[OVNI-SCIENCES] (sans objet)

[James]

Re-bonjour Gildas et tous,

Merci pour le texte. Je pars aussi demain pour qqs jours (c'est c... ! 
juste au moment ou je pouvais surfer à nouveau !).

A bientôt,

James

At 15:58 30/07/2005, GBourdais wrote:
>James,
>Bon retour sur la liste!
>Il se trouve que je pars demain me mettre au vert quelques jours. Donc à 
>bientôt.
>Il y a un débat intéressant actuellement sur UFO Updates, au sujet du 
>nouveau livre, complètement loufoque, sur Roswell, "Body
>Snatchers in the desert", écrit par un ufologue anglais, Nick Redfern, qui 
>avait jusque là une bonne réputation. Il est en train de
>gagner rapidement le titre de nouveau débunker numéro1 aux Etats-Unis, où 
>il réside depuis peu. J'ai participé à ce débat plus qu'à
>ceux d'Ovni Science ! Visite suggérée aux archives de la liste, pour mai 
>et juin, pour ceux qui lisent l'anglais, à:
>http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/
>Attention, la liste a été arrêtée pendant une dizaine de jours début 
>juillet. Pour ceux qui n'ont pas le temps de fouiller, voici copie de l'un 
>de mes messages ci-après (désolé, je n'ai pas le temps de traduire). Cà, 
>c'est de l'ufologie d'aujourd'hui, pas de "l'ufologie de papa" (papa 
>Hendry, par exemple. Je plaisante, bien sûr : c'est Vallée qui a dit entre 
>autres que Roswell, c'était l'ufologie de papa).
>J'ai bien l'intention d'en parler à Châlons, et je ferai sans doute aussi 
>un article.
>
>Cordialement
>Gildas Bourdais
>___________________________
>
>From: Gildas Bourdais <gbourdais at wanadoo.fr>
>To: <ufoupdates at virtuallystrange.net>
>Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2005 12:23:08 +0200
>Subject: More Questions On 'Body Snatchers'
>
>
>To Nick Redfern, EBK and All,
>
>I have now read your book "Body Snatchers in the Desert", and I
>am sorry to say that I have more criticisms to make, following
>my first comments based on your interview by Stuart Miller (my
>messages of June 22 and 23). I have read the excellent critiques
>of Kevin Randle (sent to me privately, which sould be posted
>soon on the List) and others, notably the precise questions of
>Robert Durant (coming soon as well) but I feel that I can add
>some more points.
>
>First, about the alleged transfer of prisoners from Unit 731 in
>Manchuria to the United States, supposedly in order to continue
>the horrible human experiments made there by the Japanese, the
>question is: did it really happen? This is all important in your
>theory since you claim it was the tremendous secret to be hidden
>at all costs, even by spreading false stories of UFO crashes.
>You say, citing your inside source Levine (p 85): "When the
>Japanese surrendered in the wake of the atomic destruction of
>Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, a number of these and "a
>quantity of still-living people were found in the remains of
>Unit 731 facilities (and also German laboratories) by Allied
>soldiers. These remains were subsequently transferred to the Los
>Alamos Laboratories, New Mexico, where this dark and disturbing
>research was continued".
>
>
>There is a big problem here: this story is radically
>contradicted by all historical studies and sources. In your
>references, you mention the book of Peter Williams and David
>Wallace "Unit 731: Japan's Secret Biological Warfare in World
>war II" (1989). I have read it (in its French translation). It
>is, indeed, a very complete history of these horrible
>experiments, and it says clearly what happened at the end of the
>war. When the Soviet army began to invade Manchuria, on August
>9, 1945, the next day, the Japanese destroyed all buildings of
>Units 731 and 100, and killed all the prisoners (the "Marutas").
>They had orders to destroy every trace of the experiments, and
>never talk about them.
>
>This version is confirmed, for instance, in another book that I
>just found: "The Pacific War" by the Japanese historian Saburo
>Ienaga (1968; American edition by Pantheon Books, New York,
>1978. this book has been praised by major American newspapers).
>Here is what it says (pp. 188,189):
>
>"According to former unit members, when the Soviet Union entered
>the war on August 8, 1945, the Japanese tried to destroy every
>trace of the 731 Unit's activities. The Maruta prisoners were
>given food dosed with potassium cyanide: those who did not eat
>the food were machine-gunned. The bodies were thrown into a pit
>in a huge courtyard at the unit, doused with gasoline, and set
>on fire. Because of the great number of corpses, they did not
>burn thoroughly. The charred bodies were then put into a
>pulverizer. Engineers dynamited the buildings, and all equipment
>tools, and incriminating material were burned. Personnel of 731
>Unit were given highest priority evacuation back to Japan,
>before the rest of the Kwantung Army or other units". (Note: the
>Soviet Union declared war on August 8, and began invading
>Manchuria the next day).
>
>
>
>According to other sources, at the time of the destruction of
>Unit 731, there were only 150 prisoners left, also called
>"logs", who were all killed. This destruction of all proofs is
>of course the reason why it took a long time, after the end of
>the war, to uncover the whole story of Unit 731. The first
>American investigator, Lt. Col. Sanders, a young bacteriologist
>from Camp Detrick in Maryland who arrived in Japan one week
>after Japan surrendered, interrogated many leaders during three
>months, but he was misled by his Japanese interpreter, Lt. Col.
>Naito, who was a former student of General Ishi, the head of the
>biological warfare program. Nevertheless, Sanders discovered
>around September that Unit 731 was involved in human
>experiments, and began to inform General MacArthur. Ishi then
>proposed to give scientific information on these experiments in
>exchange for complete immunity, for him and his colleagues,
>which was eventually granted to them. On that matter, you are
>apparently mistaken again when you write, quoting your insiders,
>that a "massive" amount of documentation was found in 1945.
>Actually, according to Williams and Wallace, American
>authorities were still discussing in the summer of 1947 the
>opportunity of making a deal with Ishi, which had been
>recommended by General MacArthur. The deal was concluded the
>following year, in spite of a negative advice of the State
>Department. So, this calls into serious question your claims
>about "massive" documentation found as soon as 1945.
>
>
>Another important difference resides in the alleged use of
>deformed and handicapped people for all these experiments,
>according to your insiders. Actually, the Japanese experimenters
>preferred to have subjects in good health: "Unless you work with
>a healthy body, you cannot get results" (quote from the text:
>"Unit 731. A half century of denial", at technologyartist.com.
>See the message of Jan Aldrich of June 22). So, the real story
>of the end of Unit 731 seems quite different from yours.
>
>
>I also have some more comments about the alleged flying wings
>and lifting bodies, derived from Horten models, that would have
>been tested secretly in White Sands. I quote from your final
>summary (p. 207): ".in May 1947, an experimental aircraft that
>was borne out of the revolutionary aviation research of the
>Horten brothers of Germany was test-flown from White Sands, New
>Mexico". It was part of a larger project begun in 1946, of a
>nuclear-powered aircraft. But according to all credible sources,
>there were no such craft! First, about the Horten flying wings.
>In fact, the Americans did find and bring back to the United
>States a Horten prototype, the Horten H IX, with two jet
>engines. There were, in Germany at the end of the war, two
>models of Horten jet propelled, flying wings: - the Horten H IX
>V2 which was first flown in Feb. 18, 1945, but crashed and
>killed the pilot because of engine failure; - the Horten H IX
>V3, the one which was taken to the United States. But it was not
>finished, and never was. The American engineers were not
>interested, probably for the simple reason that there were
>already the Northrop wings, being tested and flown (with lots of
>problems). Not in White Sands, which had only a rudimentary
>airfield, but at Muroc Dry Lake (later Edwards AFB), which was
>the adequate and only place for testing experimental planes like
>that.
>
>Now, about the "lifting bodies". This term refers to new designs
>without wings tested much more recently, from 1963 to 1975, in
>connection with construction of reentry vehicles like the space
>shuttle. The original idea was conceived at NASA in 1957, by Dr
>Alfred J. Eggers, Jr., according to the NASA fact sheet on
>Lifting Bodies. See:
>
>http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/news/FactSheets/FS-011-
>DFRC.html
>
>
>These little, fat gliders were not the best design to carry a
>team of Japanese handicapped prisoners, in great secrecy,
>hanging under a huge balloon, in White Sands in 1947! On the
>other hand, they did look a bit like certain descriptions of the
>Roswell UFO by some witnesses.
>
>There is just a word to say about Nazi flying saucers stories,
>which you seem to believe, in your chapter 12 "Hitler's Disks".
>These stories, which appeared at the beginning of the fifties
>(at a time when a policy of sytematic UFO debunking was put in
>practice) have long since been discarded by all serious aviation
>historians. Nevertheless, they continue to be recycled
>periodically. I am sad to find them again in your book (pp. 146,
>147).
>
>Now, lets's turn to the central piece of your book, the alleged
>top secret White Sands experiment. You say in your final
>conclusions (p. 207): "On board the vehicle were a number of
>physically handicapped people who had been found in the remnants
>of the Japanese military's Unit 731 laboratories and who were
>used in this dark and disturbing experiment - the purpose of
>which was to try to better understand the effects of nuclear-
>powered flight on an air-crew. The experiment ended in disaster
>when then craft crash-landed at White Sands, killing some of the
>crew".
>
>
>You reveal in your book a stunning aspect of the experiment.
>According to one of your whistleblowers, the Colonel (p. 108):
>"Experimental radiation shielding and an amount of radioactive
>material was used that was meant to simulate as close as
>possible the output that might be expected from a nuclear power
>source when we have one. It malfunctioned. It crashed. Those are
>the facts". Now, you have just answered a question of John
>Sawyer (July 15). You cite another version given by the Colonel
>(p. 106): "a device had been incorporated into the vehicle that
>was designed to convert heat energy from an atomic pile into
>electrical energy". This is even more confusing. Was it just
>radioactive material (p. 108), or an atomic pile (p. 106)? I
>must confess that I missed this version on first reading, simply
>because it seemed so incredible to me. See below for the first
>and only airborne test with an atomic pile, on a huge NB-36H
>bomber, in 1955. At that time, atomic piles were very heavy.
>
>So, in order to test the effects of irradiation, radioactive
>material had been installed on board. Only the pilot was
>protected. What a nightmare. What a dangerous experiment, if
>only for the technicians in charge of the installation. And, why
>do it at high altitude, with such great difficulties? What
>difference does it make to irradiate a man on the ground or at a
>high altitude? To add some cosmic radiations to the dose? I am
>sorry to say that it does not make any sense to me. About
>studies for protection from nuclear radiations, I just have to
>refer to the text of Stan Friedman "STF on Redfern's Body
>Snatchers.", posted on this list on June 23. He is an expert on
>those matters and he does not believe your story.
>
>And what about the risk of being publicly revealed in case of
>accident? That's were the Roswell file comes in: this story fits
>nicely with the dubious tale of the cameraman (revealed by
>Santilli with the "alien autopsy film"), of a crash in the White
>Sands area, with "freaks" and dangerous radioactivity on the
>site.
>
>
>Still about nuclear experiments, I also noted two big mistakes,
>the first one allegedly revealed by a Col. Helmik to Tim Cooper,
>about which you don't express any doubts. You cite Helmick (p.
>120) revealing to Tim Cooper: "They test-flew an atomic-powered
>craft near Trinity in July (1947) and that is when they found
>something else in the desert".
>
>How can you report such a an enormous tale without comment? It
>is well known that no aircraft with a nuclear engine existed at
>that time. Yes, there were some projects in the fifties, which
>were abandoned at the beginning of the sixties. The only test
>flights were to carry an atomic pile on board a huge NB-36H
>bomber, which was still propelled with classic engines. There
>was heavy protection for the crew. The first flight was on
>September 17, 1955. There were 47 flights, after which the
>contaminated plane was dismantled and buried. The second nuclear
>mistake I noticed is the mention of "the 1946 Hydrogen bomb
>tests on Bikini atolls", according to Martin Cannon. Maybe it
>was just a slip of the pen, but you could have corrected it.
>
>Now, I must turn to the next part of your story, the second
>
>flight, and accident, this time in the area of Roswell. You
>say, in your final summary (pp. 207, 208): "Two months later,
>in early July a second and similar vehicle was, once again,
>flown from White Sands. In this particular instance, the
>aircraft was affixed to a huge balloon array that was based
>upon advanced Fugo balloon designs developed in the closing
>stages of WW II by Japanese forces. The aircraft was piloted by
>a crew of Japanese personnel who had been specifically trained
>for the task and crashed near the Foster Ranch after being
>catastrophically struck by lightning".
>
>In that second scenario, the risk that the horrible experiment
>would be exposed publicly would have been even higher,
>especially if the huge Fugo balloon drifted in the wind to an
>undesirable place. What about a crash landing in a populated
>area?
>
>Anyway, this part of the story is supposed to "explain" the
>discoveries near Roswell. But the descriptions of debris found
>on the Foster ranch by a number of witnesess don't fit the
>alleged equipment of your story: airplane and balloons, nothing
>that could be identified as a "flying disk" by the elite Air
>Force officers of Roswell, not to mention the pilot and "crew"
>of handicapped Japanese prisoners! See, for that matter, the
>message of Kevin Randle, who knows what he is talking about,
>having interviewed several of these witnesses.
>
>
>I wish to add a couple of remarks on that matter. You cite
>Jacques Vallee who mentioned Saran as a possible culprit for a
>confusion (p. 123): "Aluminized Saran, also known as Silvered
>Saran, came from technology already available for laboratory
>work in 1948. It was paper-thin, was not dented by a hammer blow
>and was restored to a smooth finish after crushing".
>
>
>First, Roswell was in 1947, not 1948. In addition to that, we
>find in the thick Roswell Report of the Air Force (1995), a
>table of results of tests measuring the strengh of various
>substances, for eventual balloon fabrication.In the Technical
>Report No 1 of New York University on constant level balloons,
>dated April 1, 1948 and covering the period Nov. 1, 1946 to Jan.
>1, 1948, there is a comparative table of measurements on various
>products: Polyethylene, Saran, Nylon, Vinylite, Teflon,
>Ethocellulose, Pliofilm, Nylon or silk fabric coated with
>various products. Saran was noted as "poor" for tear resistance,
>and was eliminated.
>
>Similarly, you cite the "Colonel" (p. 132), saying that Brazel
>picked-up "parts of the balloons that were polythene
>(polyethylene) with an aluminium covering, which was not widely
>seen then - and hardly ever by civilians back then."
>
>But we learn in the Roswell Report that the large polyethylene
>balloons became available only toward the end of June and
>therefore could not be the origin of the Roswell incident.
>Anyway, even if some had been already made available for the
>super-top-secret White Sands experiments, how could the officers
>of the Roswell atomic bomb unit believe that they had found a
>"flying disk", and announce that to the world?
>
>
>I have another comment to make on your claim that the famous
>autopsy footage showed a human handicapped with progeria (chap
>16). That has been already discarded by almost everybody on this
>list, including me, but here is another angle of the story. If
>your theory were right, it would have been incredibly foolish to
>release such a film! In any case, the American and British
>secret services, working together, had plenty of time to block
>its release in London, discreetly, if they wanted to. We would
>have heard no more of the film, vague rumors at best. On the
>other hand, if the purpose was to trash the UFO crash theory, it
>was highly effective. The Alien Autopsy Film was a scandal, and
>a disaster, not only for Roswell, but for ufology as a whole.
>
>
>A general criticism, upon which I want to insist, is that there
>is a serious contradiction between the alleged, very tight
>secrecy of your claimed experiment, and the known facts. First,
>lots of human irradiation experiments were made, during many
>years. This is well established thanks to the ACHRE
>investigation, that you describe well in your book (pp 160,
>161). But nothing surfaced in that investigation about the
>alleged White Sands experiments. Your explanation is that it was
>such a shame to carry on with dreadful experiments, similar to
>those of Unit 731, that it is still the Big Secret that must be
>hidden at all costs, even today, two generations later. But
>then, why did so many whistleblowers, from various secret
>services, reveal that awful secret to you, just asking you to
>keep silent until 2001, as in the case of Mr Levine? As an
>aside, if all this is true, which I doubt very much, your
>"sources" can probably be identified, notably the old lady who
>worked during several years on special projects at Oak Ridge.
>But also Mr Levine and his informers, Mr T. of MOD Intelligence,
>and Mr D., CIA operative; the Colonel; Bill Salter and "an old
>friend from DOE"; Al Barker, from the Psychological Warfare
>Center (PWC), and others.
>
>The same question arises on reading again the Popular Mechanics
>article of July 1997, which presented almost the same story, as
>you admit yourself, with a Horten-Fugo hybrid craft and a
>Japanese crew. They wrote: "Japanese engineers and pilots
>brought to the U.S. after the war to work on the project could
>have been the dead "alien" bodies recovered at the crash site".
>Who was playing that peculiar game of dubious "revelations"?
>Only missing in that first version of 1997 are, first the idea
>that they were handicapped, deformed people (more confusing!),
>secondly the absurd idea - the horrible experiment - that a
>plane had been loaded with radioactive material, to irradiate
>Japanese prisoners in flight.
>
>
>Final note: it looks like your theory integrates as many aspects
>as possible of the Roswell "file", mixing together everything,
>from serious testimonies to the most fragile tales. For instance
>the idea of a Horten aircraft: it is good to "explain" the
>testimonies (some of which are quite credible) on an arrow -
>shaped, or horseshoe - shaped alien craft. Gone, the UFO. The
>radioactive material put on board "explains" the very dubious
>story of the cameraman. The handicapped Japanese with progeria
>come in appropriately to "explain" the confusion in Roswell, and
>the autopsy footage by the same token, etc.
>
>
>In all, this is, to me, a totally unbelievable story, for which
>I have not found any credible evidence in your book.
>
>
>Gildas Bourdais
>
>
>
>
>----- Original Message ----- From: "James" <james0001 at free.fr>
>To: <debat at ovni-sciences.net>
>Sent: Saturday, July 30, 2005 2:34 PM
>Subject: [OVNI-SCIENCES] (sans objet)
>
>
>Salut Christophe, Gildas, Josée, et tous,
>
>J'espère que je n'arrive pas comme un cheveu sur la soupe.
>Ma nouvelle connexion est opérationnelle depuis 1 h. Je peux donc reprendre
>les débats sur ovni-sciences, si on m'accepte toujours.
>
>En établissant ma connexion, j'avais près de 600 mails (depuis la fin mai
>!). J'en ai giclé 500, car impossible de les lire tous.
>
>A très bientôt donc et amitiés,
>
>James
>
>_______________________________________________
>Debat mailing list
>Debat at ovni-sciences.net
>http://www.ovni-sciences.net/mailman/listinfo/debat
>
>
>
>
>
>
>__________ NOD32 1.1183 (20050729) Information __________
>
>This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
>  part000.txt - is OK
>
>http://www.nod32.com
>