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 -> Jul -> Re: Back, Brown & Beat...

UFO UpDates Mailing List

From: Steven Kaeser <steve@konsulting.com>
Date: Sun, 13 Jul 1997 07:05:18 -0400
Fwd Date: Sun, 13 Jul 1997 12:27:12 -0400
Subject: Re: Back, Brown & Beat...

At 01:00 AM 7/13/97 -0400, you wrote:

>. . . , Linda Mouldy Cowe still swearing
>by the MJ-12 documents _and_ the autopsy footage . . .

Errol-

	I spent only a couple of days at the "circus" and I'm sorry that our
paths didn't seem to cross.  However, I was at several of the events you
mentioned, and we may have actually passed quite close.

	Your review of the event was fairly close to the mark, but I found your
editorial "dig" at Linda to be a bit much.  Linda has produced two of the
better researched books on the subject that I have ever seen, and a third
is now in the works.  While I don't necessarily accept her conclusions, she
certainly has developed an interesting foundation of information, and
deserves better treatment from an editorial standpoint.

	I have a rather high ranking Air Force friend who is interested in
this genre, and his main surprise regarding the Roswell event was that the
"Autopsy" footage didn't get more play than it did.  He has been
recommended for promotion to the rank of "General", and I found that his
bringing this question up on his own to be quite interesting.

	Your skepticism regarding the MJ-12 documents and the "Alien Autopsy"
footage is healthy, but if you have any actual evidence to prove that they
have been faked, please post it.  Skeptics often seem to forget that they
must do more than simply show "possibilities" if they are to prove (or
disprove) the provenance of "evidence".  A number of researchers that I
know are highly skeptical of either one or both of these items, but most
sit squarely on the fence with regard to their credibility.  Proponents
have failed to provide the evidence necessary to prove them to be real, but
I would suggest that skeptics have also failed to provide "proof" that they
have been faked.

	But my criticism is not that you are skeptical, but rather that the
statement was made in such a way as to belittle the person, and not the
evidence.  You have (I believe) criticized others for making such attacks
on the "list".

	Just a comment, and welcome back.  I must admit that I'm glad the system
was shut down for the past two weeks, as I really wouldn't want to wade
through two weeks of "Updates" material all at once.

	Peace,

	Steve