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 -> Jul -> Here

From: Steven Kaeser <steve@konsulting.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 1997 17:30:43 -0400
Fwd Date: Mon, 28 Jul 1997 22:03:13 -0400
Subject: Re: Roswellian 'Unearthly' Silicon Scoffed At By

>From: Dennis <dstacy@texas.net>
>Date: Sun, 27 Jul 1997 21:08:59 -0500 (CDT)
>Fwd Date: Mon, 28 Jul 1997 01:37:02 -0400
>Subject: Re: Roswellian 'Unearthly' Silicon Scoffed At By

>>Date: Sun, 27 Jul 1997 09:05:20 -0400
>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>>From: Steven Kaeser <steve@konsulting.com>
>>Subject: Re: Roswellian 'Unearthly' Silicon Scoffed At By   Scientists

>>Those who attended the July 4th presentation made by Paul Davids, Derrel
>>Sims, and Russ VernonClark are aware that many questions were left
>>unanswered.

>Dear Steven:

>Actually, _each and every_ question was left unanswered.
>As you know if you were there, _there was no press
>conference_ -- as advertized. Sims and party departed
>through the back door of the Pearson Auditorium, hopped
>into a waiting car, and sped away. Reportedly, Russell
>VernonClark was flown out of the Roswell the same day.

>Most of the media present to whom I talked considered
>this -- how do we put it politely? -- "curious" behavior
>for what had been widely billed as a 9:00 a.m. "press
>conference" at which "Scientific Proof...that an
>Extraterrestrial Craft was Recovered near Roswell, NM"
>would be presented.

>>From statements that have been made since the event, it is
>>clear that VernonClark was only making an appearance because
>>he was under an agreement to do so.

>Well, that's some sort of behavior to be sure, but is
>it necessarily_scientific_ behavior?

I wouldn't charactorize their behavior as "scientific", to be sure.  But
even scientists can find themselves in legal agreements that they wish they
could avoid.  Paul David's decision to "hype" this event as a "News
Conference" was one that I wouldn't have made if I had been in his shoes,
but he must have had his reasons.  He'll have to defend himself in regard
to this action, but I'm not sure I would blame the scientist they brought
into the debate.  However, I'll admit that sneaking out the back door is
not a good way to build trust. . . . <g>

>>In private correspondence, he has indicated hope
>>that a journal article on the "debris" should be completed within a year.
>>At that time he, and the other un-named scientists, will be more prepared
>>to defend their theories.

>In most minds that would indicate that the so-called
>"press conference" probably should have been put off
>until at least then as well. Ordinarily, you
>double-check and confirm your findings before going
>public with them.

Yes.  Any press conference should have waited until the final paper had
been written and all of the scientists were willing to come forward and be
counted.  Again, I think VernonClark had the confirmation of this findings
that he needed to make his statement.  However, that confirmation came from
scientists and labs that didn't want to go public until the final paper was
completed.

>Here we seem to have gotten the press conference --
>that wasn't a press conference -- before the
>proverbial horse, if not the straw cart itself. Is
>it just me, or is this not normally the way good
>science is done?

I guess I'll have to ask if you really expected to get good "science" at
Encounter '97.  No, I don't think this is the way good science is done, but
then again I wasn't expecting that much.  When we have vendors on the
street selling plastic eggs with alien faces drawn on them with a magic
marker, one realizes that we must truly be on an alien world. . . . <g>

On the other hand, I found the presentation provocative and will wait for
the actual paper to be released to make a value judgement.  It certainly
hasn't been handled in a way that I would choose, but I'm not going to
throw out the baby because the bath water is too dirty.

>                   Can you imagine what would have
>happened had NASA held a press conference, say, a
>year _before_ Pathfinder landed in working order?
>They'd be up to their armpits in Hoag Land. Of
>course as far as Hoag Land is concerned, NASA would
>be in over its eyebrows no matter what it did, short
>of appointing His Hairness CEO. I suspect that the
>Roswell fragment press conference -- that wasn't a
>press conference -- took place where and when it did
>precisely because of terrestrial isotopic ratios
>having something to do with the number of cameras
>and microphones present in a given room at the same
>time.

Interesting that you should bring up the Pathfinder . . .<g>  There seems
to be quite a debate in some other groups questioning whether or not the
rover is really on Mars.  But that's another issue.

There's really no way to resolve this question until the paper is written
or VernonClark agrees to come foward and provide the names of others that
have confirmed his results.  We can debate the manner in which it was
handled, but it won't change the test results, and this public debate is
the reason that most scientists would rather keep their mouths shut than
announce preliminary findings.

But those findings, should they be confirmed, will generate a major
discussion in many areas on this matter.  Even without confirmation of
where the "debris" came from, I would think the volumn of the discussion
will likely be higher than we recently saw with the "Mars Rock".

If they aren't confirmed, we'll see the issue die down and the credibility
of those responsible will be impacted appropriately.

>Mind, Steven, none of the above is directed at you
>personally. I just hopped on your post with an early
>press release. Direct any potentially discomfiting
>questions to my agent...aka the Duke of Mendoza, and
>_his_ agent, Aleister Crowley, and _his_ agent before
>him.

Please be assured that my comments are directed only at the issues, and not
at the personalities involved.  If there are any questions that come to
mind, I will forward them to the appropriate office.

Steve

PS-  What's your stance on the Phoenix Lights issue.  The Maryland National
Guard would seem to be supportive of the most recent article on the subject
in the MUFON Journal, but several news reporters weren't convinced that
flares were the cause.