From: Gildas Bourdais <gbourdais.nul>
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 16:42:22 +0100
Fwd Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2004 03:36:11 -0500
Subject: Re: Review Of Sight Unseen - Bourdais


>From: Luis R. Gonzalez <lrgm.nul>
>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2004 21:51:14 +0100
>Subject: Re: Review Of Sight Unseen


>>From: Gildas Bourdais <gbourdais.nul>
>>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>>Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2004 16:40:51 +0100
>>Subject: Re: Review Of Sight Unseen

<snip>

>>Mr Gonzalez has just made on this List a demonstration of
>>wishful thinking and a priori judgement, regarding the story of
>>Katharina Wilson, whom we must all thank to have put the record
>>straight. Mr Gonzalez is not in a good position to question a
>>researcher like Budd Hopkins, to say the least.

>Now, at last, I understand the mistake. All of you have been
>thinking I was trying to explain away the missing time, and
>consequently, all the incident.

>Nothing would be farther from my intentions. There is clearly
>missing time. Period.

>I consider it to be below half an hour, but nevertheless, there
>is. Of course, we will never agree about its interpretation, but
>must agree to disagree.

>What I was really trying was to explain away the alleged
>subsequent teleportation from the pay phones to the luggage
>reclaim area. Just that, nothing more.

>Of course, if as Katharina said, when she talked with her
>husband from the airport, she opened the conversation saying she
>_was_ at the airport, her husband's answer makes perfect sense.
>But from there on, I still maintain my position: no
>teleportation there.

To Luis and the List,

So, you admit that there was a missing time, but you reject the
hypothesis of a teleportation. It is your right to do so, but,
when reading again your posts, I don't see any clear argument
against it. I am not saying that the teleportation is proven
either. But there is a strange time effect!

Katharina said that, apparently, she crossed the airport in a
very short time, and she does not remember exactly how.

Her watch showed the same time of 3:20. when she arrived at the
luggage claim area. You said yourself, in your message of Feb 1,
that it should take at least 15 minutes, in any big airport.

Then you admit that she could have been teleported:

"Then, 'they' discover their time-machine also did not work
properly and teleported her to the luggage claim area".

Now, what argument do you propose against it?

In your message of Feb 7, you "bid for a simpler EM effect
(clock stoppage), because teleportation would not be enough, it
should have been time travel!"

Sorry, but I don't understand. You seem to propose now an
stranger hypothesis!

>>Having finished to read his book, I confirm my opinion that it
>>is a very interesting contribution. The last part offers thoughts
>>about the question of genetic manipulations, and possibly
>>related cattle mutilations.

>So, Mr. Hopkins, after years of talking about hybridation
>experiments with all those sexual variations (from plain "love
>making" to sperm and ova painful extractions), now changes road
>and maintain that the quid were instead all those "scoop marks",
>collecting tissues to make gene tranfers.

This time, you remark is pure caricature of a rich and complex
book. Actually, Budd Hopkins and Carol Rainey, in their 'Final
Words', present somewhat differing viewpoints.

That, alone, shows that they don't claim to have all the
answers.

Budd does not "change road", and does not "maintain".

He just presents and discusses, with Carol, a bunch of
interesting ideas.


Gildas Bourdais