From: tnishi@kansas.Berkeley.EDU (NISHIYAMA Tetsuto)
Subject: Re: UFO - area 51...
Reply-To: tnishi@lsa.ncl.omron.co.jp
Organization: Omron Corporate R&D H.Q.- R&D Support Dept.
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 02:03:29 GMT

In article <1992Oct6.172542.11106@m.cs.uiuc.edu>, mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu
(Robert McGrath) writes:
|> In article <1992Oct6.020531.6187@omrongw.wg.omron.co.jp>,
tnishi@kansas.Berkeley.EDU (NISHIYAMA Tetsuto) writes in part:
|> |> 
|> |> 	  The "total fantasy" part, I don't know...could you explain what
|> |> 	you mean about "total fantasy"?  I have never seen a UFO myself.
|> |> 	Only on t.v. so I don't know if they exist or not, but IF they
|> |> 	did exist and WERE working with the military, it wouldn't be hard
|> |> 	to imagine the military trying to keep it a secret.
|> Your sentence is exactly what I mean by "fantasy".  A long string of
|> speculations, tied together by weak logic.  

No,no,no...my sentence?  Like I said, I'm not trying to prove or disprove
anything.  I merely stated that it would not be too difficult to imagine
the military trying to keep something like this a secret IF something like
this were true.  I wouldn't exactly call it fantasy...just a personal 
opinion.  That's all.

|>                                             For starters, the noone
|> ever kept such a secret so secret for so long.   Second, the entire
|> premise that the US military would want to do this is not terribly
|> plausible.  

	maybe you're right...maybe it's NOT plausible...

|>             Third, the supposed evidence of such a conspiracy is
|> contradictory, false, and fabricated.  Cite me a source for these
|> claims, and I examine it.

	Remember, I'm not saying that you're wrong, and again, let me
tell you that I'm not trying to prove or disprove the claims, since I
have NOTHING to back up these claims since they are NOT MINE, but next
time I'll be sure to write down some sources, names, places whatever
and let you know because I'd be interested in seeing what you find.

|> |> 	  Another interesting thing they showed was film/video clips
|> |> 	taken from the space shuttle.  There were several film clips
		[...deleted...]
|> |> 	second video frame at a time, it can be seen that the object is
|> |> 	continuously changing its velocity as it zig zags through space.
|> Old hat.  Wonder-mongers are having a field day with the funny behavior of
|> all the junk that hangs around the shuttle.  The supposed SDI tests make
|> no sense, the behavior of the objects is entirely consistent with the way
|> debris moves in space.

	I thought the SDI stuff was a bit of bullshit myself, but I wish
you could have seen the last film clip...there is NO WAY that the
movement of that object consists with the way debris moves in space.
Trust me, it was not consistent.  It could have been placed there by a 
video/film/computer graphics trick though.
	Now the object turning at a sharp 145 angle cannot be distinguished
as anything since it appears only as a spot on the screen and the movement
could conceivably be labeled as being "consistent"...no argument there.

|> |> 		I'm not trying to prove that they exist or don't exist...
|> |> 	just telling you what I saw on t.v.  
|> |> 		Personally, I don't see why they wouldn't exist.  Many
|> |> 	people (not me) claim to see them...yes I'm sure many of those are
|> |> 	just planes or clouds or whatever else, but how about the others?
		[...deleted...]
|> |> 		Robert, out of curiosity, I was wondering whether you did
|> |> 	this?  Actually go to these places and see for yourself?  I'm just
|> |> 	supposing that you did and were not convinced.
|> Its not really a question of whether UFO's COULD exist, its just that the
|> wild claims made by enthusiasts simply do not hold up.  What good would

	You're right, its not a question of their existance, and the claims
made by "enthusiasts" are just that, claims, and they do NOT hold up.  I
agree with you there.
	Let me make sure I understand what you are saying though...
Wild claims are made by enthusiasts, or enthusiasts make wild claims, right?
I could see that.  I could see how enthusiasts would make wild claims to try
and prove something.
You aren't saying that all people who make wild claims are enthusiasts, are
you?  I think some people actually DID see SOMETHING (not necessarily a 
flying saucer) and could not recognize it or its behaviour.

|> going to PR do?  The stories could not be confirmed by going there.

	No, they cannot be confirmed, but it might be interesting to see
one for myself since I haven't yet, and get a feel for what it might be.
The only things that I've ever seen flying through the air at night at any
kind of noticeable speed are planes, helicopters, and satellites...

|> As far as I know, "area 51" doesn't even EXIST, so how could I go there?

	from what I know "area 51" seems to be just a name, but the
military bases that people seem to call "area 51" DO exist.  Next time
I see it on t.v. I'll try and catch what state it's located in...I think
they said Arizona, but I'm not positive about that.  It's near an Indian
reservation (I know that there are alot in the area so I know that saying 
it didn't help).

|> What I do do is read the reports and check them against other, less
|> spectacualr, accounts.  Stripped of the "gee whiz" aspects, most UFO
|> reports amount to a little bit of "lights in the sky" and a lot of

	yes, they ARE usually lights in the sky, but some interesting
home made videos taken in daylight do seem to be floating around...
don't ask me where to find or who to get it from because I don't know.

|> |> why do they keep
|> |> 	kidnapping the "little people"...
|> They don't.  The abduction tales are fabrications and fantasies.

	That's exactly my point.  Perhaps I should have put the word
"kidnapping" in quotes...If they (the "aliens") were REALLY interested
in "saving" us, they should go ahead and "kidnap" the world leaders...

|> There is absolutely no evidence that anyone has ever been abducted
|> by aliens.

	Right, there IS no evidence...just lapses in memory...but then
again, there is no real evidence against it either...or is there?

|> |> |> It's hard to give ditailed commetnary on these points, as there
was not
|> |> |> enough info in the post to refute.
|> |> 
|> |> 	refute? I don't really want you to JUST refute, but a comment with
|> |> 	WHY would be nice.  Just saying it's a hoax or it's fantasy isn't
|> |> 	going to tell us ( people who may believe or people who are not
|> |> 	sure) WHY they may or may not exist.
|> WHY what?  Why do people tell such tales if they are not true?  Because
|> they really believe it (perhaps incorrectly)?  To make money, maybe?  To
|> get attention, maybe?  Because they are fun, maybe?  Who knows?

	No, why you say that its fantasy or fabrication.  You say it and
you're always asking for source but you don't produce any yourself.  Now
it COULD be fantasy or fabrication and I'm sure that a good number of them
are...I'm not arguing with your statements, but I question the way you
respond by "refuting" these claims without producing any sources yourself,
which you seem to have since you "read the reports"...out of curiosity,
do any reports exist by psychiatrists or hypnotists who have seen/studied
people who make these claims?  That could be one good source by a
professional in the psychological department.

|> 
|> And please note:  I said the nonsense in the TV show was fantasy.  I
|> did not actually comment on whether ET's might or might not exist.  The
|> point is, tabloid trash on TV and elsewhere is basically just "made up".
|> It means very little other than that you can put almost anything on
|> TV and some people with believe it.

	Ok, I agree with you here.  Tabloid trash is just that...trash.
This show though was not exactly tabloid...more of a documentary...the
show did not claim that the reports were true.  They just followed a
man who is researching this area by investigating these areas, the claims,
the people, trying to come up with solid evidence for or against it.
They came up with no answers...just more questions, like why is the U.S.
military base in PR so secretive about the blimp if it is only used as
a means to track down drug smugglers as they claim?  Why is there an
area that is nothing but forest off limits from both ground and air if
they weren't hiding something?  What exactly is the object that the
fishermen claim to have seen?  Are the "aliens" that some people claim
to have seen actually just a rare species of animal that exists in the
area?  Why do some documents (supposedly written by military/gov't 
officials) mention "...contact with the aliens..." or is it just a hoax?  
etc. etc...no answers or proof, just more questions.

|> Do you have any evidence at all that the things described on TV are
|> true?  Other than going to PR, etc., 
	I'm not trying to provide evidence...I'm not stupid enough to
try and provide evidence from a t.v. show that claimed nothing.  I'm 
just providing some seeds for discussion because I'm interested in the
subject and I'm interested in hearing what people have to say and why
they say it.

|>                                     what methods might you apply to
|> checking them out?  For instance, lets find out exactly where and
|> when and by whom the footage supposedly of "area 51" actually were
|> made.  Also, find out exactly what the show was claiming, e.g.,
|> who, what, where, when, why, how.  Then we can see if there is
|> anything here to consider.

	Like I said, next time I see it, I'll mark down where this
base labeled as "area 51" is located.  I'll try and find out the name
of the researcher/UFO-ologist(?), etc...it could prove to be intersting.
=========================================================================
Teddy Nishiyama  (tnishi@lsa.ncl.omron.co.jp)  OMRON Corporation  (^_^;
R&D Support Dept(LSA), Shimokaiinji, Nagaokakyo-shi, Kyoto-fu 617  JAPAN
Xref: sparky alt.paranormal:2338 alt.conspiracy:10873 alt.alien.visitors:7072 alt.mindcontrol:140 alt.flame:13133 soc.women:17228