Of course I have read them.
        >
        > Perhaps we should be asking why you are leaping to wild
        > conclusions and putting words in my mouth that I have never
        > used. Like supporting crash dummy tests and accusing the above
        > witnesses of fibbing. Neither of which have any relationship
        > with what I wrote.
        >
        > >I was the cameraman who interviewed Major Jesse Marcel before
        > he died, and I can tell you: the man was honest--with one foot
        > in the grave when we interviewed him: "It all really happened."
        > Even his son (Jr.), a respected medical doctor--relates that he
        > held the pieces of the wreckage in his hands. Why would he lie?
        >
        > I repeat it is your silly allegation that I have suggested that
        > he did. I believe Marcel told it basically as he experienced it
        > and offered his views of what he thought of this in the late
        > l970s. But he didnt 'know' it was an alien craft any more than
        > you or I do now.
        >
        > >There is proof that Roswell and Randlesham really happened--you
        > simply haven't found it yet, or you refuse to believe the
        > testimony of HONEST people.
        >
        > I trust list members will appreciate why I will not bother with
        > further replies. I dont have hours of the day to give over to
        > responding to ill mannered rants that accuse me of stuff that is
        > simply fiction. Or pointedly to use words like 'Randlesham' when
        > presumably Jason does know its real name.
        >
        > But when is saying that I believe there may be an explanation to
        > a case (and most cases 'do' have explanations - not all of them,
        > of course - but most) - tantamount to, as you suggest, claiming
        > the case didnt happen?
        >
        > I have never for one second intimated that either Roswell or
        > Rendlesham did not happen - as patently they both do involve
        > some kind of puzzling incident.
        >
        > But isnt the job of the UFOlogist to try to explain what
        > happened, if we can, and only accept that a case is unresolved
        > if thats the best bet? Isnt that also the scientific method? It
        > is not the job of the UFOlogist to cry spaceship and cover up
        > every time a case seems mystifying. This should be a last resort
        > not the thing we are all hoping for each time.
        >
        > I think that is a fundamental problem. Some UFOlogists are here
        > to prove their own beliefs, others simply to learn what may be
        > going on. There is room for both but they address the issues
        > from such widely differing perspectives that it is pointless
        > trying to win a battle of worldviews since these disparate
        > groups are never going to agree.
        >
        > What you appear to be saying (apologies if I read this wrong) is
        > that if I dont buy your interpretation of either case then I am
        > accusing witnesses of lieing and I am naive and I am denouncing
        > the cases.
        >
        > But frankly that is nonsense.
        >
        > >Dearest Jenny: what folks like you don't stop to realize, nor
        > consider: is YOU CANNOT PROVE THAT THERE IS NO UFO COVER UP--now
        > can you?
        >
        > I have never suggested that I could. All I have ever done is
        > told you what I think is the best interpretation of the
        > conflicts of evidence.
        >
        > But if as you suggest here I must somehow 'prove' that there is
        > no cover up and since I cannot do this than (I assume you mean)
        > therefore there has to be one - must we also assume that you are
        > a giraffe, because I cannot prove that you are not a giraffe on
        > the evidence I have seen.
        >
        > Of course the above is silly and no offence is intended here.
        >
        > I made this analogy deliberately daft to show that it is not
        > reasonable to be asked to prove a negative unless the view that
        > you are being required to disprove is the most likely truth.
        >
        > Obviously, we all know you are not a giraffe - even though I
        > certainly could not prove it right now if asked. So it is a moot
        > argument to suggest we ought to have to prove that you are not a
        > girafee. Or indeed that I am not. Or indeed that anyone on this
        > list is not.The silliness could go on indfefinitely.
        >
        > All people make value judgements based on available evidence.
        > I said, clearly enough, what I think. The powers that be are
        > bothered by UFOs owing to their public relations consequences,
        > that they were railroaded into handling them as a defence issue
        > owing to their perceived defence implications at the very start
        > of the mystery and that they dont actually know what some UFO
        > events reflect so they prefer not to admit that they would have
        > to call some UFOs unexplained.
        >
        > This is largely because saying that would be immediately seized
        > upon by some folk as an admission that the government are
        > admitting UFOs are alien, even though being unexplained and
        > being alien are in reality totally different things.
        >
        > Thats how I read the evidence. I dont consider it my job to
        > prove to you that this interpretation 'must' be true - or that
        > your interpretation (which I presume to be that proof of alien
        > contact is being deliberately concealed) is false. If you want
        > to prove the cover up, in that stronger sense, please go ahead.
        > If you achieve it I will be happy to congratulate you. I dont
        > have any real desire one way or the other as to whether there is
        > / is not a cover up of aliens. My only concern is to make a
        > reasonable estimate based on the available evidence. Which I
        > have tried to do.
        >
        > >Therefore, it shouldn't be such a profound passion for you.
        >
        > What shouldnt be? I dont have a particular passion regarding the
        > cover up. I have simply offered my views in response to
        > questions on this list that were posed about it to me. If I had
        > not replied I would be accused of running aaway / failing to
        > answer. If I do reply I am accused of having a passion.
        >
        > Whats the point. I might as well not answer as I cannot win
        > either way.
        >
        > I regard the so-called cover up as a minor (and distracting)
        > issue within UFOlogy. The real questions to me concern what UFOs
        > are - not what some bureaucratically challenged government
        > department may or may not think. The powers that be cannot sort
        > out world hunger, getting hospitals to run efficiently and
        > running trains on time. I hardly think they would be the place
        > to where I would turn for some definitive answer about UFOs. Why
        > do you think it is?
        >
        > It is UFOlogists who make the MoD out to be more than they ever
        > can be with regards to UFOlogy. The only people who can solve
        > the UFO mystery are UFOlogists - and if we spent more time
        > trying to do that instead of arguing round in circles over some
        > perceived (but in my view) non existent government conspiracy to
        > keep us in the dark, we might get somewhere.
        >
        > Its a bit like saying - the weather is cold, I need a fire. I
        > have a fire but am not turning it on because I 'know' there is a
        > conspiracy to stop power stations providing adequate heat so the
        > best way to get warm is to attack the government and demand they
        > 'free' the power stations and let my fire work properly.
        >
        > Or, you could switch on your fire!
        >
        > Stuff the government. UFOlogy supposedly exists to investigate
        > UFOs. What does it matter what some shady department is up to -
        > if its up to anything much of real relevance to us (which I
        > doubt)?
        >
        > Yes, I have a passion for understanding UFOs, but like I have
        > said on this list this week, I do believe there are unexplained
        > phenomena behind some UFO cases - things that science could
        > benefit from exploring. So why shouldnt I have?
        >
        > >It is for people like me who have seen them with their won
        > eyes--videotaped them--took photographs of them--or who have
        > simply drawn pictures of them--that it is such a 'passion.' As I
        > call in one of my articles: "Desperation to be believed . . ."
        >
        > But when I have ever said that I dont 'believe' witnesses? I
        > usually believe they have seen something that they consider
        > strange, because that is usually true. I sometimes believe
        > (after studying the evidence) (although rather less often) that
        > they might have seen something truly interesting and novel - ie
        > a 'real' UFO, since I am sure these exist too .
        >
        > I dont even deny that it is possible they might have encountered
        > aliens; although I am not persuaded of that in the absence of
        > substantive proof of that possibility.
        >
        > So just exactly where does what I am actually arguing come close
        > to the extreme interpretation you offer as to what I am arguing?
        > As far as I can see it doesnt.
        >
        > And with that I intend to respectfully withdraw from this
        > circuitous argument.
        >
        > Best wishes,
        >
        > Jenny Randles
        >
        > ------------------------------
        >
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.