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: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 18:07:23 +0100
Fwd Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1999 20:16:49 -0400
Subject: Re: Nick Pope's Weird World


 >From: Rory Lushman <Oubliette@currantbun.com>
 >To: UFO Updates <updates@Globalserve.net>
 >Subject: Re: Nick Pope's Weird World
 >Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 22:28:22 +0100

 >>From: Georgina Bruni <georgina@easynet.co.uk>
 >>Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 14:57:36 +0100
 >>To: updates@globalserve.net
 >>Subject: Nick Pope's Weird World

 >>Over the past few months I d been becoming more
 >>bullish in my response to certain people within ufology who'd
 >>been sniping at me over the years.  Nobody likes criticism,
 >>and I'd been getting a fair bit - little of it constructive in
 >>nature.

 >Maybe if you removed the following from your opening header,
 >people would take you seriously.

 >>Welcome to the July column, and the latest news and gossip from
 >>the weird and wacky world of UFOs, alien abductions and the
 >>paranormal.

 >"Gossip."  By its very nature this shows the level of your
 >bulletins. Gossip is going behind people's backs and repeating
 >things that aren't strictly true.

 >Maybe when you stop gossiping, the waters may become calmer.
 >
 >Being Nick Pope's messenger doesn't help either. Tell him to get
 >on the Internet and do his own messages instead of using you.
 >
 >If your standard of research is on a par with Nick's, then
 >welcome to the Twilight Zone. Don't go on any toll roads, they
 >cause you all sorts of problems. Of course we are all looking
 >forward to your forthcoming book to set the record straight.
 >
 >Cheers
 >
 >Rory Lushman
 >
Hi,

I'd just add, Georgina, that I have no problem with you nor am I
criticising you personally, if I am one of the people referred
to here, but I was very disappointed in the tenure of your
questions posed to me for your forthcoming book on Rendlesham.
Some list members will know (because I have offered full
accounts privately) that I am sadly not willing to do this for
your book to appear, inevitably and not through your fault as
selected bits and pieces. This is because of my desire not to
appear within your pages arguing tittle tattle rather than facts
and evidence. You may or may not agree with my views on this
case, but I have been involved almost from day one and thus have
more to contribute than answering the inane questions you saw
fit to pose. I prefer not to appear in your work at all if it
cannot be through commenting on facts and evidence that I saw
unfold first hand.

Sadly, what you asked was not about the results of my 18 years
digging into this case, the things I had learned or my views on
the most remarkable set of UFO experiences in the UK. Instead
they were all abstract and seemingly based on false innuendo and
gossip doing the rounds at the speed of rumour in the way that
you of all people should know is no guarantee of truth. These
questions were regarding such important issues as my telling you
whether I started to investigate in late January l981 or early
February l981 (as I have contradicted myself on this key issue
it seems - for a very simple reason, if it truly matters), or
exactly how many people I have interviewed on this case (the
implication being that the facts and referenced sources stated
in the three books I have authored or co-authored on the case
are untrustworthy - otherwise, why would you need to ask for
clarification).

As you know, because I told you, I would gladly have answered
any serious questions about the case itself, the facts behind it
or my views upon it. These, I assumed you might be interested by
and your readers would benefit a little from hearing. Instead,
it would appear, all you want from me are responses to garbled
chatter - which seems at best of oblique relevance to a case
with undoubted importance to UFOlogy.

If you perceive my refusal to give you quotable replies to tall
tales and trivia as a criticism of you, then I am sorry. But it
is not . However, it is certainly a reflection of disappointment
that after first telling me a year ago that you wanted to
interview me on this case you did not eventually come up with
anything beyond feeble gossip to ask me about.

A truly objective overview on this case from someone such as
yourself will be welcome to all (myself included - as I am
undoubtedly too close to the affair for a good perspective). You
still might pull it off, of course, but I am bound to worry that
the level of questions that you posed to me serve as an
illustration of what you may have asked others.

Still you may prove me wrong. I'll be truly pleased if you do as
the case deserves it.

Best wishes,

Jenny Randles