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

FWD: [UFORMilitary] CHANNELING & OTHER UFO SILLINESS *Reader discretion advised*

Expand Messages
  • Frits Westra
    ===================== From: Francisco LopezFrom: Michael Estes Via: ufolist@egroups.com
    Message 1 of 1 , Jul 2, 1999
    • 0 Attachment
      From: Francisco Lopez <d005734c@...>

      From: Michael Estes <mestes@...>
      Via: ufolist@egroups.com <ufolist@egroups.com>

      *R-rated language*

      Let's stir up the pot!

      Do not read if you are overly sensitive to certain vibrational sound


      The Gateway to Intelligent Infinity

      * * *

      by John Shirley

      You want to talk about UFOs? We can talk about UFOs. But you want to talk
      about CHANNELING UFOs? For a minute or two, sure.

      I can't make a whole lot of time for horseshit.

      Here's what I want to know: why can't ufology eliminate, at least, the
      obviously silly? The stuff that makes rational people turn away from
      ufology muttering, "Get a clue!" Stuff like channeling, and people who
      tell stories about visits aboard UFOs in which the aliens act just like
      the ones the experiencer saw in movies when they were little; abduction
      experiences that are silly in their resemblance to bad science fiction
      movies. Billy Meier videos of "dinosaurs" and his photos of the pretty
      alien lady "Asket". Or videos of airplanes and helicopter lights, of
      really, really obvious stunt kites. I mean, stuff that doesn't even fool
      my kids -- who laughed at an Ed Walters' "UFO" video I was screening;
      howled at its silliness without any prompting from me. Why can't we, at
      least, turn away from sheer silliness?

      Sure, lots of ufologists ridicule Meier, for example, now, but some take
      him seriously and for a long time many more did. The German UFO magazine
      UFO-Kurier reports that a Meier photo of Asket, a pretty lady from "the
      Pleides", was actually taken from a videotape of The Dean Martin Show!
      "Asket" was some woman dancing or singing on The Dean Martin Show -- and
      she had an exotic face so Billy Hubcaps took a picture of the screen and
      said it was a blurry photo taken aboard a spaceship. UFO-Kurier shows both
      pictures for comparison. It's her all right. But why did we have to go
      that far to prove anything? Show me a picture of a pretty lady with
      straight flaxen hair and a 70s look, a blurry background, tell me it was
      taken on a spaceship, and I'll laugh, and I'll say, "That's silly." I
      didn't need the Kurier's proof. (Maybe they're just providing it for
      amusement). Meier was patently silly from the start.

      I was briefly a member of MUFON. I my membership lapse because they would
      insist on booking charlatans who projected slides of Sumerian gods they
      passed off as "ancient astronauts," and CHANNELERS who were in "contact"
      with "aliens," for the MUFON lecture series. Listen to a channeler do his
      or her thing -- just be a little objective, put aside the desire to
      believe-in-advance -- and you shrivel from embarrassment, or you
      laugh...because it's SILLY. These people are living, breathing Saturday
      Night Live sketches.

      Channeling as a concept, even...Just give me one solid reason, just one,
      just one little tiny reason, a microscopically tiny reason, to believe in
      channelers. No channeler has ever obtained from their alien correspondents
      any scientifically testable information; no asteroids or comets they know
      about that we don't, that they could point out; and certainly no landing
      sites to visit where they'll be waiting (occasionally some were offered -
      but the aliens invariably failed to show up). Judging from the disparity
      between types of aliens described by the various channelers, there are
      apparently many, many races swarming round our planet. These aliens, we're
      told, are REALLY CONCERNED for our well being, but they all uniformly
      refuse, evidently, to give us any really useful information -- like the
      FUCKING CURE FOR CANCER for God's sake. YES: How about a cure for cancer,
      you bandy legged eggheaded , greyblue, noseless little bastards? How about
      an antigravity formula? How about ONE SINGLE PIECE OF SCIENTIFIC
      INFORMATION, confirmable, that we don't have? Nothing's forthcoming. Hey,
      they don't want to spoil us, right?

      I'm a pretty good performer; been on stage as singer, put across many
      other media, and I know I could channel like a motherfucker. Just set me
      up at a MUFON meeting, I'll go into a very believable looking trance, I'll
      come up with a very believable alien-voice, which will spout comfortingly
      exotic platitudes. I could be cleaning up on this shit. All you need is
      imagination and some acting ability. And you need to be reasonably
      articulate...Um, come to think of it, slightly articulate will do. It's a
      self-starter's industry, man. No overhead.

      I'm ranting about this because there are a surprising number of people who
      still take saucer-channelers seriously -- otherwise intelligent people
      like Michael Lindenmann who does the quite valuable CNI newsletter. The
      people at LA MUFON. The CSETI people...

      No one seems to have learned anything from Heaven's Gate.

      And I put so-called "vectoring" and "remote sensing" in the same category.
      There do seem to have been some military intelligence experiments with
      "remote sensing." Jimmy Carter says there was, and he's almost the only
      politician I trust. (Hey, this guy has done more good in the world since
      being president than all of the presidents who've presided since then.)
      And in fact I happen to know that some psychic phenomena is real. It's
      almost as rare as hen's teeth; and if there are 1,000,000 psychics,
      999,999 of them are liars or self-deluded -- but it exists. And maybe
      there have been some more-than-lucky remote sensing hits in the military
      intelligence context. I doubt if any of the self-promoting remote sensors
      claiming to have been working for the government really did; and if they
      did I doubt they had any success. But they don't have to have been
      successful; with the UFO field in its current state, they only have to SAY
      they were successful.

      That's the wonderful thing about remote sensing -- since it has a
      technical sound to it (like the even-more-questionable "reverse speech
      analysis"), and the apparent, hearsay validation of military intelligence
      involvement...man, that's good enough for ufology. I have never seen one
      clear-cut piece of evidence (something that appears on a Web site is not a
      piece of evidence, it's something that appears on a Web site) that any of
      the field's notorious remote sensors participated in any kind of
      successful remote sensing program. I can't count how many flying saucer
      experts and witnesses supposedly used to work for the CIA or Naval
      Intelligence -- or something similar, so long as it confers spurious
      credibility. (Derrel Sims, for example. I can prove that I worked for the
      CIA -- as much as Derrel Sims did. I didn't -- and neither did he.)

      Documentation apparently isn't necessary in the UFO field; not real
      documentation. We'll believe anything as long as they tell a good story,
      the way Stephen Greer used to. But Greer's losing it: Recently he
      "remotely sensed" that U.S. military forces attacked an "underground alien
      base"; nerve gas was involved; many casualties. All hushed up of course.
      Well, he used to tell a good story. But give it time and the best liar
      will start leaking at the seams. Underground alien bases...Lord...

      Greer has failed to "remotely vector in" (psychically summon) any UFOs
      where anyone outside his cronies in CSETI can see them. He has failed to
      give us any videotaped evidence of the saucer visits he's reported (there
      are a couple of ludicrous videos of small, fuzzy, distant lights moving
      about -- airplanes, stars taped with wobbling cameras, etc.)...But of
      course, as in all such encounters, the saucers, I assume, reach out and
      blot out the cameras...or make the cameramen forget them. Greer, in his
      lectures, shows us photos of spacecraft in the sky, the familiar photos
      you can see in the usual UFO books -- including some proven hoaxes; but we
      are to believe that cameras which evidently work for the people who took
      the pictures in his slide-show, won't work for him, for some reason. Why
      don't cameras work for Greer, in filming UFOs. when they supposedly work
      for others? What -- don't the aliens like the guy?

      The lady who sees the Grey Dudes regularly appear in her bathroom -- the
      lady with a book to sell -- can't, of course, set up a video cam to catch
      the little guy and his various weird alien pals who show up with him at
      times, because, naturally, the aliens emanate a field, or something, which
      blots those cameras, too. People all over the world have video cameras;
      people all over the world have face to face encounters with aliens and
      chupacabras and yet those particular people are always without their video
      cameras and their Nikons. Every damn time.

      When UFOs are videotaped, it's always in the far distance -- though there
      are many reports of people seeing them up close. Somehow the people who
      see them up close never have video cameras or even Polaroid cameras with
      them (or it just happens to be a dark night). The UFOs only appear to
      people who have no video cameras, or are far away. But of course,
      naturally, the greys are psychically arranging all this. That particular
      Sheer Silliness -- The Silly Excuse -- is fundamental to Ufology Today.

      There's that new video from Mexico City -- the one they showed on UPN in
      April. How about that? It comes to us via Jaime Maussan, the guy who gave
      us the Masters of the Stars video, along with the Elders, the people who
      used to tout Billy Meier, and it's been clearly demonstrated that key
      saucer footage in Masters of the Stars is hoaxed. But giving the guy the
      benefit of the doubt anyway, we look at the new video, and it looks damned
      good, just like a special effect should. It's so very obviously digital.
      Computer animation.

      No, you can't trust images of things flying about in the sky, not in 1998,
      if you ever could. Too easy to fake. But a close up of an alien, that
      might be a little more convincing...walking, talking, breathing. Not that
      shitty, fake looking one supposedly smuggled out of Area 51, that one
      doesn't make it. Not the rubbery bodies repudiated by special effects
      experts in the alien autopsy film; the ones with the guts I recognize from
      cleaning fish. Not that photo of the little kid in the grey alien mask
      that was anonymously sent to Whitley Streiber. I mean something that isn't
      obvious bullshit. Show me that.

      Show me something. But don't parade channelers and remote viewers and
      ludicrous cult leaders like Rael and blurry messages from Grey Dudes, and
      bad science fiction scenes -- farcical material from people who ask us for
      more faith than Billy Graham does...Turn away from the silly, as a reflex.
      Eliminate it out of hand. Get serious.

      You want to do some serious research? Recently, Sightings on the Radio's
      Web site [UFOR Editor's Note: the same that insisted in showing an
      allegued UFO crash in Lajas, Puerto Rico, actually a hoax, as real and
      silenced the the field researchers that uncovered it] had a wonderful UFO
      report from a Canadian naval officer. During the Korean War, the guy --
      and some others on his naval ship -- saw a flying saucer up pretty damn
      close, hovering nearby. He's just coming out with the story now. He gives
      definite information about himself. So how about finding this guy, how
      about confirming his military rank and record, how about confirming he was
      on that ship, how about tracking down the other witnesses, how about
      getting affidavits from a group of strongly reputable military men who saw
      something alien up close? Or how about really doggedly pursuing that
      tantalizing 1942 Battle of L.A. case? Then you might have something.

      The point is, those cases, the ones with real evidence to them, are out
      there. But just reporting them as hearsay doesn't make it. We're told
      about the "Russian Roswell" at "Gj coordinates -- between 42 degrees 10
      minutes-42 degrees 2 minutes of northern latitude, and between 70 degrees
      40 minutes-79 degrees 42 minutes of east longitude. Kirghizia, to the east
      of lake Isyk-Kul, 100 km. exact on east from Przehalks town..." Those are
      pretty exact coordinates. How about if one of those Interested
      millionaires giving grants to ufological investigators sends an expedition
      there, to that exact spot, where supposedly physical evidence resides,
      instead of just talking about it?

      How about if we get serious?

      FreeShop is the #1 place for free and trial offers and great deals!
      Try something new and discover more ways to save!

      eGroups.com home: http://www.egroups.com/group/ufolist
      http://www.egroups.com - Simplifying group communications
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.