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 -> Jun -> Re: Max Burns UFO Hoax Exposed

UFO UpDates Mailing List

From: Matthew Williams <truthseekers@truthseekers.screaming.net>
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1999 20:16:20 +0100
Fwd Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 10:34:05 -0400
Subject: Re: Max Burns UFO Hoax Exposed


>From: David Clarke <crazydiamonds@compuserve.com>
>Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 12:05:41 -0400
>Fwd Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 20:25:12 -0400
>Subject: Re: Max Burns Hoax Exposed

>Max never fails to amaze and entertain. No one has to lead him
>up the garden path, as he is quite capable of doing that
>entirely by himself His ability to misinterpret, distort and
>misrepresent facts really does deserve some kind of special award;
>as I've said before he is simply incapable of interpreting any
>kind of evidence correctly. Nowhere have I ever claimed that six
>specific aircraft from any specific airbase were the cause of
>the sonic booms recorded near Sheffield on March 24, 1997.
>That is a simple fact, something neither Max nor his
>"Truthseeker" friends could bring themselves to accept.

Well you are making the point that there was a covert mission on
top of the one already admitted to. This is not proven and is
just as much fiction as the type of horrific accusations you
make against Max. 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.

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.

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. This was
nothing to do with UFO investigation - this was pure bitterness
because you were being challenged and you were so sure of
yourself and your high moral ground that you investigated and
interfered with a legal matter which involved someone else. This
can only show you up to be the type of nasty character who would
also perpetrate the Blue Hare UFO hoax of which Max and myself
were the victims. This does not say that you _are_ the Bluehare
conspirator, but simply that you seem absolutely capable of it.
This is the impression shared by many I have spoken to...

And did I cause this? Or did your arrogant, ignorant, childish
and downright rude behaviour toward another human being give
you this title? 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!

>For the benefit of the hard of hearing, I reproduce the relevant
>section from the conclusions to my Howden Moor report which
>demonstrates once again how Max is incapable of telling the
>truth:

>>There clearly was a military exercise taking place centred upon>
>>the Peak District that night, one phase of which (now officially
>>admitted) is timed from 7.30-9.30pm, when the RAF claim all
>>their aircraft were safely grounded and accounted for. However,
>>the evidence from both witnesses in Derbyshire and South
>>Yorkshire and the sonic booms recorded by the BGS suggest a
>>covert part of this operation continued after the booked
>>operation had been officially completed. Many more aircraft were
>>involved in this exercise than has been officially admitted as
>>is clear from the 13 low-flying complaints lodged with the RAF
>>on March 24 from widely separated areas of the British
>>coastline.

>>It is clear that a formation of Tornado aircraft travelled
>>across the Peak District on a southeast to northwest flightpath
>>between 9.45 and 10pm, coinciding with the first of two sonic
>>booms recorded 12 minutes apart from the Sheffield area.

>Discredited my own research?

>I think not!

No but as I stated before - your "conclusions" are only
suppositions and do not form _fact_. Max is on equal par with
you here because you simply cannot prove that aircraft caused
the sonic booms, as much as the evidence Max has which proves
that his witnesses changed their stories.

Another interesting fact is how all of Max's witnesses changed
their stories after you and Andy R. got to them. You then made
big claims about how you could show that Max Burns had lied
about their witness testimonies and that the witnesses were
claiming their words had been twisted.

However the truth of the situation, as you well know is that Max
Burns played a tape recording of one witness who states that he
was happy to allow Max to use his name, details of his statement
and claimed that the man he encountered stank of aviation fuel.

After you got to the witness the story changes to the witness
having not given permission to Max to talk about his case - that
Max had twisted his words. Your eyes lit up when you tried to
use this against Max but sadly you have been put back in your
seat because Max then produced the audio taped recording of this
mans voice. So you neatly skip over this _major_ point in the
case and go onto aircraft causing sonic booms being your latest
evidence to damn Max's research with.

When are you going to learn... its not a game of politics... who
is seen to be right... and who has the loudest voice... who can
dig up the most dirt on the other researcher. Its about the case
in question.

You have damaged the credibility of the IUN and yourself and a
man of your standing with apparent Doctor qualifications should
not be involving himself in such petty battles, and should be
sticking to the facts.

I did once make a challenge to David Clark to meet Max Burns and
discuss the differences at an open lecture, so that time could
be saved and people could be brought back together for the
benefit of research and this case. Clark point-blank refused to
attend any such meeting... even when we offered to stage it at
our expense in his home town. This _proves_ beyond any
reasonable doubt that Dr Clark's intention is to carry on a
petty war via email - he is not interested in any resolution to
this case unless it is the case being dismissed.

Lastly, we cannot ignore the possibility that there is some
other, hidden, agenda - for who would make it their life's goal
to attack others in such a harsh manner?

So I make, for a second time, the offer of an open debate,
chaired by a person/persons agreeable to both parties at a
location near to Mr Clark's so that the case notes can be
discussed in public.

Will Dr Clark find the time in his busy schedule to attend, or
is there something odd going on here. Does Mr Clark have to hide
behind his emails to this and other Lists in order to prove his
case. Can he not do this in public - with all of the vitriol and
hate left behind?

Matthew Williams
Truthseekers Research
http:\\www.truthseekers.freeserve.co.uk\