58 lines
3.1 KiB
Plaintext
58 lines
3.1 KiB
Plaintext
|
>>>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
|
|||
|
|
|