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 -> 1997 -> Jan -> Re: 'Alien' Writing

UFO UpDates Mailing List

From: "Steven J. Powell" <sjpowell@access.digex.net>
Date: Thu, 02 Jan 1997 07:34:10 -0500
Fwd Date: Thu, 02 Jan 1997 08:41:01 -0500
Subject: Re: 'Alien' Writing

> From: Greg Sandow <GSANDOW@prodigy.net>
> Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: 'Alien' Writing

> Again on Budd Hopkins' samples of supposed alien writing, John Powell
> writes:

> > However, there's _NO_ reason why Hopkins has to make that evidence
> > _public_.  For purposes of a quality analysis only the folks
> > directly involved in the project need to have access.  Given that we
> > want strict controls only _some_ of those people would have access
> > to _some_ of the data and _nobody_ would have access to all of the
> > data.  Once complete I assume Hopkins would want to publish the
> > results at which time only _representative_ samples of the original
> > evidence would necessarily have to made public.

> Well, from the 14 samples I've seen, I'd say this....once one of them
> has been made public, they all have. They're that similar.
> And once even a short sample of this writing -- or whatever it is --
> gets published, anyone could imitate it. It's...I don't
> know...idiosyncratic. Easy to recognize. So anyone new who came forth
> and said they'd seen it could, conceivably, have seen the published
> samples.
> Or have I misunderstood what you're saying, John?

No, you understood it perfectly.

Still, Hopkins could publish one small portion of one sample - and
that's all.  Even without having seen the samples I'm _certain_ that a
small portion of one sample could be found that if imitated _would not_
be enough to pass for an entire sample.  What's needed from Hopkins here
is less fear and panic and more logical and rational thinking.

Additionally, if the handwriting study we're talking about ever gets off
the ground we'd have experts lined up who could differentiate imitations
from the 'real' thing.

> > So what do you think the people that passionately write him are
> > thinking about this non-action???

> I can make an educated guess about that, both from what the writers
> say in their letters, and from my conversation with one of them.
> They think he's too busy to respond to them, and, rightly or wrongly,
> that's what they expected. The guy I contacted -- just to get a taste
> of the experience, and in hopes of being able to follow an abduction
> case from an initial contact which I'd know everything about because I
> made it -- was shocked even to hear from someone representing Budd. He
> said he thought he was dreaming. He hadn't seriously expected a
> response.

That's amazing.

> One more point on the writing. I've got to ask Budd if he's every had
> writing samples that aren't like the ones he showed me.

Be interesting to know that answer.

--

Thanks, take care.
John.

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