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 -> 1999 -> Jan -> Re: 1999 UFO Alien Abduction Conference Announced

UFO UpDates Mailing List

From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 09:51:08 EST
Fwd Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 11:19:12 -0500
Subject: Re: 1999 UFO Alien Abduction Conference Announced

>Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 13:58:24 -0500
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
>Subject: Re: 1999 UFO Alien Abduction Conference Announced

>>From: Roger Evans <moviestuff@cyberjunkie.com>
>>Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 09:28:07 +0000
>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>>Subject: 1999 UFO Alien Abduction Conference Announced

<snip>

>>If Kevin Randle were to fly himself in, would he be welcome to
>>address the conference? Certainly there should be a little time
>>available.

>Hi Roger,

>That would have been a possibility two weeks ago. We have since
>added Carol Rainey to the schedule (she is giving a talk on the
>role of the media re: UFOs and abductions) and as a result the
>schedule is now full. Carol is also 'local' and doesn't require
>special travel arrangements.

In talking with friends yesterday, and discussing Roger's idea,
I suggested that it would now be "too late" for such a plan to
work.

>It's only a _one_ day conference. If there was more time, and
>Kevin was willing to pay his own way, I don't see why he
>couldn't/shouldn't speak at any conference sponsored by IF. In
>fact he could have compensated himself by selling some of his
>books at our table during the event. There's more here than
>meets the eye though Roger. There was more than a little
>vitriol in Kevins' post about the conference. There are several
>conferences each year and 'for some reason' he has chosen to
>come out publicly and single out our event labeling it biased
>or one sided. I've never seen him post complaints about any
>conferences that he has participated in, or any others for that
>matter. How many of the conferences that have taken place could
>be considered "well balanced" in terms of presentation of
>opposing points of view? Not many I'm sure. But for some reason
>Kevin feels it's his duty to warn everyone about how biased
>ours is.

In many of those conferences the agenda is out there for
everyone to see. If Richard Boylan is the conference organizer,
then it is clear to everyone that nothing considered "negative"
will be presented. All New Age philosophy will be endorsed and
all evidences of scientific thought will be rejected.

The IF conference seemed to one that was going to be
scientifically oriented. I thought it would be a good arena in
which to introduce some thoughts about the abductions with an
eye to helping some of those who believe they might have been
abducted and who are looking for some answers.

>I don't quite get it, but then there it is. In spite of many
>differences of opinion and belief I have always liked and
>respected Kevin. This particular outing of his has me a bit
>baffled however. I am sorry that he has adopted this "negative"
>view of our event. Just three weeks ago he was asking to be
>invited as a participant. He seemed more than willing to
>associate himself and his name with us and our conference. Now,
>he's knocking us all over the internet.

It is not a negative view but a simple statement to suggest
that, in my opinion, a little balance could be used. The list of
the speakers (and here I may again irritate Jerry Clark) seemed
to have all come down on a single side in the debate. I have
read each of the books produced by the participants and can
guess at the direction they will take. I thought a cautionary
hand might round out the picture. That was really all that I
thought.

As for knocking you all over the internet, isn't that something
of an exaggeration? I personally posted my message twice, both
times to closed discussion lists. I have not posted it to any of
the open news groups, and in fact, haven't looked at any of
those in several months.

I also knew, when I posted the comments, that they would invoke
a number of nasty responses (not that I would consider that
written by John Velez nasty) and they have. It is clear that
many don't want to see anything that suggests an alternative
answer to any aspect of the abduction phenomena. When, in North
Carolina, I suggested only that we must do better than suggest
"there are no traditional sci-fi gods and devils" that
correspond to the abduction phenomena, there were those who
heard me attacking abductees. All I was saying was that we
could, if we looked, find various elements of the abduction
phenomena in science fiction and pop culture, and that we had
better find ways of dealing with that information rather than
simply dismissing it.

I'm sorry that so many took my comments as negative when they
were only a suggestion for some balance. Greg Sandow has
suggested that Jerry Clark (truly the historian of the UFO
phenomena) will provide that balance. I would, of course, have
preferred to make the argument myself, but that is not to be.

KRandle