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

Re: [UFOnet] Fwd: Re: John Lear's comments on Area 51

Expand Messages
  • Michael Martin
    MM: ... MM: I just posted an account of a UFO sighting that my wife and I experienced. You write with a big IF. My wife and I know what we saw, and this is
    Message 1 of 30 , Dec 2, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      MM:
      My reply is below:

      --- Joe McGonagle <joe@...> wrote:

      > On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 19:38:53 -0000, Michael Martin
      > wrote
      >
      > >--- In ufonet@yahoogroups.com, "Joe McGonagle"
      > <joe@u...>
      > wrote:
      >
      > <snip my text relating to motivation for claims of
      > "contact"
      > etc>
      >
      > >MM:
      > >Joe, my advice to you is, don't throw out the baby
      > >with the bathwater.
      >
      > Unfortunately, it is more the case of a baby in the
      > sea rather
      > than a baby in a bath. If there is anything at all
      > in what I
      > regard as mystical nonsense, it is buried so deep in
      > the rest
      > of the trash that it simply isn't worth the effort
      > of trying to
      > sort through it.

      MM:
      I just posted an account of a UFO sighting that my
      wife and I experienced. You write with a big "IF."
      My wife and I know what we saw, and this is aside from
      my meditation. There is no "IF," regarding our
      experience. So, I'd say you can speak for yourself,
      not for my wife and I, nor for thousands of others
      who've had similar experiences.

      It still seems to me, that you want to throw out the
      baby with the bathwater, but that's your prerogative.

      > >>To Michael, I would ask - assuming that you
      > receive
      > >>these "meditative communications" or whatever you
      > might call
      > >>them, how do you know their origin? My personal
      > opinion is
      > that
      > >>they are internally generated by your own mind,
      > but someone
      > >>with a religious belief could well interpret them
      > as messages
      > >>from angels or even Satan - how do you _know_ that
      > these
      > >>messages are not from Satan, and that you are
      > carrying out
      > >>_his_ work by disseminating them? It would be
      > ironic, if
      > after
      > >>you pop your clogs, the Angel Gabriel gives you
      > the finger
      > for
      > >>carrying out Satan's work.
      >
      > >MM:
      > >Whenever anyone claims access to transcendental
      > planes
      > >of consciousness, then it's up to us, whether to
      > have
      > >faith in the claims, or not.
      >
      > So you are not only expecting people to have faith
      > in you (that
      > you really are having these mystical experiences),

      MM:
      I'm not expecting anything. I just report, but some
      seeds always fall on barren ground. Some might fall
      on fertile ground, though.

      > but also to
      > trust your judgement in relation whether or not the
      > entities
      > are what they appear to you to be.
      >
      > You have failed to address the core of the question,
      > which was
      > how you can eliminate the possibility that the
      > supposed
      > contacts are internally generated, or
      > misrepresenting
      > themselves to you.

      MM:
      I can tell you what my experiences are, but you will
      have to decide, whether to put faith in them, or not.
      Faith is not something new. It's been around for a
      long time. When you're dealing with metaphysical
      events, then we might have no physical proof, hence
      the necessity to have faith, or not.

      > This question is fundamental to
      > your claims,
      > and something that you really should ask yourself
      > and honestly
      > answer (for your benefit).

      MM:
      This assumption, that I've never asked myself over 41
      years is quite amazing.

      > It is also analogous to this medium, an email forum.
      > You
      > present yourself as a Guru, yet for all we know you
      > might be a
      > convicted serial killer, currently serving time in a
      > prison
      > with internet access. I should also point out that I
      > might not
      > even be who I say I am. These are misrepresentations
      > which are
      > possible in the physical world, it is far easier to
      > achieve in
      > a supposed spiritual world, where there are no audit
      > logs on
      > servers, for instance, or "spiritual police" that
      > can be
      > appealed to.

      MM:
      Have faith, or not. It's no skin off my back.

      > I suspect that the answer has to be that you don't
      > "know", but
      > that you make a guess which could be right or wrong.
      > You then
      > proceed to present the output of this guess as a
      > "fact".

      MM:
      I don't know why you would suspect that, but it's your
      prerogative. You claim that I'm guessing, but it
      seems to me, that you're the one guessing.

      > >Many of the UFO and alien sightings are claims, and
      >
      > >the same situation applies. We have to decide if
      > they
      > >are credible, or not, and if we can put faith in
      > them.
      >
      > No, it's not the same.

      MM:
      I used the word "many," not all. You also used the
      word "many," below this.

      > In many UFO-related reports there is ancilliary
      > evidence. This
      > is how 90%+ come to be identified as mundane
      > objects. In cases
      > where there are no checkable facts, all one can do
      > is make a
      > judgement as to whether the witness is telling the
      > truth as
      > they percieve it - it doesn't contribute much, if
      > anything
      > towards the identification of what they witnessed
      > or
      > experienced.

      MM:
      Have faith, or not.

      > Even if a truthful witness is convinced that they
      > conversed
      > with a blonde-haired, blue-eyed benevolent visitor
      > from the
      > planet GrnZyc, without any supporting evidence it
      > will remain a
      > possibility that the experience was internally
      > generated, or
      > some form of external illusion. To accept the
      > witness
      > description of the event as fact without any
      > corroboration
      > would be sheer folly.

      MM:
      There doesn't have to be proof, to make something
      true. It could be truth, but with no evidence
      available. This would apply to my own UFO sighting.

      > <snip>

      > >>examples. Also consider 9/11, the horror of the
      > crusades, and
      > >>the situation in the Balkans, Afghanistan, Iraq,
      > and Northern
      > >>Ireland. "meditative communications" or channeling
      > are in my
      > >>view, just another fanatical religion or
      > superstition with
      > lots
      > >>of different varieties.
      >
      > >MM:
      > >I think you're not very smart, if you're throwing
      > out
      > >the baby with the bathwater. We have to separate
      > the
      > >wheat from the chaff, and decide whether we can put
      >
      > >faith in claims, or not.
      >
      > I refer you back to the baby in the sea.
      >
      > Many of the people involved with all of the
      > incidents quoted
      > firmly (unquestionably, in their view) were
      > convinced that what
      > they were doing was morally "right", even a
      > god-given
      > obligation that they had no option but to carry out.
      > Belief or
      > faith doesn't alter the fact that they were hideous
      > atrocities.

      MM:
      I think you're going off on a bit of a tangent. You
      pick the negative aspects of events to discuss. Why
      don't you pick out some positive events. Most of the
      world is going on faith, faith in Jesus, Muhammad,
      Buddha, Guru Nanak. Frits doesn't want us to discuss
      religion, but there seems a need to balance your
      pessimistic offering with something positive. Faith
      has resulted in a lot of good, too.

      > >>In response to Linette, I am yet to be convinced
      > that:
      > >>
      > >>a) We are being visited by extraterrestrials. I
      > don't reject
      > it
      > >>as a possible resolution to some UFOs, but I think
      > it
      > unlikely.
      >
      > >MM:
      > >This is your opinion. There are many who disagree
      > >with you, as you should know.
      >
      > Indeed I do know. How many of those can provide a
      > valid
      > rationale for their differing opinions, though?

      MM:
      You're still wanting proof. That's your prerogative.
      Most of the world is making use of faith. I don't
      think I should think someone is nutty, deceiving,
      etc., just because he can't prove something. I'm
      willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. You
      seem to be unwilling to do that, even in the face of
      thousands of sightings, all over the world.
      >
      > <snip>
      >
      > >>b)"Animal mutilations" are not generated by
      > anything other
      > >>than perverse human activity or natural
      > predation/scavenging
      > by
      > >>quite terrestrial animals.
      >
      > >MM:
      > >I don't think they can be dismissed so easily.
      > There
      > >seems to be an unearthly precision regarding them.
      > > Scavengers wouldn't be capable of such a
      > precision.
      > > Even "perverse human activity," couldn't explain
      > the
      > >evidence, which has been seen.
      >
      > I have personal experience of examining cadavers
      > that would
      > most likely be classified as "animal mutilations" by
      > those
      > inclined to belief in such. I could go on at length
      > about this,
      > but I don't regard it to be on-topic for this list.
      > I will
      > however provide one notable example.
      >
      > One particular occasion comes to mind, when I saw a
      > fox coming
      > towards me at night with something in it's jaws. The
      > bulk of
      > what it was holding obscured me from it's view until
      > it got
      > very close (2 or 3 yards), at which point it dropped
      > the object
      > and ran off. I found that it had a duck. It had
      > chewed of the
      > head and neck and one of its legs, the rest was
      > intact. This
      > was a fresh kill, there was still some heat in the
      > body, but
      > there was no evidence of blood in or around the
      > wounds. The
      > wounds appeared to be seamless, with no surrounding
      > damage,
      > appearing just as a bald patch surrounded by
      > (perfectly clean)
      > feathers.
      >
      > That is only one example. There are a number of
      > others that I
      > can quote from personal experience, and yes, I have
      > a witness
      > to the one mentioned above.

      MM:
      This is no match with the surgical precision, which
      has been found in some mutilations. You should read
      the story of the human mutilation at Brazil. Here it
      is:

      http://www.think-aboutit.com/mutilations/Human_Mutilations.htm

      After studying the photos, Encarnacion Garcia was
      impressed with how similar the wounds of the body were
      to those found on the carcasses of so many mutilated
      animals. The initial police report noted that the
      body, although extremely mutilated, showed no signs of
      struggle or the application of bondage of any kind.

      The body appeared to be in good condition. Rigor
      mortis had not set in and it was estimated that the
      victim had been killed approximately 48 to 72 hours
      previously. There were no signs of animal predation or
      decay which might be expected. Strangely, there was no
      odor to the body. Bleeding from the wounds had been
      minimal. In fact, it was noted that there was a
      general lack of blood found in the body or on the
      ground around the body. Police photos show that the
      flesh and lips had been removed from around the mouth,
      as is common in cattle and other animal mutilations.
      An autopsy report stated that "the eyes and ears were
      also removed and the mouth cavity was emptied."
      Removal of these body parts, including the tongue as
      here, is common enough in animal mutilation cases.

      The "surgery" appeared to have been done by someone
      familiar with surgical procedures. The lack of profuse
      bleeding suggested the use of a laser-like instrument
      producing heat, thus immediately cauterizing the edge
      of the wounds. The autopsy report states that, "The
      axillary regions on both sides showed soft spots where
      organs had been removed. Incisions were made on the
      face, internal thorax, abdomen, legs, arms, and chest.
      Shoulders and arms have perforations of 1 to 1.5
      inches in diameter where tissue and muscles were
      extracted. The edges of the perforations were uniform
      and so was their size. The chest had shrunk due to the
      removal of internal organs." The autopsy report
      continues, "You also find the removal of the belly
      button leaving a 1.5 inch hole in the abdomen and a
      depressed abdominal cavity showing the removal of the
      intestines." The report also noted the victims scrotum
      had been removed, and that the anal orifice had been
      extracted with a large incision about 3 to 6 inches in
      diameter.

      > >>I did contemplate playing out the thread, it would
      > be very
      > easy
      > >>(but time consuming) to do so. I could invoke
      > massive
      > >>conspiracy theories about the the FBI and CIA
      > carrying out
      > >>biological (genetic) experiments on cattle and
      > needing to
      > >>measure the effects. I could also reveal that
      > there is only
      > one
      > >>alien race, deliberately pretending to be several
      > in order to
      > >>carry out psychological and social experiments on
      > humans.
      > Quite
      > >>frankly I don't have the time to do this.
      >
      > >MM:
      > >Awww. That's too bad. Did you ever read the
      > alleged
      > >accounts of the "Majestic 12?"
      >
      > Yep. Yet another example of people adopting blind
      > faith in
      > something which later on turns out to involve at
      > least some
      > elements of fakery (as is even acknowledged by one
      > of the
      > greatest supporters of MJ12, Stanton Freidman). Some
      > of those
      > propounders of the case still insist that it is
      > viable in spite
      > of the evidence of a hoax - talk about religious
      > dogma!

      MM:
      Even you mention "some elements of fakery." Are you
      open to the idea, that there might be "some elements
      of truth," to it?

      I still see a tendency that you would throw out the
      baby with the bathwater, possibly?

      > >>Another example of my thinking can be found at:
      >
      >
      >>http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/2001/dec/m13-
      > >>009.shtml
      >
      > >>postulating that the Moon is made of cheese. I
      > have developed
      > >>the theory slightly and when I have the time I
      > intend to
      > >>produce an article proving conclusively that the
      > Moon is made
      > >>of cheese! This is some time off though, I have
      > several more
      > >>productive projects on the go.
      >
      > >MM:
      > >Your "thinking," doesn't seem logical to me, and
      > >doesn't seem to allow for more logical
      > explanations.
      >
      > You clearly missed my point then, which was that a
      > large
      > proportion of bizarre stories, particularly those
      > involving
      > cover-ups (including the "New World Order") are
      > based on
      > nothing more substantial than what I used to
      > speculate that the
      > moon is made of cheese, yet people are willing to
      > "have faith"
      > in such rubbish.
      >
      > Regards,
      > Joe

      MM:
      Sometimes, truth is stranger than fiction. For
      example, if Leonardo da Vinci had explained that he
      saw visions of airplanes, machines flying through the
      air, back in the sixteenth century, people would have
      thought that he was playing with one or two cards
      short of a full deck. Now, we know the truth about
      airplanes, don't we?

      Michael




      __________________________________________
      Yahoo! DSL – Something to write home about.
      Just $16.99/mo. or less.
      dsl.yahoo.com
    • Michael Martin
      ... MM: I don t know if Joe is out of line, or not, but he seems closed minded to all the sightings, simply due to a lack of proof. Michael ...
      Message 2 of 30 , Dec 2, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        --- Linette Sukup <linettesukup@...>
        wrote:

        >
        >
        > Joe, or shall I say Lizzie, I know yyou for what or
        > rather whom you are. You
        > did a number on my garden when I wouldn't give you
        > the oatcake recipe that
        > we discussed by the river. But hey, I had a lot of
        > things to do then, and I
        > honestly forgot. You were out of line, trashing my
        > flowers and vegetables. I
        > had to tell the witch hunters, didn't I?
        > Oh, well. You just don't want them to know that I
        > know that you know that I
        > know, or something like that.
        >
        > Peace.
        > Linette

        MM:
        I don't know if Joe is out of line, or not, but he
        seems closed minded to all the sightings, simply due
        to a lack of proof.

        Michael
        >
        >
        > ----- Original Message -----
        > From: "Joe McGonagle" <joe@...>
        > To: <ufonet@yahoogroups.com>
        > Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2005 5:35 PM
        > Subject: Re: [UFOnet] Fwd: Re: John Lear's comments
        > on Area 51
        >
        >
        > > On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 19:38:53 -0000, Michael Martin
        > wrote
        > >
        > >>--- In ufonet@yahoogroups.com, "Joe McGonagle"
        > <joe@u...>
        > > wrote:
        > >
        > > <snip my text relating to motivation for claims of
        > "contact"
        > > etc>
        > >
        > >>MM:
        > >>Joe, my advice to you is, don't throw out the baby
        > >>with the bathwater.
        > >
        > > Unfortunately, it is more the case of a baby in
        > the sea rather
        > > than a baby in a bath. If there is anything at all
        > in what I
        > > regard as mystical nonsense, it is buried so deep
        > in the rest
        > > of the trash that it simply isn't worth the effort
        > of trying to
        > > sort through it.
        > >
        > >>>To Michael, I would ask - assuming that you
        > receive
        > >>>these "meditative communications" or whatever you
        > might call
        > >>>them, how do you know their origin? My personal
        > opinion is
        > > that
        > >>>they are internally generated by your own mind,
        > but someone
        > >>>with a religious belief could well interpret them
        > as messages
        > >>>from angels or even Satan - how do you _know_
        > that these
        > >>>messages are not from Satan, and that you are
        > carrying out
        > >>>_his_ work by disseminating them? It would be
        > ironic, if
        > > after
        > >>>you pop your clogs, the Angel Gabriel gives you
        > the finger
        > > for
        > >>>carrying out Satan's work.
        > >
        > >>MM:
        > >>Whenever anyone claims access to transcendental
        > planes
        > >>of consciousness, then it's up to us, whether to
        > have
        > >>faith in the claims, or not.
        > >
        > > So you are not only expecting people to have faith
        > in you (that
        > > you really are having these mystical experiences),
        > but also to
        > > trust your judgement in relation whether or not
        > the entities
        > > are what they appear to you to be.
        > >
        > > You have failed to address the core of the
        > question, which was
        > > how you can eliminate the possibility that the
        > supposed
        > > contacts are internally generated, or
        > misrepresenting
        > > themselves to you. This question is fundamental to
        > your claims,
        > > and something that you really should ask yourself
        > and honestly
        > > answer (for your benefit).
        > >
        > > It is also analogous to this medium, an email
        > forum. You
        > > present yourself as a Guru, yet for all we know
        > you might be a
        > > convicted serial killer, currently serving time in
        > a prison
        > > with internet access. I should also point out that
        > I might not
        > > even be who I say I am. These are
        > misrepresentations which are
        > > possible in the physical world, it is far easier
        > to achieve in
        > > a supposed spiritual world, where there are no
        > audit logs on
        > > servers, for instance, or "spiritual police" that
        > can be
        > > appealed to.
        > >
        > > I suspect that the answer has to be that you don't
        > "know", but
        > > that you make a guess which could be right or
        > wrong. You then
        > > proceed to present the output of this guess as a
        > "fact".
        > >
        > >>Many of the UFO and alien sightings are claims,
        > and
        > >>the same situation applies. We have to decide if
        > they
        > >>are credible, or not, and if we can put faith in
        > them.
        > >
        > > No, it's not the same.
        > >
        > > In many UFO-related reports there is ancilliary
        > evidence. This
        > > is how 90%+ come to be identified as mundane
        > objects. In cases
        > > where there are no checkable facts, all one can do
        > is make a
        > > judgement as to whether the witness is telling the
        > truth as
        > > they percieve it - it doesn't contribute much, if
        > anything
        > > towards the identification of what they witnessed
        > or
        > > experienced.
        > >
        > > Even if a truthful witness is convinced that they
        > conversed
        > > with a blonde-haired, blue-eyed benevolent visitor
        > from the
        > > planet GrnZyc, without any supporting evidence it
        > will remain a
        > > possibility that the experience was internally
        > generated, or
        > > some form of external illusion. To accept the
        > witness
        > > description of the event as fact without any
        > corroboration
        > > would be sheer folly.
        > >
        > > <snip>
        > >
        > >>>examples. Also consider 9/11, the horror of the
        > crusades, and
        > >>>the situation in the Balkans, Afghanistan, Iraq,
        > and Northern
        > >>>Ireland. "meditative communications" or
        > channeling are in my
        > >>>view, just another fanatical religion or
        > superstition with
        > > lots
        > >>>of different varieties.
        > >
        > >>MM:
        > >>I think you're not very smart, if you're throwing
        > out
        > >>the baby with the bathwater. We have to separate
        > the
        > >>wheat from the chaff, and decide whether we can
        > put
        > >>faith in claims, or not.
        > >
        > > I refer you back to the baby in the sea.
        > >
        > > Many of the people involved with all of the
        > incidents quoted
        > > firmly (unquestionably, in their view) were
        > convinced that what
        > > they were doing was morally "right", even a
        > god-given
        > > obligation that they had no option but to carry
        > out. Belief or
        > > faith doesn't alter the fact that they were
        > hideous atrocities.
        > >
        > >>>In response to Linette, I am yet to be convinced
        > that:
        > >>>
        > >>>a) We are being visited by extraterrestrials. I
        > don't reject
        > > it
        > >>>as a possible resolution to some UFOs, but I
        > think it
        > > unlikely.
        > >
        > >>MM:
        > >>This is your opinion. There are many who disagree
        > >>with you, as you should know.
        > >
        > > Indeed I do know. How many of those can provide a
        > valid
        > > rationale for their differing opinions, though?
        > >
        > > <snip>
        > >
        > >>>b)"Animal mutilations" are not generated by
        > anything other
        > >>>than perverse human activity or natural
        > predation/scavenging
        > > by
        > >>>quite terrestrial animals.
        > >
        > >>MM:
        > >>I don't think they can be dismissed so easily.
        > There
        > >>seems to be an unearthly precision regarding them.
        > >> Scavengers wouldn't be capable of such a
        > precision.
        > >> Even "perverse human activity," couldn't explain
        > the
        > >>evidence, which has been seen.
        > >
        > > I have personal experience of examining cadavers
        > that would
        > > most likely be classified as "animal mutilations"
        > by those
        > > inclined to belief in such. I could go on at
        > length about this,
        > > but I don't regard it to be on-topic for this
        > list. I will
        > > however provide one notable example.
        > >
        > > One particular occasion comes to mind, when I saw
        > a fox coming
        > > towards me at night with something in it's jaws.
        > The bulk of
        > > what it was holding obscured me from it's view
        > until it got
        > > very close (2 or 3 yards), at which point it
        > dropped the object
        > > and ran off. I found that it had a duck. It had
        > chewed of the
        > > head and neck and one of its legs, the rest was
        > intact. This
        > > was a fresh kill, there was still some heat in the
        > body, but
        > > there was no evidence of blood in or around the
        > wounds. The
        > > wounds appeared to be seamless, with no
        > surrounding damage,
        > > appearing just as a bald patch surrounded by
        > (perfectly clean)
        > > feathers.
        > >
        > > That is only one example. There are a number of
        > others that I
        > > can quote from personal experience, and yes, I
        > have a witness
        > > to the one mentioned above.
        > >
        > >>>I did contemplate playing out the thread, it
        > would be very
        > > easy
        > >>>(but time consuming) to do so. I could invoke
        > massive
        > >>>conspiracy theories about the the FBI and CIA
        > carrying out
        > >>>biological (genetic) experiments on cattle and
        > needing to
        > >>>measure the effects. I could also reveal that
        > there is only
        > > one
        > >>>alien race, deliberately pretending to be several
        > in order to
        > >>>carry out psychological and social experiments on
        > humans.
        > > Quite
        > >>>frankly I don't have the time to do this.
        > >
        > >>MM:
        > >>Awww. That's too bad. Did you ever read the
        > alleged
        > >>accounts of the "Majestic 12?"
        > >
        > > Yep. Yet another example of people adopting blind
        > faith in
        > > something which later on turns out to involve at
        > least some
        > > elements of fakery (as is even acknowledged by one
        > of the
        > > greatest supporters of MJ12, Stanton Freidman).
        > Some of those
        > > propounders of the case still insist that it is
        > viable in spite
        > > of the evidence of a hoax - talk about religious
        > dogma!
        > >
        > >>>Another example of my thinking can be found at:
        > >
        >
        >>>http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/2001/dec/m13-
        > >>>009.shtml
        > >
        > >>>postulating that the Moon is made of cheese. I
        > have developed
        > >>>the theory slightly and when I have the time I
        > intend to
        > >>>produce an article proving conclusively that the
        > Moon is made
        > >>>of cheese! This is some time off though, I have
        > several more
        > >>>productive projects on the go.
        > >
        > >>MM:
        > >>Your "thinking," doesn't seem logical to me, and
        > >>doesn't seem to allow for more logical
        > explanations.
        > >
        > > You clearly missed my point then, which was that a
        > large
        > > proportion of bizarre stories, particularly those
        > involving
        > > cover-ups (including the "New World Order") are
        > based on
        > > nothing more substantial than what I used to
        > speculate that the
        > > moon is made of cheese, yet people are willing to
        > "have faith"
        > > in such rubbish.
        > >
        > > Regards,
        > > Joe
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > > UFOnet is an international news and discussion
        > list dedicated to:
        > > UFOs, UAP, Anomalous Phenomena in general and the
        > Paranormal.
        > >
        > > To subscribe, send a blank e-mail message to:
        > > ufonet-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
        > > To unsubscribe, send a blank e-mail message to:
        > > ufonet-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
        > >
        > > Website (Dutch only): http://www.ufonet.nl/
        > > Messages to the list-owner:
        > ufonet-admin@...
        > >
        > > Caution, many reports of unidentified phenomena
        > posted to this list
        > > require
        > > further investigation.
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > > Yahoo! Groups Links
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > > --
        > > No virus found in this incoming message.
        > > Checked by AVG Free Edition.
        > > Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.13.10/189 -
        > Release Date:
        > > 11/30/2005
        > >
        > >
        >
        >




        __________________________________________
        Yahoo! DSL – Something to write home about.
        Just $16.99/mo. or less.
        dsl.yahoo.com
      • Geoff Richardson
        Joe, It depends on what you define as a New World Order . And if you use it, you should at least be prepared to define it. Don t forget that it was Henry
        Message 3 of 30 , Dec 2, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          Joe,
          It depends on what you define as a "New World Order". And if you use it, you should at least be prepared to define it. Don't forget that it was Henry Kissinger who coined the phrase in the early 70s.
          Kissinger was certainly convinced that there was a long term military/economical/political plan which smacked of the philosophies that some would later relate to the concept of a shadow-type government which has little regard for normal or accepted morals and ethics. Why was Kissinger convinced? Because not only did he originate the term "New World Order", he was at least partly responsible for the aforesaid philosophies.
          "New World Order" is perfectly acceptable and accurate terminology and it does indicate "hidden government" - to use the phrase to promote some extremely bizarre concepts is, to say the least, inaccurate but to use it in the way you have, in this posting, is quite definitely just as inaccurate.
          Geoff Richardson
          www.thewhyfiles.net

          > >Joe wrote:
          > > You clearly missed my point then, which was that a
          > large
          > > proportion of bizarre stories, particularly those
          > involving
          > > cover-ups (including the "New World Order") are
          > based on
          > > nothing more substantial than what I used to
          > speculate that the
          > > moon is made of cheese, yet people are willing to
          > "have faith"
          > > in such rubbish.
          > >
          > .
          > >
          > > UFOnet is an international news and discussion
          > list dedicated to:
          > > UFOs, UAP, Anomalous Phenomena in general and the
          > Paranormal.
          > >
          > > To subscribe, send a blank e-mail message to:
          > > ufonet-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
          > > To unsubscribe, send a blank e-mail message to:
          > > ufonet-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
          > >
          > > Website (Dutch only): http://www.ufonet.nl/
          > > Messages to the list-owner:
          > ufonet-admin@...
          > >
          > > Caution, many reports of unidentified phenomena
          > posted to this list
          > > require
          > > further investigation.
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > > Yahoo! Groups Links
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > > --
          > > No virus found in this incoming message.
          > > Checked by AVG Free Edition.
          > > Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.13.10/189 -
          > Release Date:
          > > 11/30/2005
          > >
          > >
          >
          >




          __________________________________________
          Yahoo! DSL - Something to write home about.
          Just $16.99/mo. or less.
          dsl.yahoo.com



          UFOnet is an international news and discussion list dedicated to:
          UFOs, UAP, Anomalous Phenomena in general and the Paranormal.

          To subscribe, send a blank e-mail message to:
          ufonet-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
          To unsubscribe, send a blank e-mail message to:
          ufonet-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

          Website (Dutch only): http://www.ufonet.nl/
          Messages to the list-owner: ufonet-admin@...

          Caution, many reports of unidentified phenomena posted to this list require
          further investigation.







          SPONSORED LINKS Extraterrestrial life Paranormal phenomena


          ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

          a.. Visit your group "ufonet" on the web.

          b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
          ufonet-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

          c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


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



          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Joe (uk-ufo) McGonagle
          Hello Michael, List, It s impractical to maintain all of the original text in a form that would be easy to read, so I am addressing the points which I think
          Message 4 of 30 , Dec 4, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
            Hello Michael, List,

            It's impractical to maintain all of the original text in a form
            that would be easy to read, so I am addressing the points which I
            think require a response.

            In relation to whether or not Michael has examined the
            possibility that his "meditative" communications are internally
            generated or misrepresented by another agency, he wrote:

            >MM:
            >This assumption, that I've never asked myself over 41
            >years is quite amazing.

            It is not so amazing, since you dodge the question when it
            raised. If indeed you have evaluated the possibilities, how have
            you eliminated the alternative possibilities?

            In response to my suggestion that Michael did not in fact know
            the origin of the messages, but rather took a guess as to their
            authenticity, he wrote:

            >I don't know why you would suspect that, but it's your
            >prerogative. You claim that I'm guessing, but it
            >seems to me, that you're the one guessing.

            In the absence of any direct answer from you to a direct question
            from me, what alternative do I have but to guess? You leave me no
            choice.

            In response to an example whereby alternative explanations [to
            the literal acceptance] of a witness report existed, Michael
            wrote:

            >There doesn't have to be proof, to make something
            >true. It could be truth, but with no evidence
            >available. This would apply to my own UFO sighting.

            Absence of proof (or even supporting evidence) does not confer
            "truth" either. All that can be said is that it may or may not be
            a literal description of what actually took place. No conclusion
            either way can be drawn from such a scenario, which is exactly my
            point.

            In response to (negative) examples of the effect of faith on the
            actions of people, Michael wrote:

            >I think you're going off on a bit of a tangent. You
            >pick the negative aspects of events to discuss. Why
            >don't you pick out some positive events. Most of the
            >world is going on faith, faith in Jesus, Muhammad,
            >Buddha, Guru Nanak. Frits doesn't want us to discuss
            >religion, but there seems a need to balance your
            >pessimistic offering with something positive. Faith
            >has resulted in a lot of good, too.

            Some of those which you cite include the worst examples of
            faith-led atrocities.

            In response to my question relating to rationale for people's
            opinions, Michael wrote:

            >You're still wanting proof. That's your prerogative.
            >Most of the world is making use of faith. I don't
            >think I should think someone is nutty, deceiving,
            >etc., just because he can't prove something. I'm
            >willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. You
            >seem to be unwilling to do that, even in the face of
            >thousands of sightings, all over the world.

            Actually all I require is some tangible evidence, not proof.
            Society works on such evidence, viz. science and law. If it
            worked primarily from spiritual concerns, the defence "God told
            me to do it" would work every time, and the prisons would be
            empty. Such a society would descend into chaos very quickly.

            Responding to my example of what, under other circumstances might
            have resulted in another animal mutilation case, Michael wrote:

            >MM:
            >This is no match with the surgical precision, which
            >has been found in some mutilations. You should read
            >the story of the human mutilation at Brazil. Here it
            >is:
            >
            >http://www.think-aboutit.com/mutilations/Human_Mutilations.htm

            A singularly unconvincing case if ever I saw one. Working from
            second-generation images of an un-named corpse, the
            sheep-diviners conclude that the body was mutilated by aliens.
            Quite typical of the other material in the so-called "cattle
            mutilation" business-venture.

            Regarding my remark relating to the evidence of a hoax concerning
            the MJ-12 fiasco, Michael wrote:

            >Even you mention "some elements of fakery." Are you
            >open to the idea, that there might be "some elements
            >of truth," to it?
            >
            >I still see a tendency that you would throw out the
            >baby with the bathwater, possibly?

            The evidence is at the very least tainted. Why waste time on it?
            The entire circumstances of the MJ-12 saga points towards a hoax,
            the discovery of document tampering just confirms it.

            In response to clarification of my "Cheesy moon" article, Michael
            wrote:

            >Sometimes, truth is stranger than fiction. For
            >example, if Leonardo da Vinci had explained that he
            >saw visions of airplanes, machines flying through the
            >air, back in the sixteenth century, people would have
            >thought that he was playing with one or two cards
            >short of a full deck. Now, we know the truth about
            >airplanes, don't we?

            And do you recall how Da Vinci was treated by the religious
            authorities at the time? You make my point for me.

            I am sure that this thread is tedious for many of the
            list-members, and I don't have the time to waste on trying to
            convert the devout, so I shan't be prolonging it after I respond
            to Geoff Richardson.

            Regards,
            Joe
          • Joe (uk-ufo) McGonagle
            Hi Geoff, ... From: Geoff Richardson To: Sent: Friday, December 02, 2005 7:23 PM Subject: Re:
            Message 5 of 30 , Dec 4, 2005
            • 0 Attachment
              Hi Geoff,

              ----- Original Message -----
              From: "Geoff Richardson" <Geoffrich@...>
              To: <ufonet@yahoogroups.com>
              Sent: Friday, December 02, 2005 7:23 PM
              Subject: Re: [UFOnet] Fwd: Re: John Lear's comments on Area 51


              > Joe,
              > It depends on what you define as a "New World Order".
              And if you use it, you should at least be prepared to define it.
              Don't forget that it was Henry Kissinger who coined the phrase in
              the early 70s.

              Kissinger's comments have been taken out of context by the
              conspiracy-mongers. His vision of a "New World Order" was that
              the UN would take on the mantle of a world-government, working to
              enable the citizenship of the world, not subdue them.

              This has been distorted by people like Bill Cooper and David Icke
              into something completely different, and this is the context in
              which I was writing. To define interpretations such as Cooper's
              and Icke would be confusing, since although there are parallels
              within them, they also have differences. There are also a number
              of different variations on the same theme by others which I don't
              have the time to cover.

              Regards,
              Joe
            • Michael Martin
              MM: Dear Joe and Members, ... MM: It takes some unmitigated gall to even ask such a personal question, IMHO. ... MM: This is also personal. As I said, in the
              Message 6 of 30 , Dec 5, 2005
              • 0 Attachment
                MM:
                Dear Joe and Members,
                My reply will be below:

                --- "Joe (uk-ufo) McGonagle" <joe@...> wrote:

                > Hello Michael, List,
                >
                > It's impractical to maintain all of the original
                > text in a form
                > that would be easy to read, so I am addressing the
                > points which I
                > think require a response.
                >
                > In relation to whether or not Michael has examined
                > the
                > possibility that his "meditative" communications are
                > internally
                > generated or misrepresented by another agency, he
                > wrote:
                >
                > >MM:
                > >This assumption, that I've never asked myself over
                > 41
                > >years is quite amazing.
                >
                > It is not so amazing, since you dodge the question
                > when it
                > raised.

                MM:
                It takes some unmitigated gall to even ask such a
                personal question, IMHO.

                > If indeed you have evaluated the
                > possibilities, how have
                > you eliminated the alternative possibilities?

                MM:
                This is also personal. As I said, in the beginning,
                my testimony can be taken or left behind.

                I could easily reverse this question, and pose it to
                you. You have, apparently, dismissed all the
                sightings of thousands of people, as no more reliable
                than a theory that the moon is made of cheese. Very
                funny. How did you eliminate all the other
                alternative possibilities, most importantly, that what
                they saw was real?

                > In response to my suggestion that Michael did not in
                > fact know
                > the origin of the messages, but rather took a guess
                > as to their
                > authenticity, he wrote:
                >
                > >I don't know why you would suspect that, but it's
                > your
                > >prerogative. You claim that I'm guessing, but it
                > >seems to me, that you're the one guessing.

                MM:
                Don't put words in my mouth. I didn't say anything
                about ME GUESSING. My question is, if you are
                guessing, in case you didn't notice?

                > In the absence of any direct answer from you to a
                > direct question
                > from me, what alternative do I have but to guess?
                > You leave me no
                > choice.

                MM:
                I'd say to be open-minded to the truth. You appear to
                be rather closed-minded to it, IMHO.

                > In response to an example whereby alternative
                > explanations [to
                > the literal acceptance] of a witness report existed,
                > Michael
                > wrote:
                >
                > >There doesn't have to be proof, to make something
                > >true. It could be truth, but with no evidence
                > >available. This would apply to my own UFO
                > sighting.
                >
                > Absence of proof (or even supporting evidence) does
                > not confer
                > "truth" either.

                MM:
                I didn't say it did.


                > All that can be said is that it may
                > or may not be
                > a literal description of what actually took place.
                > No conclusion
                > either way can be drawn from such a scenario, which
                > is exactly my
                > point.

                MM:
                I detect a softening of your position, from
                closed-minded to a more open-minded position.
                Congratulations.

                > In response to (negative) examples of the effect of
                > faith on the
                > actions of people, Michael wrote:
                >
                > >I think you're going off on a bit of a tangent.
                > You
                > >pick the negative aspects of events to discuss.
                > Why
                > >don't you pick out some positive events. Most of
                > the
                > >world is going on faith, faith in Jesus, Muhammad,
                > >Buddha, Guru Nanak. Frits doesn't want us to
                > discuss
                > >religion, but there seems a need to balance your
                > >pessimistic offering with something positive.
                > Faith
                > >has resulted in a lot of good, too.
                >
                > Some of those which you cite include the worst
                > examples of
                > faith-led atrocities.

                MM:
                Again, you're focusing ONLY on the negative. Why?
                How many people have obeyed such moral teachings, as
                the ten commandments? Every religion has moral
                teachings. People would have committed many more
                crimes, without these teachings.

                > In response to my question relating to rationale for
                > people's
                > opinions, Michael wrote:
                >
                > >You're still wanting proof. That's your
                > prerogative.
                > >Most of the world is making use of faith. I don't
                > >think I should think someone is nutty, deceiving,
                > >etc., just because he can't prove something. I'm
                > >willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. You
                > >seem to be unwilling to do that, even in the face
                > of
                > >thousands of sightings, all over the world.
                >
                > Actually all I require is some tangible evidence,
                > not proof.

                MM:
                It's pretty close to the same thing, I'd say.

                > Society works on such evidence, viz. science and
                > law. If it
                > worked primarily from spiritual concerns, the
                > defence "God told
                > me to do it" would work every time, and the prisons
                > would be
                > empty. Such a society would descend into chaos very
                > quickly.

                MM:
                Again, you're talking only from the negative POV.
                Some people have done a lot of good, by the same
                justification, that "God told me to do it." Maybe
                that can't be proven, either, but a lot of good has
                been done, regardless.

                > Responding to my example of what, under other
                > circumstances might
                > have resulted in another animal mutilation case,
                > Michael wrote:
                >
                > >MM:
                > >This is no match with the surgical precision, which
                > >has been found in some mutilations. You should
                > read
                > >the story of the human mutilation at Brazil. Here
                > it
                > >is:
                > >
                >
                >http://www.think-aboutit.com/mutilations/Human_Mutilations.htm
                >
                > A singularly unconvincing case if ever I saw one.
                > Working from
                > second-generation images of an un-named corpse,

                MM:
                I read the guy's name. It's on the internet. I don't
                remember the exact name, however.

                > the
                > sheep-diviners conclude that the body was mutilated
                > by aliens.

                MM:
                Sheep-Diviners?

                > Quite typical of the other material in the so-called
                > "cattle
                > mutilation" business-venture.

                MM:
                Well, since you haven't replied to my case regarding
                the precision of it, it seems that you're just
                tiptoeing through the tulips. Remember the precision
                removal of the belly button, the rectum, etc.. Do you
                think animals are that precise?

                I'm thinking you might not have much of a case,
                regarding attributing it to animals, otherwise you
                would have posted it here.

                > Regarding my remark relating to the evidence of a
                > hoax concerning
                > the MJ-12 fiasco, Michael wrote:
                >
                > >Even you mention "some elements of fakery." Are
                > you
                > >open to the idea, that there might be "some
                > elements
                > >of truth," to it?
                > >
                > >I still see a tendency that you would throw out the
                > >baby with the bathwater, possibly?
                >
                > The evidence is at the very least tainted. Why waste
                > time on it?

                MM:
                To refresh your memory, I mentioned that my
                meditation, regarding the aliens and the enzymes was
                the same as some alleged accounts of the MJ-12. I'd
                suggest that we could, at least, try to be open-minded
                to the MJ-12 theories, and not to dismiss them without
                a thorough investigation. You seem to want to throw
                out the baby with the bathwater on this. I'm simply
                saying to separate the wheat from the chaff. There
                are some points regarding the MJ-12 theories, that I
                don't accept, either.

                > The entire circumstances of the MJ-12 saga points
                > towards a hoax,
                > the discovery of document tampering just confirms
                > it.

                MM:
                How much hoax is it? Is it partially true? Do we
                want to throw out the baby with the bathwater, like
                you? I'll leave that issue to the sagacity of the
                readers. I think we should separate the wheat from
                the chaff on this.

                > In response to clarification of my "Cheesy moon"
                > article, Michael
                > wrote:
                >
                > >Sometimes, truth is stranger than fiction. For
                > >example, if Leonardo da Vinci had explained that he
                > >saw visions of airplanes, machines flying through
                > the
                > >air, back in the sixteenth century, people would
                > have
                > >thought that he was playing with one or two cards
                > >short of a full deck. Now, we know the truth about
                > >airplanes, don't we?
                >
                > And do you recall how Da Vinci was treated by the
                > religious
                > authorities at the time? You make my point for me.

                MM:
                This is immaterial and irrelevant.

                > I am sure that this thread is tedious for many of
                > the
                > list-members, and I don't have the time to waste on
                > trying to
                > convert the devout, so I shan't be prolonging it
                > after I respond
                > to Geoff Richardson.
                >
                > Regards,
                > Joe

                MM:
                It seems that Joe is unwilling to continue this
                dialogue. I'll leave that cut and run tactic to the
                sagacity of the readers. :-)

                Michael Martin
                >
                >




                __________________________________
                Start your day with Yahoo! - Make it your home page!
                http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.