Mysterylights Group Message 0270

Subject: final rebuttal 2 Budden
From: "Mike Williams" <ozestrange@...>
Date: 17 Nov 2003 09:47

Hi Albert,great to be back.
I had a funny feeling you would come  back with nothing.
And you didnt let me down. :)

> I see now what the simple answer is. You are a genuine 
> Australian idiot!

I asked you questions that you didn't answer, I pointed out there was 
no scientific basis in your claims to field studies - your bizarre 
but humourous  "response" to me is to abuse me.

> Basically what you don't like is the fact 
> that I have shown that there is a mundane electromagnetic stimulus 
that > drives alien abduction experiences, 

Did you read your own book?
Budden said "however,it must be stated that the precise trigger for 
alien abduction experiences per se, as opposed to any other depiction 
of formed figures, is unclear".
Yep, you nailed it Albert. *LOL*
Read the post again. I actually said Case 1/measure Ian's body and 
room, Case 2/detection of power surges in 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.

As I pointed out in the post,you have a handful of "case studies" 
that are uncheckable, you have no checkable instrumental readings, 
and you use no standard scientific instruments as I pointed out.
Your "research" was not witnessed by third parties nor was it checked 
by anyone.
A trifield meter is not used in real science.
I am still baffled why you do not understand this really simple point.
Please point out all published papers using trifield meters. You also 
avoid all cases which have no electrical causes nearby, or only by 
amazing coicidence seem to find an electrical source nearby for most 
Synchronicity Albert. LOL
If I point out a desert location, shazaam!, you will say "must be a 
fault line". The whole thing is a religion. It is not falsifiable.
I realise that you have a degree in education, but for obvious 
reasons science was never one of your strong points.
Look up `falsifiable' for God's sake. 

>"and you still want to cling onto the > idea that real aliens are at 
work. "

If you bothered to read my post I actually said they could be related 
to archetypes. I don't have any idea where you got the alien stuff 
You are not good at taking criticism, are you Albert?
Or reading posts :)
And you "forgot" to answer this in my post.
Then there are other CE4 cases that are more difficult to explain.
Cahill case in Victoria with multiple cars/witnessesetc
And the Koury case with bizarre dna sample left over.

> What was your methodology used for your field surveys? Never mind 
what you > think I did or not do. 

What an odd line of "reasoning".
What I think you did is based on reading your book,.
The "never mind" bit is funny.
We are just supposed to accept what any scientifically illiterate
zealot says. Please - give me a break.
You are making claims about "dossimetric studies". I point out the 
uncheckable following.
Case 1/measure Ians body and room,Case 2/detection of power surges in 
the street, Case 3/Zero Field study,Map examined Case 4/zero field 
study, Case 5/zero field study,Case 6/Zero fieldstudy,case 7/2 field 
studies ,Case 8/Zero field study.
Four "dosimetric studies", all described in a total of about 10
lines. That's supposed to be hard science. You are kidding yourself.
I never stated I had done anything classified as a field study.
Unlike you, I don't regard my wandering around with a toy,ie the 
trifield that I own as  a field study.
Nice answer Albert, dont answer - attack. :)

> What do you think that the TriField should do that it does Not? 
Your answer > to this was a good laugh. 

Its a pity that whilst laughing you could not have answered my ideas 
about the reality of the problem of using a toy.
Here it is again for you to adroitly avoid.
Here is a 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 any
mainstream academic paper.
The trifield fails in all 4 areas.
I noticed you used a spectrum analyser with no results which is
Also,you also seemed to have judged the tri-field on the fact that it
came with 3 A4 pages of technical data,therefore its
a scientific device.
My video recorder comes with about 10 A4 pages.
bang bang albert.

>It was a long stream of babble.

Babble,? I took ages to really look at your books,I ripped the whole 
thing apart pointing out weaknesses in it,And this is how you try and 
defend your work.
What a disgrace for an adult.
> What is your conclusion as to the real nature of alien abduction 
> experiences? This was not answered at all.

You cannot read can you.Here it is again.
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 .
As you do so well.
>  " Frankly, I was stunned at the elegance of your 
> approach and somewhat peeved that I had not thought of it myself"  
(from > personal letter from Dr Jacques Vallee.

Lets clear this up,Vallee obviously liked your theories.
But you had implied to me that your GUT theories were taken lock 
stock and barrel by him,this was false as you know it.he pointed out 
where it is as weak as water,why not mention that as well.
Vallee believes abduction/aliens are 1/related to the same phenomena 
in fairy encounters 2/Government operations 3/Effects of the 
enviroment as claimed by you.
Its all of one,which is it this weak.? 
And you did not answer when i pointed out the following:
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 enviroment."
And your explanation for the above Albert is = silence,abuse. :) 
> Funny that. How you did not mention it I mean. Williams- you are a 
fool of > the first degree.

Once again,you cannot read,what I actually said was
"Thanks for the two letters I requested.Both authors are impressed
with some aspects of your GUT ideals "
I selected what i needed to prove my point.Your  non answers were 
 to abuse me  and not answer the problems I pointed out in your book.
And I find the following post you made really fascinating which 
proves my belief about you being unbalanced.

"This is a message to all subscibers of the mysterylights mailing 
list. Someof you may have noticed that I have had the dubious 
pleasure ofcommunicating with Mr Mike Williams. This man has recently 
sent me a pages and pages of obscenities. I can only warn the rest of 
you that this couldhappen to you too if you are in contact with this 
maniac. I suggest youavoid him Albert Budden."

I did nothing of the sort.
I must have rattled your cage Albert for you to blatantly lie like 
that. Or in your mind ,is it a lie? :)
Tell you what tiger,why not scan the letters and post it in the file 
I mean,if you are telling the truth you have nothing to lose.
Shot down that one didnt I Albert.LOL
For a mere Australian idiot I have sure wrapped you up tight.
I spent considerable time pointing out all the problems in your book.
You didnt read the post properly and coudnt answer.
And you abused me and then resorted to lying.
You behaviour points to several major personality problems.
I am an idiot for believing you had the manners and wit to answer 
like an intelligent normal  adult.You had neither.
Case closed I think. LOL

Mike Williams

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.