Mysterylights Group Message 0200

Subject: Re: Buddens earthlight /paranormal beliefs analysed
From: "trojanhorse20022000" <trojanhorse20022000@...>
Date: 11 Jun 2002 12:36

Funniest post/book review I have ever read.
I thinks that the end of Albert`s ideas for a long time.
Looks like I wont have to buy the book now.
dodgy dodgy sounding "data"
why didnt anyone review the thing for so long.


--- In mysterylights@y..., "ozestrange" <ozestrange@h...> wrote:
> Dear Mr Budden
> My apologies to the earthlight group for the following topics/ideas 
> sometimes straying from earthlight topics.
> Sometimes one set of reports, sort of mingles with other reports of 
> other paranormal/odd phenomena.
> I dont "have a lot of rethinking" to do.From the limited 
> quotes/limited research/selective data etc you seem to have 
> done I think you must be kidding me.The "new" information about 
> Collum/Hutcheson is pretty old hat,but interesting.
> A lot of people with a limited understanding of aerial light 
> phenomena seem to confuse known methods of producing 
> light forms,and truly odd aerial light phenomena.
> If you think you have it all wrapped up, then please contact the 
> following field researchers,who specialise in this 
> field and also,unlike yourself, have scientific qualifications.
> They dont have the subject wrapped up at all.
> Regarding "earth lights",it seems you take seriously, any 
> phenomena,no matter how bizarre, if you believe you can 
> somehow stretch it into your belief system.
> The following is a classic example.
> Budden Book:page 80 Eletric Ufo`s :"..a particularly 'high 
> strangeness'case in which the witness had come extremely 
> close to three earth lights as luminous spheres.She had reported 
> pencil-thin beams of light came from them and 
> focussed upon a spot on her had not escaped my 
> attention that a continuation of the line that these 
> beams made was directly on target for the pineal gland."
> There are no "conventional" earth light researchers/scientists in 
> world that would believe EL could send beams out,aimed at a persons 
> head.
> Thanks for the two letters I requested.Both authors are impressed 
> with some aspects of your GUT ideals.
> But...
> Mr Ring said regarding your GUT "I dont know if you can be said to 
> have given a complete explanation for these experiences.."
> And Vallee says "However I continue to be impressed by the numerous 
> cases where there is physical evidence of a 
> disc shaped device that has caused physical damage in the 
> The interesting thing about your grand unifying theories is the 
> following.
> One, they are not supported in your data.The are contradicted by 
> other data,and most importantly,there is no GUT 
> theory in any field of science.
> A GUT theory is basically a philosophical belief/desire.
> And the two letters you sent me stated quite clearly that they 
> believe your ideas explained everything at all,as you implied.
> So out of about a thousand + researchers ,world wide, you have 
> 20,but wait theres more..
> There are far more researchers/scientists etc supporting 
> Scientology/Om cult etc,but numbers dont mean truth .
> Budden 1, What was the methodology you used for your field surveys?
> Lets reverse this whole concept first.
> Since it is you claiming the terms dossimetric/field surveys etc 
> peruse "electric ufo`s" and list your 
> "dosimetric Field surveys".
> Case 1/measure Ians body and room,Case 2/detection of power surges 
> the street, Case 3/Zero Field study,Map examined
> Case 4/zero field study, Case 5/zero field study,Case 6/Zero field 
> study,case 7/2 field studies ,Case 8/Zero field study
> Four "dosimetric studies",all described in a total of about  10 
> lines.You can throw around "scientific terms" as much 
> as you like,but it still isnt science, once it examined properly.
> I used the tri-field meter to measure unusual magnetic 
> magnetic field changes.
> I do this because I was also trying to find a "clear" causative 
> between field changes/elevations etc and video
>  /photographic anomalies.I do not care that you think that 
> this "ideal" is  to  "fulfil a quasi-religious need for him".
> I am not the one using my ignorance of certain classes of phenomena 
> to glide around around them.
> I have no psychological make-up/vested interests etc in sticking to 
> rigid/mechanistic/selective ideal.
> For further criticsim of your "dosimetric studies"/claims etc try
> Budden:"You grossly underestimated my following,"
> The  statement above is  religious/cult terminology.
> My belief is that some "paranormal" phenomena may be either 
> creating/or being aided by the magnetic fields in question.
> You quote Reiter`s work extensively,but fail to point out that ALL 
> his conclusions about his own research are the 
> complete opposite of your conclusions about his own work.
> I notice that you mis-understood Rings work/conclusions  as well.
> Budden:page 203-"...whereby they are able to shut out unpleasant 
> realities by the construction of a powerful and stable
>  inner fantasy life."
> Ring:"...they also come to develop an extended range of human 
> perception beyond normally recognised limits""
> Ring"..But they are apparently already sensitive to nonordinary 
> realities".
> Ring uses the term "imaginal",page 219.Ring:"not as something 
> unreal,but as something objective self existent"
> Ring:"I must emphasise that we are not talking about the stuff of 
> fantasy or imagination as these terms are generally 
> used today".
> Ring is clearly talking about something other than mere "inner 
> fantasy life".
> Budden2  If you do not accept my discoveries about the CE4 
> experience, what do you think is their explanation?
> First lets reverse this,<again>Your reasons for the figures are 
> Budden book/"..if the body is irradiated for an extremely prolonged 
> period with an artifically produced will 
> be registered by the body as being not of this earth, and the 
> translation of this would surely be 
> 'extraterrestial'.
> And
> Budden book:"however,it must be stated that the precise trigger for 
> aliens abduction experiences per se,as opposed 
> to any other depiction of formed figures is unclear"
> Thats it?
> My "explanation".I have no "explanation" for them.I have ideas,like 
> you,but I dont confuse vague ideas/mixed with a 
> selective bias/slim understanding of the phenomena =3D 
> Buddens "knowledge".
> My ideas about the  figures are based around the work/books of 
> Harpurs'Daimonic Reality",which deals with the 
> historical similarities between todays "aliens" and yesterdays 
> demons/angels etc.
> The books of Little"The Archetype experience"+People of the 
> web"+Grand Illusions".
> Basically, I believe that most of the "real" CE4 experiences 
> are "leakages" of archetypes from ?, into our reality.
> Now before you get excited,look up the original papers by Jung on 
> archetypes.
> Then there are other CE4 cases that are more difficult to 
> explain.Cahill case in Victoria with multiple cars/witnesses
>  etc
> And the Koury case with bizarre dna sample left over.
> Also,the Nobel prize winner in chemistry Kary Mullins on page 
> 131 ,"Dancing Naked in the Mind field" recounts a CE4 
> experience.Also the book by Elkin "aboriginal  men of high degree" 
> 1945,has numerous reports of figures encountered 
> by aboriginals with the figures placing crystals inside their 
> bodies.Sort of reminds me of "aliens inserting probes"
> but anyway..
> Also try reading "Black Elk",William Lyon.This deals with American 
> Indian encounters with "figures". 
> I didnt even bother asking about the tens of thousands of reports 
> of 'figures" that preceded emf pollution.
> Also try the works of DMT researchers/scientists McKenna/Rick 
> strassman.
> 3. What is it exactly about the TriField meter that it does not do 
> that you think it should do?
> I think it is too inexact.It is not a scientific instrument.Here is 
> simple way to tell if something is a scientific 
> instrument.1/It gives precise readings ie a readout.2/it can be 
> calibrated 3/it is used by REAL scientists in real 
> field studies 4/Its "results"  are  used in published papers, in 
> mainstream academic paper.
> The trifield fails in all 4 areas.
> Sort of tears the old "perhaps Williams needs lights and beeping 
> bulbs" sarcasm to shreds doesnt it tiger.
> I noticed you used a spectrum analyser with no results which is 
> interesting.
> Also,you also seemed to have judged the tri-field on the fact that 
> came with 3 A4 pages of technical data,therefore its 
> a scientific device.
> My video recorder comes with about 10 A4 pages.
> Budden:You ask me how the Electromagnetic Pollution Approach could 
> shown to be false. This is actually self-evident 
> from the exposition of it in my book"ElectricUFOs". Just reverse 
> of the primary parameters I have set out.
> The above comment sounds reasonable.Ie Popper/Kuhn etc.It means 
> Budden accepts that if the opposite of his 
> predictions could be found ,then his theory is wrong.
> But,then this appeared.
> Please note the last line.
> Budden post:So let me state here and now, for Mr Williams benefit, 
> that the parameters I predict for such experiences 
> as =D2alien abductions=D3, are robust and physical, and have been found 
> to be in close association with these experiences. 
> This statement should be absorbed before any assumptions are then 
> made about what such factors may mean. Simply,they 
> are there in every genuine case, whatever they may mean.Any account 
> of an alien abduction experience that does not 
> display these parameters IS A HOAX."<My italics>
> Real science makes a hypothesis,and accepts that if their is a 
> failing in the predictions etc ,there is a problem.
> Thats the difference between science and your ideas.
> Budden Post:"He does not seem to understand what the term 
> means.
> The word 'characteristic' could be used instead, or 'aspect' 
> or 'factor'."
> Please read page 25 of your own book for my definition of 
> ie,Budden: "Primary parameters:In conclusion,investigators in the 
> field should search for the primary PARAMETERS
> which are associated with these EM induced consciousness 
> effects...The following is a list of primary PARAMETERS."
> The 25 listed "questions" implying increased prediliction 
> to "paranormal" claims/events etc are to all encompassing.
> Here are some examples.With another 8 on page 83.
> Thats 33 characteristics one can look for in an individual.
> Number 2/Are you sensitive to cigarette smoke
> Number 5/Are there foods/drinks that you either avoid or consume 
> large amounts of.
> Number 6/did you have a happy childhood ?
> Number 7 Do you ever have hairs on your body stand on end,feel 
> suddenly cold or overheated,experience tingling or
>  numbness.
> Number 19/Do you have periods where you lose all concentration.
> Number 25/Are there any of the following features near your home:a 
> quarry,radio mast,power lines,reservoir,HILL,
> military base,tv /radio station,radio ham
> Budden: post number 2/ "Not all 25 PARAMETERS (listed on page 28 
> of "Electric UFOs")were present in every case, but
>  the core ones were,"
> Budden: page 28 "Some people just do not have the information which 
> is requested,or may not answer truthfully for 
> various reasons."
> So,the "parameters" define the case,but not really,also we have 
> people who  give the "wrong" answer to what we(Budden)
>  wanted.Therefore they are lying.And the final ,if they do not 
> display these parameters they are a hoax.
> Perfect.
> Budden Book:"Use Of Controls.Over 50 subjects were selected on the 
> basis of the exclusion of identified hotspots,ie 
> they were not subject to EM polllution and did not live in 
> with raised levels of time varying fields.Also none had experienced 
> an MEE....Results showed that EH had not developed in the control 
> group,who did not expereince formed figures or alien abduction..."
> Control groups information was the clincher in all of this,yet 9 
> lines are devoted to this "information".
> Were 50 houses actually visited/measured etc.Of course not!
> Normal epistemological data etc always has slight deviations in it.
> But none in this.!
> Budden post "I must begin to address this suggestion by Mr Williams 
> by stating at the outset that "paranormal" 
> events do not exist at all."
> "paranormal" events exists Albert,its just that science hasnt 
> to explain all of them yet.
> Budden:"So in effect, because of this continual process 
> where "paranormal" events become understood and "normalised" 
> by
> scientific investigation and research"
> Please read your own book
> "Budden...a distinction has been made between endogenous 
> hallucination,ie imagery originating from the nervous 
> system of the experiencer,and PLACE MEMORIES,which have been 
> described as 'recordings'imprinted in the fabric of the
>  building.Such "recordings" have been said to have been imbued into 
> the enviromental water of the location,..."page 152
> 1/Lets cut straight to the chase.These "place memories" are a 
> paranormal event.There is no need to obfuscate with 
> mindless semantics about this.
> No sceptics groups anywhere in the world accept the 
> above "exclamation" for a haunting report.
> You now advocate part of the belief system,of the very group you 
> deride.
> Zero evidence is supplied to back up this idea.Budden uses a 
> collection of hypotheses to suggest possible mechanisms.
> But there is a problem with this idea as well.
> In many cases(as Budden is aware>the apparition reacts to the 
> presence of the observer.Budden uses an example on page 58.
> Budden "..The figure turned to look at him,and then walked away 
> through the closed door.."
> Now if Budden is allowed to make  points using  anecdotal 
> reports,<which for the sake of the argument we accept>then 
> the reverse is also true.
> Report 1,from the authors files.
> Michelle watched the blue apparition appear in the hallway,she 
> her eyes in disbelief,when she looked again,the
>  blue apparition was clearly the figure of a young boy,she rubbed 
> eyes again<she had not been asleep>.The figure was right in front 
> her.Then the boy raised his hand to shake as if he wanted to shake 
> Michell`s hand.She hid her face in her hands,and when she looked up 
> the figure had vanished.3 months later,she learnt that a small boy 
> had died in that very house.
> Report 2,from the authors files.
> Sharon and David Moss were eating lunch with a guest,a male figure 
> walked passed them eating,,looked at the individuals 
> present and then  turned a corner of the house.The guest thought 
> figure was of a real person. 
> Report 3
> Port Arthur Prison.Numerous visitors to the old prison have 
> complained about the behaviour/language of the staff 
> members 
> dressed in historical gear.The "staff members" had reacted to the 
> movements of the visitors ,and sometimes sworn at
>  them.Problem being, that until recently,the place HAD NO STAFF 
> A phone call to Port Arthur administration centre can clarify the 
> above  reports.
> Now this is the main problem of GUT, ie,Grand Unifying Theories.
> They must explain ALL cases.
> The probability that  ALL cases that dont fit Buddens theories, 
> false/lies etc is  zero.
> It only takes ONE case,world wide,in the whole of human 
> bang goes the theory.
> It doesnt require a great skill in induction/deduction to work that 
> one out.!
> But wait,there`s more.
> 2/EVP,Electronic Voice Phenomena.
> This is the recording of voices onto audio tapes.Now the common 
> answer is that the tape deck is acting as a radio 
> pickup device.But the problems is this.What happens if groups Like 
> PYe Electronics,ex-NASA contractors etc use 
> Faraday
> 3/Some crop circles.
> Now before you get too excited,just for this example,I am referring 
> you to a crop circle fakers
>  page,and then you can see all the reports by sceptics,0f odd 
> phenomena they are experiencing.
> 4/PK results/research."Sorrat"John Richards,1982+"The Scole 
> Experiment"Grant and Jane Solomon 1999+"Conjuring up 
> Phillip",Owen and Sparrow,"The Conscious Universe,by your friend 
> Radin.
> 5/Aerial light /religious phenomena,"Fatima Prophesy" Stanford 
> 1987,with photos of  "shared hallucinations"/government
>  reports on the phenomena.
> 6/Animal Mutililation,"Enter the Valley"+"The Mysterious 
> Valley".Chris O`Brien.The suggestion that it is an 
> "electric arc" that is doing all the picking up of animals,dropping 
> them,draining blood etc is just truly bizarre.
> 7/Near Death Experiences"The Omega Project,by Ring+"The Truth in 
> light" by Fenwick
> 8/Physic aspects some Ufo encounters"Ufo Dynamics"Schwarz
> 9/Discoidal ufo`s,
> Budden: "through the EM Pollution Approach, e.g. alien abduction 
> experiences, "hauntings", 
> poltergeists, SOME UFO`S"
> The above implies you admit that not all ufo`s can be explained by 
> your GUT theories.<let alone any ufo`s.
> And of course the Vallee letter you sent me, validated this.You 
> realise the data to 
> support "genuine" discoidal ufo`s are to complex/voluminous 
> why class them as "some ufo`s",a wise move.!
> 10/Some earth light phenomena.Yes,some earth light/geological 
> connections/response setc are easily explained.
> But not all of the phenomena is.
> 11/Photo/video anomalies associated with "haunted" 
> areas.Probably<when talking about Film>a alot of the phenomena is
>  UV related as film is UV sensitive ,outside human vision.
> There are thousand of sites like the above one.Yet not a peep in 
> book about even one anomalous photo.
> How come? 
> 12/Visions/experiences induced by Mirrors etc,ie,the work of Dr 
> Raymond Moody,"Reunions".
> I have just moved to Tasmania ,speak to you soon.
> Mike

Mailing list run by Sean B. Palmer
These are archived posts of mailing list messages: see the "From" line at the top of the page for the actual author. I take no responsibility for contents of mailing list posters, but feel free to email me if you have any concerns.