UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2011 > Jun > Jun 5

Re: Review Of Jacobsen's Area 51 Book

From: Don Ledger <dledger.nul>
Date: Sat, 4 Jun 2011 14:50:24 -0300
Archived: Sun, 05 Jun 2011 07:28:27 -0400
Subject: Re: Review Of Jacobsen's Area 51 Book

>From: Kathy Kasten <catraja.nul>
>To: <post.nul>
>Date: Sat, 4 Jun 2011 09:01:52 +0000
>Subject: Re: Review Of Jacobsen's Area 51 Book

>>From: Don Ledger <dledger.nul>
>>To: <post.nul>
>>Date: Tue, 31 May 2011 14:25:45 -0300
>>Subject: Re: Review Of Jacobsen's Area 51 Book


>>Hi Jerry,

>>I think the negativity coming from you to KK is because she
>>aspires to be something she doesn't have the chops for. So what
>>does she do? She tries to tear down what she can't have.

>>KK is not a player and never will be. You have to work for it.
>>She has done nothing that I can see to prove or disprove the
>>phenomenon. And of course she relates to Jacobson's skewed book.
>>I'd be surprised if she didn't. You do so (or say you do so)
>>because the book is inane, full of the kind of garbage one would
>>expect to see from the fringe element - KK included - who drift
>>around on the backwaters of UFO the research community; looking
>>for the crumbs left behind by studious researchers.

>>One need only look at Jaconson's treatment of the technology re
>>Lockhheed for instance, it is pathetic. No real research done
>>there at all. And of course Jacobson has been disputed by the
>>very people that she claims to have interviewed. Watching her
>>sputter and attempt to support her claims on Night Line was
>>pretty sad. Bascally she did not produce the goods, a problem KK
>>has had herself on many occassions. Her ability to buy into
>>absurdity - particularly this book - without a ounce of research
>>of the source is astounding.

>>But as I said, this is what you can expect from the fringe


>Although you admit to not knowing who I am and what I am about,

Because you choose to hide yourself behind vague ruminations with
tenuous links to obscure

>you lodge an attack that is unwarranted. And, why, because
>Jacobsen wrote a book, got interviewed in most major news
>sources and I supported her efforts. I even suggested that the
>Tale of Roswell was up for grabs because there is no evidence
>proving anything conclusive. It is why there are countless books
>written about an event that happened in 1947.

>I have no idea what you mean by the fact I "don't have the
>chops." Does that mean I just go along my merry way and don't
>respond to this kind of criticism.

>If I had to guess, you are basing your opinion on the fact that
>I called you out on your knowledge of Raytheon's projects for
>the Air Force.

I'm sorry, but I believe it was me who was calling you on your
knowledge re Raytheon. I never disputed that they did work for
the military. The largest percentage of their projects is
militarily related. What I did was object to you claiming that
Raytheon was building full scale aircraft for the military other
than the 4 or 5 foot drones/spy models they were working on.

>I even provided the name of the individual I got my
>information from.

The guy didn't return your phone calls?

I never left messages the two times I called and he wasn't

>However, you did discover that he worked in the capacity I cited
>proving that I do "have the chops." If that means I am able to
>back up my opinion with hard data, then, yes, I have the chops.
>If only you knew.

What hard data? So far there is proof of nothing.

>In the future, I will respond to requests for more information,
>but I find these kinds of confrontations without merit.

For you perhaps. I'm sure some of the others are interested to
know who's postings they should take an interest in and who's
not to waste their time on.

>Anything I have challenged in this community of interested
>parties does have merit and needs to be addressed. Some changes
>need to be made. It appears you are not one of the individuals
>who is interested in revising their approach.

Yeah, yeah... that's the same old argument we hear all of the
time. You have a fresh outlook such as buying into Jacobsen's
drivel. When are you going to learn to listen to the people who
have put in the time, pored through documents for years, cross
checked this and that rather than buying into the fringe element
like Jaconsen.

Your agenda is to try and present yourself  as superior in
judgement than those who do have the chops, and the klnow how in
this business. In fact you come across as lacking any real
knowledge of it.

>BTW, it appears to me that you only read the book review - with
>link - that was posted here. I have to wonder if you are basing
>your criticism of Jacobsen's work on that review. I have not
>read the book, but my research leads me to keep an open mind

You are not open-minded Kathy. That's your problem. You don't do
your research or have background knowledge that would keep you
from falling into the traps set by the likes of Jacobsen.

You think that her premise which claims the Soviets back
engineered some Nazi flying saucer and had it flying into
Roswell in July of 1947 has merit.

So this technological data was captured by the Soviets and then
back engineered, the parts were designed and then manufactured
and assembled in two years; and then it was crewed by cancer
ridden 13 year olds who then flew it to Roswell - a distance of
between 3,600 miles or 5,500 miles (these are the closest points
BTW in the frozen USSR north regions) depending on from where it
took off - and flew to Roswell. All of this was done mind you to
frighten the Americans - I'm presumming because of the so-called
hysteria created by Orsen Wells in 1939?

Okay, lets looks at a more realistic scenario meaning something
that actually happened. I first became aware of this back in the
1960s while reading Martin Caidin's book Flying Forts. There was
allusion to captured B-29s by the Soviets. Further investigation
of this proved to be true.

Even though in August of 1944 the Soviets were supposed to be
allies they interned the crews and refused to release three B-
29s that force landed in Vladivostok, USSR. The B-29 became
operational in July of 1943. More money was spent on its
developement than on the A-bomb. Stalin decided to clone the B-
29, an airplane that was beyond it's technological grasp in
1944. By impressing upon the aviation designers and engineers
that to complain about anything meant death he manages to fire
up the entire Soviet aircraft industry to design/copy all
105,000 parts, convert them to metric and then cast the molds
and roll the aluminum and machine the parts by 1945. They use
one of the B-29s, the Ding Hai and took it apart including the

Stalin wanted it in 1945 and they actually had a working model
ready to go in 1945 but the landing gear, the  blown plexiglas
windows, the huge tires were a real problem because they did not
have the skills to reproduce them. Each close tolerant bolt had
top be tested to make sure it would not sheer or pull apart in
flight. The plane was not ready to go into service and would not
do so until 1949 as the TU-4 NATO codename Bull. It was capable
of reaching the USA on a one way trip. But they now had a long
range bomber even if it was American. 500 were built and never
flew in combat. (There is much more informationabout this on the
internet, BTW.)

Now this was a conventional aircraft using known technology that
took 5 years to get up and running where it was not a death

And now Kathy you want me to believe that the Soviets back
engineered a craft that has yet to this day be proven to be in
existence as Earthly technology and apparently has been
abandoned for conventional jet fighters and bombers despite the
fact that the Soviets did not have the resources and when they
were having a difficult time back engineering a conventional
bomber? Remember this was in the real world where workers were
executed for not producing results; not the LaLa world that
Jacobsen is living in.

What rubbish. It scares me that anyone would actually believe
this Jacobsen BS initially and then defend in the face of the
ridicule it has so deservedly received.

Do your homework Kathy. Spend a couple of years researching the
phenomenon from its so-called beginning in 1945. Go through the
thousands of Blue Book reports, the thousands of Canadian
reports, the U.K. reports, the French reports et al. Try the UFO
UpDates Archive, NARCAP.Org, NICAP.Org, etc.

Come back when you know something and then you can offer up some
informed opinion. Until then stop wasting our time.

Don Ledger

Listen to 'Strange Days... Indeed' - The PodCast



These contents above are copyright of the author and
UFO UpDates - Toronto. They may not be reproduced
without the express permission of both parties and
are intended for educational use only.

[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |

UFO UpDates Main Index

UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp

Archive programming by Glenn Campbell at Glenn-Campbell.com