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: Mark Cashman <mcashman@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 1997 13:58:41 -0700
Fwd Date: Thu, 31 Jul 1997 21:48:47 -0400
Subject: Re: an alien face in Jung's UFO book

>  Date: Thu, 31 Jul 1997 01:06:20 -0700
>  From: John Koopmans <john.koopmans@sympatico.ca>
>  To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>  Subject: Re: an alien face in Jung's UFO book

>   Physicists are beginning to prove that some form of
>  communication exists between particles that are separated in space.

This is not exactly a correct interpretation of the Bell theorem, or the EPR,
as I understand it.

>  Elements are being shown to have behavioural characteristics that defy
>  identification (i.e. metals such as rhodium in high spin states are
>  transparent to identification devices and are being identified by the
>  trace impurities contained within it - i.e. they are being identified as
>  silica - could this possibly explain the Roswell debris object that was
>  currently tested and found to be silica with unusual ionization
>  patterns?).

According to which experiments performed by who, and confirmed by
who else, and published in which peer-reviewed journal? What type of
"spin" is being referred to here? (Quantum spin is quantized and only
affects quanta, not atoms or metals)

>  Einstein's theory of Relativity is being seriously
>  challenged.

By who? According to which experiments performed by who, and confirmed by
who else, and published in which peer-reviewed journal?

>  Animals are able to communicate with humans and show
>  creative thinking processes similar to those of humans.

According to which experiments performed by who, and confirmed by
who else, and published in which peer-reviewed journal?

>  Humans have been
>  found to emit magnetic fields from the solar plexis while experiencing
>  pain. I could go on and on, but the books above document my points.

According to which experiments performed by who, and confirmed by
who else, and published in which peer-reviewed journal?

I know, it sounds like a broken record. But to the best of my knowledge
none of the above are currently accepted science.

I'm willing to look at the evidence, but, after all, Einstein's theory, to
take just one example, is one of THE most confirmed theories ever. So
once I read the sentence "Einstein's theory of Relativity is being seriously
challenged", I find it much harder to take the rest of the examples at face
value and accept them as real science.

One of the reasons science isn't getting done in UFOlogy, in my opinion,
and one reason for the scorn in which it is held by many scientists, is
because we're willing to accept stuff which should be speculation as if
it were proven fact.

Take the comment by another poster about the apparent lack of inertia
in UFO performance. First, the idea of inertialessness is one which
isn't necessarily validated by the observations. Sure, UFO's stop on a
dime, and sure UFOs make rapid right angle turns. But without
closely instrumented observations we can't say these are instantaneous.
If they are not instantaneous, then they could very well be a manifestation
of very high thrust compared to weight. Heck, we already know that UFOs
can easily emit MW of power in no more than light energy. They obviously
have power to burn. As for inertialessness itself, it would be no panacea.
Remember that part of the "rules" of inertia are that "keeps moving in a
straight line unless acted upon by an external force". Thus, inertialessness
implies "no coasting" - a UFO would have to apply power at all times for
any motion. And what about "inertialess air"? The attainment of laminar
flow over a UFO would be much more expensive if thrust had to be
constantly applied to every molecule of air traveling over the surface,
rather than being able to establish laminar flow and possibly maintain
fine corrections.

Now, yes, the above is speculation too. But it's testable. Prove that a UFO
produces an instantaneous stop without the application of energy, and you
can make a much stronger case for inertialessness. However, you will need
to accurately measure at all times, down to a very precise interval, the
speed and energy output of the UFO. (BTW, anecdotally, the white
flash frequently seen in close encounters when a UFO slows from a rapid
approach to a hover might be seen as disconfirmation of inertiallessness).

At any rate, making testable predictions isn't something UFOlogy has been
very good at. As is frequently pointed out, ETH is not easily testable, short
of capturing a UFO and finding ET isotopic ratios (and there are arguments
that could even invalidate that as proof). How much harder is it to prove
the "occult" hypothesis? The Williamette Pass photo, which seemed clear
evidence of really non-conventional UFOs (three disks for one with one
shutter opening) has been shown to be a misinterpretation of a road sign.
Bedroom encounters, NDEs, etc don't seem to have enough objective
value to be a proof. Psychic abilities in post-encounter witnesses have been
claimed, but, to the best of my knowledge, never unambiguously demonstrated
in independent labs. And except for abductions and some very unreliable
single witness reports, there just don't seem sufficient reliable high-
strangeness accounts to be worth going down this road, until we've done the
more basic science on the hard, objective nature of the UFO.

-------
Mark Cashman, creator of the Temporal Doorway at
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Lofts/5623/
http://www.infohaus.com/access/by-seller/The_Temporal_Doorway_Storefront
Original digital art, writing and UFO research
mcashman@ix.netcom.com