+gt;+gt;+gt;This is a response to the text entitled, +quot;INSIDE UFOLOGY+quot; dated Janu

Master Index Current Directory Index Go to SkepticTank Go to Human Rights activist Keith Henson Go to Scientology cult

Skeptic Tank!

>>>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


E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank