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 -> 1999 -> Jul -> Here

From: David Clarke <crazydiamonds@compuserve.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Jul 1999 06:08:51 -0400
Fwd Date: Mon, 05 Jul 1999 08:42:15 -0400
Subject: Re: Max Burns UFO Hoax Exposed


>From: Matthew Williams <truthseekers@truthseekers.screaming.net>
>Subject: Re: Max Burns UFO Hoax Exposed
>Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1999 20:16:20 +0100
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
Matthew Williams wrote:

>You seem incapable of keeping it "un-personal"
>which is why behind the scenes I have now joined in the little
>'war' going on. Not to defend the Sheffield case, not even to
>defend Max Burns, but instead to defend anyone who should come
>under the massive attacks you and Andy Roberts make against
>them. If somebody disagrees with you, god help them, thats all I
>can say. And this _has_ been noticed... by many people, not just
>myself.

I am honoured that Matthew feels he needs to join the "war" to
defend the shambling edifice of the "Sheffield Incident."

Please Matthew, keep defending Max's position, that is precisely
what I want you to do.

As for "people" noting what a nasty man I am, yet again I'm
honoured. Soon I will be competing with Matthew himself for the
coveted title of The Most Hated Man in British UFOlogy.

>You have made a bad name for yourself in British Ufology by
>attacking people and not facts. When you resorted to attempts to
>get people arrested (partially successful) by virtue of your
>_fabricated_ and exaggerated version of how somebody had failed
>to pay a minor tax bill - you scraped as low as almost any could
>get.

Max made this case "personal" as you put it the day he walked into
my place of work in the summer of 1997 and started abusing me
in front of my colleagues for daring to take a different point of view
to his lunatic theories. This was long before Matthew Williams, Roy Hale
or any of the other hangers-on  who have since crawled out of the
woodwork had ever heard of Max Burns or the" Sheffield Incident."

It is amusing to watch now as Williams and co struggle to be
"part of the action", re-writing history as they go, ignoring
the bits they find not to their liking.

Readers of UFO UpDates who have followed this tiring farago can
read what I have said about this case on this list.

I have stuck to the facts throughout - and will continue to do
so. Every time Max has made outrageous and untrue claims about
this case, I have countered with the facts, and I will continue
to do so.

The case is solved, there was no UFO or Tornado crash. If others
think there was, it is up to them to provide proof. If no proof
is forthcoming, then we have to accept there is none.

People out there can read both sides of the case, and make up
their own minds. Those who are remotely interested have already
done so and expressed their views on this list and elsewhere.

As for Max being (partially) arrested, you are wrong again. He
was properly arrested. And deservedly so.

>Seeing as you claim that Max and myself have a problem with the
>facts... lets ignore the Sheffield case and look at the
>fabricated facts you put forward to get Max arrested.

That's precisely what you want me to do - ignore the facts of
the non-case and get distracted by side-issues so you can
obfusicate the facts of the case. Well think again boyo.

>This was  nothing to do with UFO investigation - this was pure
>bitterness

>You have egg on your face and I am quite happy
>to keep telling people what an untrustworthy character you are
>and to never trust you or Andy Roberts with any personal
>information. You are leakier than a lake!

Please be my guest and go ahead with your unrecommendations. It
can't do my reputation anything but good to know that a
freelance nutcase called Matthew Williams is going around the
country slagging me off to all and sundry.

I must be a really scary ogre to have such a horrid beast on my
tail - more likely these tactics are necessary because I have
revealed a few home truths and rocked a few sacred cows.

"Matthew who?" people have already asked me. "You mean that
Welsh guy who believes the world is run by the Illuminati,
spends his weekends breaking into RAF bases and openly
encourages people to break the law on his website?"

Quite!

I'm sure my reputation is going to come crumbling down overnight
in the face of someone whose views are taken seriously by so
many people. No doubt I will reduced to begging on the streets
before long. And finally we come to Matthew's "challenge" for me
to attend a public debate on the "Sheffield Incident".

Well really! If I did want to damage my professional reputation
what better way to do it than to engage in a public slanging
match with a room full of lunatics?

Who else in the "general public" would be even the slightest bit
interested in the minutiae of this case?

I am prepared to discuss and debate any UFO case provided those
taking part in the discussion share the same basic rules of
evidence and scientific methodology. Where one side does not
share those rules, no debate is possible.

How is possible to hold a rational debate with people who claim
they are being followed by secret agents, their phones are
bugged, there is a massive conspiracy underway, they have
implants in their heads and knees,  aliens are everywhere, etc
etc?

So no Matthew, I have no problems declining your invitation
because I cannot see what there is to gain other than an
opportunity to have the whole group of you sectioned under the
Mental Health Act in one swoop.

And as a timely aside, Matthew fails to mention that I also
challenged him to travel to  Sheffield and meet the Mountain
Rescue Teams and eyewitnesses who give a completely different
version of events to those which Max would like to foster on us.

I don't suppose you will be surprised to find Matthew declined
my challenge - methinks the "Truthseeker" might have found a few
real truths which he would find unpalatable.

Max and Matthew's output surely prove, if proof was necessary,
why sane and rational people give the subject of ufology a wide
berth. I wish the promoters of "the Sheffield Incident" the best
of luck, but I can't resist making, yet again, another and more
relevant challenge; one which I've been making for two years
without a satisfactorily answer:

1. I challenge Max to name the Tornado pilot he claims was killed
as a result of UFO action over the Peak District on March 24, 1997.

2. I challenge Max to name its base and its point of origin, and
provide proof that a 20 tonne Tornado has been lost and all trace
of its existence hidden from the public.

3. I challenge Max to produce one single eyewitness who saw a
UFO attack and destroy a Tornado aircraft over the Peak District.