From ozestrange@... Tue May 28 23:11:42 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: ozestrange@... X-Apparently-To: mysterylights@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_3_2); 29 May 2002 06:11:42 -0000 Received: (qmail 41365 invoked from network); 29 May 2002 06:11:41 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m10.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 29 May 2002 06:11:41 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO n12.grp.scd.yahoo.com) (66.218.66.67) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 29 May 2002 06:11:41 -0000 Received: from [66.218.67.175] by n12.grp.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 29 May 2002 06:11:41 -0000 Date: Wed, 29 May 2002 06:11:38 -0000 To: mysterylights@yahoogroups.com Message-ID: In-Reply-To: User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 2324 X-Mailer: Yahoo Groups Message Poster From: "ozestrange" X-Originating-IP: 63.60.10.26 X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=61845547 X-Yahoo-Profile: ozestrange Thanks Albert As soon as I have the papers in my hand,and I have read the them I will reply to all the questions Thank you for the offer about persinger`s letter. yes, I would love to see it. Just send it to the same address. Thanks Mike > 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