• "INSIDE UFOLOGY" dated January, 1989

    From Seth Able@RICKSBBS to all on Wed Dec 18 06:42:58 2024
    This is a response to the text entitled, "INSIDE UFOLOGY" dated
    January, 1989, downloaded from PARANET NODE ALPHA.<<<

    The recent INSIDE UFOLOGY article presented the possibility
    that a medical anomaly might be an "alien implant." The "implant" was described as assuredly non-metallic (since an MRI did not "rip it right
    out of her") and that its removal would be extremely dangerous, because
    of its "proximity to the crucial nerve."

    First of all--as pointed out--the M in MRI stands for
    magnetic. The REAL truth is that MRI stands for Magnetic Resonance
    Imaging. (Actually, it used to be called NMRI--Nuclear Magnetic
    Resonance Imaging, but the Nuclear was dropped for fear that the public
    would connote that with radiation.) An MRI works by magnetically
    alligning the nuclei in each cell in a certain direction. This allows
    images which are highly resolved, and tumors and anomalies are therefore
    seen more readily. An MRI places NO magnetic pull on any molecule. If
    this were true, an MRI would be contraindicated for any patient having
    any type of medical implant--a simple amalgam filling, for example.

    Second, the proximity of the "implant" to the crucial nerve
    would not make its removal dangerous at all. Why not? Because there IS
    no crucial nerve. In fact, if this particular patient does have a
    "crucial" nerve, then I believe we definitely have an alien on our
    hands. Not likely.

    Why am I raising a fuss about these two seemily small points?
    Because I feel that gross inaccuracies as these is the primary reason
    few serious reporters and researchers take ufology seriously. This is
    not likely to change, until ufology researchers become better versed in
    the scientific method and the basic sciences. Science-fiction authors, artists, and other dreamers are unlikely to help the cause of ufology by proposing preposterous explanations of scientific observations. Contra,
    they are VERY likely to hurt the cause, as they become the easy targets
    of those who DO have the proper background and they can be easily
    led and manipulated.

    It is not my purpose, here, to detract from ufology or from
    those who have a serious interest in ufology. Doubtless, most following
    the recent developments are well-intentioned and sincere individuals.
    However, for the good of the investigation, it is necessary to be able
    to scientificaaly verify ALL theories and explanations if the truth is
    ever to be learned.

    Certainly, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck,
    then in all probability, it's a duck. However, during the past year such a myriad conflicting documents, theories, explanations and accusations
    have been circulating, that I myself find it necessary to discount
    almost everything. If Moore, Lear, Cooper, and the rest have ANY real evidence, then let's see it. Either sh*t or get off the pot. All we
    have so far is a quackless duck. The amusing question remains: where
    (or, more appropriately, who) are the quacks?


    Respectfully submitted,
    Dr. Eric Andrews
    71261,1555
    
    Seth,
    telnet://ricksbbs.synchro.net:23
    http://ricksbbs.synchro.net:8080
    ---
    þ Synchronet þ Rick's BBS telnet://ricksbbs.synchro.net:23