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 -> 1998 -> May -> Re: Max Burns

UFO UpDates Mailing List

From: Andy Roberts <Brigantia@compuserve.com>
Date: Sat, 2 May 1998 13:32:14 -0400
Fwd Date: Sat, 02 May 1998 14:20:36 -0400
Subject: Re: Max Burns


>Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1998 07:21:25 -0400
>From: Miles Johnston <TMilesJ@compuserve.com>
>Subject: Max Burns
>Sheffield Incident Response To: UFO Updates <updates@globalserve.net>

The current dialogue regarding the Sheffield UFO 'crash' case is
important not only in itself but for its wider implications in
the field of UFO studies. If I may, and as personal emails
originating from myself are now being bandied about to 'prove'
points in the Sheffield case, I'd like the opportunity to clear
up some misunderstandings and to put certain matters into
perspective.

Firstly I would heartily recommend that anyone interested obtains both Dave Clarke's *and* Max Burns' reports into the case.
Trying to make your mind up from the fractured information on the Internet without first seeing the source materials is likely to prove unproductive, if not baffling.

Burns and Johnston are being illogical in their claims that they are being 'silenced'. That is not the issue at all. This whole argument is about the protocols for presenting evidence and proof, what constitutes same and the function of ufology.

And you just thought it was an argument between ufologists!

Are we in the subject just to make wild and unsubstantiated
claims about UFOs coming from space being able to zap airplanes?
Or are we involved to meticulously dissect witness claims *and*
those of ufologists who reach conclusions which are not supported
by facts? If any aliens are left after this process then fine.
But you may all have noticed that in 41 years since Arnold,
despite all the huff and puff, *no-one* has
produced any conclusive evidence or proof for their existance.
Therefore all such claims *and* their claimants should be
rigorously interrogated. This is precisely the course of action
Dave Clarke and myself have taken in this specific case.

Max Burns has told many people in the past that he was going to
make the Sheffield 'crash' into the 'British Roswell' (!).  That
statement is a witnessed fact. Obviously that in itself is a
challenge to any sensible ufologist.  What we have seen over the
past year or so is Max attempting to play out this fantasy in the
real world.....

I offer selected comments on Miles' email.....

>IS the Email Being Bugged????......I can only
>surmise, that it may be due to this Sheffield incident involving
>such sensitive issues, that even the "Psi-Corp" version of the
>National Guard is out on this one.  (I stand to be totally
>corrected, as this is pure speculation).

This really worries me - that Miles actually thinks that either
his email regarding a minor UFO case is being bugged. By whom and
for what reason Miles? This is shoddy, unsubstantiated thinking,
the type of which clogs the UFO subject and prevents progress.

In previous correspondence with Miles he has stated that
'certain' UFO researchers have had their houses 'torched' because
of their interest and involvement. I *specifically* asked Miles
for details of these crimes (because that is what he is alleging
has taken place) so that I could investigate them and prove or
disprove his allegations. He failed to reply.

>Max has been subjected to severe personal attack on his report,
>which is simply his report on an incident, involving RAF jets,
>civilian aircraft, military helicopters, massive sonic booms of
>unknown origin, the possible loss (NOT CRASH) of an RAF Tornado
>attack interceptor aircraft, and the reported sighting of a
>MASSIVE, quote "HUGE" triangular UFO hovering feet from houses in
>Dronfield, near Sheffield.

Any attacks made on Max's research have been because he is
claiming things to be true which aren't. Put simply Max is saying
that a Tornado jet was 'vanished' by a UFO - with loss of crew.
He is saying that people have lost their lives because of a UFO
incident.

This is a very serious allegation to make. Max cannot back it up
with *one* shred of evidence. Imagine, for a moment, that you
have a husband in the RAF flying Tornadoes and you read that one
has been abstracted by a UFO with full loss of life and that the
RAF are covering it up. Would you like to hear these ravings with
no proof? *All* we want is Max to provide evidence and proof of
his claims. His 'report' into the Sheffield case is little more
than a log of claimed sightings of various mundane aerial objects
and a copy of the police log. It contains no logical, structured
approach to the case and fails to back up his claims or personal
beliefs.

>Whether this meant ETs were involved is a matter for conjecture.

Max *has* stated he believes ETs are involved. These are claims
which researchers in England at least take seriously as something
to be challenged remorselessly. We are not debunkers! We are
concerned sceptics, experienced ufologists, who are thoroughly
sick of wild allegations being made with no back up evidence or
proof.

Max and Miles do ufology a disservice with these claims.

We are trying to redress the balance. This is *not* entertainment
- Miles and Max - if you are going to make claims then you are
going to have to produce evidence to support them. So far you
have not.

>Further attempts to discredit Max Burns, siting his arrest for a
>drugs offence have been inaccuractly reported.  These reports may
>be subject to legal proceedings.   Mr Burns was today again given
>bail and will be fighting his case, at Sheffield Crown Court in
>due course.

If you see the email of mine which has been reposted by Miles you
will note that we merely *note* Max's current circumstances,
circumstances which he *freely* was telling all and sundry
earlier this year. If you *want* some real meat then we have
several witnesses to a conversation (at the 1997 BUFORA
conference) regarding this case in which Max freely admitted to
bribing a key witness with drugs to get information. I rest my
case!

>In essence he has stated that the drugs case is a dirty tricks
>department operation in order to get him out of the way, so his
>findings on the Incident will not be reported.  Mr Burns has
>already received a commendation after saving a policeman's life,
>at great personal risk to himself, in a separate incident in the
>Sheffield area.

Yes, Max *believes* that it is all a set up to discredit him by
the security services. He claims he will ask Tim Good to give
evidence that this sort of thing happens. Why? Because he claims
Tim Good is in fact working for the intelligence services
himself! We look forward to the court case.

Do you see how weird all this gets when we dig below the
surface?

If it wasn't for the fact that Max *himself* is connecting the
alleged UFO incident with his unfortunate personal legal
circumstances it would not merit a mention. However, if a
researcher *himself* introduces something into a case then others
who are investigating it have a right to comment. Because it is
then a part of the case.

It is also worth noting that the inference in both Miles' and
Max's emails is that Dave Clarke, myself or Tim Matthews is
working for the government in some way. Well, obviously Tim is!
But I'm sorry to say we're not. Whereas Dave Clarke can refute
Burns' claims by producing evidence unfortunately Johnstone and
Burns can only claim that their critics are 'wrong' and so
therefore must be working for the government. We wish!

>It is hoped that Both Max Burns and David Clarke will be able to
>argue their respective points of view, at a BUFORA meeting on May
>2nd, in London.

Fortunately Max has been prevented from speaking at this event.
No doubt allegations of cover-up, censorship and repression will
follow. In fact we are all for Max putting his case across in
public.

We *want* it to happen.

But we want it to be a *two* sided debate involving the principal
investigator, Dave Clarke, so that the audience see *both* sides
of the coin. Unfortunately Max cannot accept this and has since
thrown his teddy out of the pram, barraging BUFORA Council
members with abusive and threatening phone calls.

Yet again in this subject we are plagued by the forces of
irrationality who expect to be able to make ludicrous claims and
have them go unchallenged. Well, it's just not happening any
more, certainly not in the UK. In the past year we have seen the
rise of a new, highly critical and sceptical group of individuals
who are devoting considerable time and energy to the detailed
investigation of wild claims involving UFO incidents. Some
ufologists may not like this way of looking at the subject. But
we are satisfied that instead of floundering about in the ugly
mire which is ufology the time has come to take a more pro-active
role and to look carefully at wild claims and to present the
counter-argument.

Answers to all points raised in Max Burns' reply can be found
above.

Dave Clarke or myself will be happy to answer anyone's questions
about this case, either on or off list. A full report on this
case is available from Dave Clarke and it will also be featured
in the next issue of the UK 'UFO' magazine as well as in Fortean
Times.

I am sure Dave will respond in his own time to this silliness.
However it may not be today as he has gone to claim our
'expenses' from a shadowy figure at the local railway station.

Happy Trails

Andy