Aliens On Earth.com Resources for those who are stranded here UFOs | Paranormal | Area 51 People | Places | Random Top 100 | What's New Catalog | New Books 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 Our Bookstore is OPEN Mothership -> UFO -> Updates -> 1997 -> Aug -> Here

From: Vince_Johnson_at_TENSOR__HSTN@ccmailsmtp.hstn.expl.pgs.com
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 97 09:52:58 cst
Fwd Date: Mon, 11 Aug 1997 12:12:48 -0400
Subject: Re: 'Saucer Smear', Vol. 44, No. 7; August 5


Date: Fri, 08 Aug 1997 06:42:14 -0400
To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
From: Steven Kaeser <steve@konsulting.com>
Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: 'Saucer Smear', Vol. 44, No. 7; August 5,
  1997

I wrote:

>>I pose this question to the esteemed readers and participants of
>>UFO UpDates: In light of Mr. Shell's constant evasions and
>>distortions concerning the details of the origins, and his alleged
>>analysis of, the AA "film," and his eager defense of Santilli's
>>questionable copyright claims, does anyone here consider him to be
>>anything other than a shameless PR flack for Santilli & Co.?


To which you responded:

>Since I believe your questions have actually been answered previously by
>Shell and others, I think that the "evasions and distortions" you mention
>here are matters of opinion.  I, for one, don't believe that Bob is a
>"shameless PR flack" for anyone.  However, I would acknowledge that his
>relationship with Ray and others raises the question of impartiality
>whenever statements are made by him.

>However, the criticism here appears to be directed at the messenger,
>rather than the message.  Bob's reply was a valid one, adding information
>to the debate, which can (in turn) be analyzed by readers and responded to
>as necessary.  I am grateful that Bob, and others, take time to post
>information to the "net" so that we call can benefit.  Of course, I take
>that information and determine what to accept or reject based on my own
>knowledge, experience, and faith.  I certainly would not reject
>information simply because I felt that messenger was not impartial;
>however, I would certainly take that into account.

I disagree. While Bob is definitely "participating" on this List, his
efforts could be more accurately characterized as "marketing."

Regards,

Vince