Aliens On Earth.com Resources for those who are stranded here Our Bookstore is OPEN Over 5000 new & used titles, competitively priced! Topics: UFOs - Paranormal - Area 51 - Ghosts - Forteana - Conspiracy - History - Biography - Psychology - Religion - Crime - Health - Geography - Maps - Science - Money - Language - Recreation - Technology - Fiction - Other - New Search... for keyword(s)   in Page Titles in Book Title/Author in Contents of Pages ---other searches--- Metacrawler Yahoo FAST Search Google Altavista Dogpile Inference Find Northern Light IWon.com MSN Search Las Vegas Sun Location: Mothership -> UFO -> Updates -> 1996 -> Dec -> Re: 'Backlash'

UFO UpDates Mailing List

From: "Steven J. Powell" <sjpowell@access.digex.net>
Date: Tue, 31 Dec 1996 13:09:20 -0500
Fwd Date: Tue, 31 Dec 1996 14:02:02 -0500
Subject: Re: 'Backlash'

> From: btbmag@ro.com (Michael Malone)
> Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: 'Backlash'

> >That's simply wrong.  Standard equipment operating in a standard
> >environment is and can be expected to _consistently_ operate in a
> >standard manner.  If it doesn't, and if it consistently doesn't, then
> >we've (minimally) shown that _something_ objectively physical has
> >(repeatedly) occurred.

> >Right now we have no evidence that anything is happening and its a
> >huge leap to expect that a single simple series of experiments will
> >take us from nothing at all to something extremely specific.  If all
> >we got from a series of simple experiments was the small step from
> >nothing to something that would still be the biggest step achieved to
> >date in abduction research.

> >In other words, if we can place some electronic equipment, that we've
> >previously bench tested and found to consistently work correctly and
> >previously field tested and found to consistently work correctly, in
> >an abductee's home and that same equipment then consistently (at
> >regular intervals, etc.) fails to work correctly we _KNOW_ something
> >is going on.  (We also would know where, when and for how long.
> >Depending on the type of eqiupment we might even get a clue as to how
> >it stopped working correctly.)

> This is something I have argued, screamed, yelled, cajoled, ridiculed,
> and fought about for a long time.  In your eloquence, you have made
> the point far better than I ever could.
> The fact that electronic monitoring devices fail IS an example of
> "evidence."  Not all evidence is based on the senses of sight, sound
> smell, taste, or touch.  In fact, the kind of statistical, anylitical,
> reproducable evidence that could be obtained from electronic
> monitoring is more valuable than all the current evidence we currently
> have.

Absolutely _FAR_ more valuable.

> If we had a subject, who honestly believes he/she has been the object
> of abduction by an alien being, under electronic monitoring we would
> could begin to process of determination for what was the experience
> that caused this belief.

Electronic monitoring could give us an enormous variety of hints.  Even
if, as some naysayers believe, the aliens can zap out our equipment they
(presumably) can't control  'nature' uniformly and simultaneously.

By that I mean (just as an example) if we were independently monitoring
for temperature and humidity (as examples) we would likely detect brief
changes just prior to a blackout of the equipment.  If we could do even
something as seemingly minor as that consistently we'd have very
significant _direct_ evidence.

> The protocals for such an expermient would have to be worked out.  It
> would almost have to involve more than simple location monitoring.  A
> complete, independantly powered, electronic monitoring system would
> have to be established and placed on the subjects residence, or
> whatever locations are the subjects belief that abduction occur.

Multi-location monitoring could get expensive but we can dream about it
<grin>.

A high-capacity UPS could easily power a half dozen pieces of gear for
over an hour, cutting the power wouldn't be a issue.  An electrical
dampening field of some kind (microwave, magnetic) would have to be used
to zap the gear attached to the UPS.  Ignoring for the time being that a
field powerful enough to zap the gear would fry the contents of the
room, includng the alleged abductee, we do know that such fields don't
materialize instantly, they propogate and would have slightly different
affects on different equipment at slightly different times during the
propogation - this alone could be recorded.

In other words, the gear would not all go off-line at the same time and
knowing how each piece of gear responds to dampening fields we could
reconstruct the source location of the dampening field.

> At the least, assuming that the subject is abducted from sleep and
> from their residence, would be an internal house system that indicated
> where the subject was in the residence; a system to determine the
> vital signs of the subject, including but not limited to brain
> activity; video and audio monitors of the residence; ambient air
> readings; and a systematic method of turning the system on or off
> without the subjects knowledge.

All doable with off-the-shelf, relatively inexpensive technology.

> This would, of course, constitute the gravest possible invasion of the
> life of the subject.  Keeping in mind that the research can not help
> but influnce the observation, such a study would do more to ligitmize
> abduction research than the current state of hypno-therapists have.

This is definitely an invasion of the individual's privacy, but there's
no way around that.  For obvious reasons we would want a way to allow
the individual to turn on/off the gear (some of the gear) at certain
times.

If somebody could demonstrate a consistency of something, _anything_,
physically happenning tis would become the hottest science research
project on the planet.

> What suprises me is the complete lack of initiative shown by current
> "leaders" to produce just this kind of evidence.

When I'm in a particularly generous mood I'm completely surprised by
that also <grin>.

--

Thanks, take care.
John.

([]][][][][][][][][][][][][][])
[                             ]
[  sjpowell@access.digex.net  ]
[                             ]
([]][][][][][][][][][][][][][])