UFO UpDates Mailing List
From: Karel Bagchus <karel@worldonline.nl> Date: Wed, 16 Apr 1997 13:13:19 +0200 Fwd Date: Wed, 16 Apr 1997 19:30:11 -0400 Subject: Re: (dis-)information and the Internet At 12:43 AM 4/16/97 -0400, you wrote: >Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 22:33:59 -0400 >From: Gary <galevy@pipeline.com> >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> >Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: (dis-)information and the Internet >> I guess when 10 years ago something was written in the newspapers or shown >> on TV, that would give a possible certainty about the accuracy of.... >Sorry, I must comment that you are showing a certain naivete here. Does >anyone remember the Pentagon Papers, Watergate. Hmmm. I'm not a history buff, and certainly not fully up to date on American history, but weren't these stories broken by newspapers ? >I think it might be >fair to say that sometimes when one is ten years younger one may be more >trusting. I do not believe that human nature, politics, print or Tv >journalism have changed in the past ten years. But I wouldn't be >discouraged Karl you are just ten years wiser and more experienced. I have no idea wether I'm ten years younger, more or less naive, more or less trusting, more or less experienced, and to whom would I compare ? >Checking the credibility of sources and methods is just as important >as it ever was. the internet is merely a speeds up the same process of >dissemintation of either correct or incorrect information; or makes it >more accessible to a larger audience. Yes, the web makes it faster, but there's another side of the coin too. The other side is that dis-informants use the internet too, and becouse of the distances between people, conversations through e-mail, and basically unidentifieable sources, rumours spread many times faster than they used to do, picking up more gravity as they go. How many time's do you read "e-mail interview" below an article in the "AUFORA News Update" newsletter ? And the recent STS-82 conversation that's now popping up on numerous websites. who has actually verified the audio tape ? >> Then there's the story of Maurice Chatelaine. He state's that he "worked for >> number of aerospace organizations and industries and was supported by the >> United States Navy, the United States Air Force, and NASA". Then according >> to James Oberg he wasn't working for NASA at the time of Apollo 11. Then >> Gary Alevy said that Oberg had lied before, and that his statements are no >> good. Who should we believe? >Karel, you had answered my question as to who your source of information >on Maurice Chatelain was. Was I correct that it was James Oberg? Allright, I've got an email from legion@werple.net.au (John Stepkowski) regarding my Astronouts & UFO's section of the KUFOR site. He wrote the statements about Chatelain and referred to James Oberg; "You refer to "NASA's Maurice Chatelain" at your site. Chatelain never worked at NASA. He was a low-level engineer who worked for a NASA sub-contractor who built the Apollo communications systems. His status as the "head of communications" (as some UFOlogists have claimed), is entirely false. Additionally, when James Oberg contacted Chatelain's employers he learned that Chatelain was no longer employed by them when Apollo 11 landed on the moon. If he was no longer an employee of a NASA sub-contractor then he could not have been present in any so-called "secret room" where he could overhear the confidential communications of the astronauts on the lunar surface." Since I didn't knew what to make of it anymore, I've put both vieuwpoints on the website. But this all isn't what I'm writing about. The point being brought up by me is what we consider as evidence, how we work with the internet to our advantage while avoiding the pitfalls and how we can unify to put a serious opposition to government denial. >You have incorrectly stated "that Gary Alevy said that Oberg had lied >before". No I did not say he lied, I said that I observed that Oberg >had been unable to substantiate claims he had made on unrelated >matters. I see that I've misintrepeted your comments, thanks for the correction and my apoligies to you. >> So what have we established in the past years? ~ZIP~ In the most.... >I think it is an overstatement to adopt this position, but I imagine its >frustrating and discouraging. [and] >> So we need a spokesmen huh? For what? What do we have that we can ..... >I am sure many readers of the list can empathize with your frustration. >Perhaps you would be less frustrated if you were seeking answers for >yourself and not your peers or their adulation. Maybe I should elaborate more on why I'm in this. I want to know the truth. And I want the truth to be known to others too, otherwise I would be doing the same thing as the goverment does. I've got over 50 Mb of videoclips on my website, so I guess I can say I've seen enough to have an ~opinion~ about UFO's and their existence, although I've never personally witnessed an UFO myselve. But do those clips verify beond a doubt that UFO's and ET's exists ? Listen to the discussions and you'll know they do not. For every single peace of "evidence" there are dozens of reasons why the footage could be dismissed. Debunkers can come up with anything, from "Not realistic enough" to "It looks like it's too real to be trough, so it's probably a fake". So we can chase leads to photographic evidence for years, but until we come up with something physical, like a UFO, or a life or dead alien, that we can show to the press, the established organisations like NASA and Pentagon will continue to deny the existence of UFO's. And who do you think the press will believe ? Allright, what is evidence ? Is it a book, picture, or movie ? Is it evidence when "Billy" in the WhiteHouse says that UFO's exists ? Maybe I sound a bit sceptical here.... I've e-mailed a bunch of Dutch government officials, most of them didn't reply at all, 2 of them wrote to me that they didn't believed in UFO's and wished me good luck. So maybe instead of chasing events caused by ET's and UFO's after they've happened and being burned by official denyal, we should focus on contacting aliens ourselves. And if contact has been established, and we have physical evidence of alien existence, ~then~ we need a spokesperson beouse then we have something to make a statement about. Best Regards, Karel. ******************************************************************** Karel Bagchus KUFOR - Karel's UFO Research = http://www.worldonline.nl/~karel/ufo/ Homepage = http://www.worldonline.nl/~karel/ e-mail = karel@worldonline.nl ICQ UI-Number = 303261
UFO UpDates - Toronto -
updates@globalserve.net
Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp - ++ 416-696-0304
A Hand-Operated E-Mail Subscription Service for the Study of UFO Related
Phenomena.
To subscribe please send your first and last name to
updates@globalserve.net
Message submissions should be sent to the same address.
|
Link it to the appropriate Ufologist or UFO Topic page. |
Archived as a public service by Area 51 Research Center which is not
responsible for content.
Financial support for this web server is provided by the
Research Center Catalog.
Software by Glenn Campbell.
Technical contact:
webmaster@ufomind.com