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 cases. 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 from. 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 http://hometown.aol.com/praoz/zcahill/kellyhome.htm And the Koury case with bizarre dna sample left over. http://www.theozfiles.com/anomaly_investigation_group.html > 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 interesting. 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 section. 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. http://www.truthseekers.freeserve.co.uk/truth/tr18albertbudden.html 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