From buddenemf@... Tue May 28 08:31:16 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: buddenemf@... X-Apparently-To: mysterylights@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_3_2); 28 May 2002 15:31:15 -0000 Received: (qmail 11215 invoked from network); 28 May 2002 15:31:15 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m4.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 28 May 2002 15:31:15 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (207.68.163.98) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 28 May 2002 15:31:15 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Tue, 28 May 2002 08:31:15 -0700 Received: from 213.123.182.88 by sea1fd.sea1.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Tue, 28 May 2002 15:31:12 GMT To: ozestrange@... Cc: mysterylights@yahoogroups.com Bcc: Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 15:31:12 +0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 28 May 2002 15:31:15.0400 (UTC) FILETIME=[B4732C80:01C2065C] From: "Albert Budden" X-Originating-IP: [213.123.182.88] X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=104576710 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 world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com