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 -> Jan -> Here

From: Brian Zeiler <bdzeiler@anet-chi.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 1997 19:56:08 -0600 (CST)
Fwd Date: Thu, 16 Jan 1997 02:30:59 -0500
Subject: Re: Mendoza's Secret Life

At 08:47 AM 1/15/97 -0500, you wrote:
>Date: Mon, 13 Jan 1997 11:30:51 -0500
>From: Greg Sandow <GSANDOW@prodigy.net>
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Mendoza's Secret Life

[...]

>Gary, nobody has yet addressed those issues. In fact, this was going to
>be my final point. The best way to counter disinformation would be with
>facts. A good solid list from you or Brian of mistakes or
>misrepresentations or character assassinations in Peter's book would do
>much more to counter its effect than unsubstantiated charges will. Fight
>disinformation with truth.

Calm down, Greg.  As soon as I can make it up to the nearest Barnes & Noble,
I'll buy the book and post examples to the list of what I personally found
to be deceptive writing.  That's why I haven't responded until now, but I
haven't had a chance to get the book yet.  I spent a *lot* of time reading
it at a friend's place and at the bookstore once, and I was quite astonished
to see the numerous deceptive tactics in the book.  Brookesmith is no
ordinary skeptic.

I don't call authors like Peebles disinformationists, because they are
consistent and honest.  I found Brookesmith's "mistakes" to be beyond mere
shoddy research and into the realm of wild distortions.  The expensive
publication and heavy marketing also make me wonder.  But for future
reference, Greg, the big tipoff to separate honest but misguided skeptics
from the shifty spooks is to see how they represent themselves and how
consistently they implement their self-perceptions.  Brookesmith doesn't
present himself as a skeptic or debunker, but he sure as hell is, and after
that raised my eyebrow, I noticed numerous glaring problems.  He's trying to
lure in the fence-sitters and then cram disinformation down their throats.

Kind of like Kal Korff, who "is only interested in the truth about Roswell,
whatever it may be".  Korff pretends to be a middle-of-the-roader the way
Brookesmith pretends to be "long interested in the paranormal", which is
crap.  Korff, who is with Lawrence Livermore or one of those DoE joints, was
caught in several obvious, quite likely intentionally deceptive arguments by
Rudiak during his Mogul supporting.  The common thread is that they pretend
to be middle-of-the-road, but all they do is advance debunking arguments
that look very deceptive, more so than an honest skeptic argument.

Please don't bother replying with another flurry of righteous indignation,
because I understand your interest in seeing specific examples, and as soon
as  I obtain a copy (hell if I'm standing at a bus stop in this brutal
Chicago weather), I'll be sure to post examples with excruciating detail,
and Brookesmith will have the right to defend himself.  Hopefully this time
he'll be serious about a rebuttal and not as flippant as he was last time.

Brian