Subject: Message 0189
From: "Albert Budden" <buddenemf@...>
Date: 28 May 2002 15:31
Dear Mr Williams, I sent the photcopies of the correspondence to me about my
EM pollution approach from Dr Jacques Vallee and Professor Kenneth Ring to
you about a week ago now. No, I did not change my mind about sending them to
you. Would you also like to see the one from Professor Michael Persinger,
congratulating me on the development of my approach? This is also available
for your inspection, as are statements showing their support from any of the
people I listed previously.
The mysterylights site population is still waiting for your answers to:
1, What was the methodology you used for your field surveys?
2. If you do not accept my discoveries about the CE4 experience, what do you
think is their explanation?
3. What is it exactly about the TriField meter that it does not do that you
think it should do?
You ask me how the Electromagnetic Pollution Approach could be shown to be
false. This is actually self-evident from the exposition of it in my book
"ElectricUFOs". Just reverse all of the primary parameters I have set out.
However, the real weakness or strength of any approach lays in its ability
to predict. Can it actually predict the existence of the characteristics it
describes in cases? You might like to ask Frits Westra, who also subscribes
to the mysterylights list about this. Ask him if it has predicted what he
would find in the cases he has independently investigated in Holland. See
what he says.
Also, how about your answers to the above questions soon? P{eople will begin
to think that you did notr use any methodology to survey the locations in
all of the cases you imply. They will also begin to suspect that you know
nothing about the technical abi;lities of the TriField. And that you have no
credible alternative to account for CE4 experiences. Albert Budden.
_________________________________________________________________
Join the worlds largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
http://www.hotmail.com