From: Max Burns <max.burns.nul>
Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2003 18:40:23 +0100
Fwd Date: Sat, 07 Aug 2004 16:45:21 -0400
Subject: Re: Link to Max Burns' "The Usual Suspects" PDF -


>From: Nicholas Redfern <nick.redfern.nul>
>To: ufoupdates.nul
>Date: Wed, 4 Aug 2004 13:43:24 -0700 (PDT)
>Subject: Re: Link to Max Burns' "The Usual Suspects" PDF

>>From: Alfred Lehmberg <alienview.nul>
>>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>>Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2004 09:10:57 -0500
>>Subject: Link to Max Burns' "The Usual Suspects" PDF

>I have just read Max Burns' piece on Dave Clarke and Andy
>Roberts.

>Max states that with Andy and Dave I took the easy option re
>their views/comments, changed my opinions on the Berwyn case
>because of Andy's attacks and am now quite pally with the
>terrible twosome and stand in line rather than stand up.

>Okay, let's look at the facts (quickly, as this in no way
>advances ufology, but it does allow me to at least put the
>matter in its right context for anyone that reads Max's
>article). First, I don't ever go along with what people say
>because it's the easy option. I go through life doing exactly
>what I want to do on my own terms, hence the reason why I have
>never worked 9 to 5 for nearly 20 years - I don't like being
>told what to do by other people.

Nick, I can only say that this was not just my opinion but a
fair amount of people's opinions some who are very friendly with
you. We both know each other and I have spoken with you quite a
few times over the years. It seemed to me that we got on well.
We all know how head strong you are and on the whole I would
normally have agreed with the above. I knew that this was going
to upset you. But the fact remains that after Roberts
criticising your Berwyn Mountains stuff many in UK ufology saw
this to be the case.

You are saying this is not the case fair enough, you are only
one person in a long line of people that Roberts and Clarke have
brow beaten into submission or not as you state. However this does
not diminish the content of the article in the slightest.

>Max also states that I am now friends with Andy and that this
>largely stemmed following a vicious attack on me and my
>conclusions on the notorious Berwyn case of 1974. Saying that I
>am now quite friendly with Andy implies that this wasn't always
>the case. However, it WAS always the case. I have got on very
>well with Andy right back to the days when I used to subscribe
>to his UFO Brigantia magazine way back in the 80s.

Nick, I am very pleased that you have chosen someone of such
high moral standing to call a friend. I have spoken with Andy,
in private, about his behaviour and he has not offered a proper
rebuttal or apology to anything that I said to him about the
behaviour of him & Clarke. Don't get me wrong. I can always
spend ten minutes talking with Andy. Indeed we have spoken in
person in the last year in person and it was good to see him on
one of his few occasions with nothing to say of any of the
points that I raised with him.

>For some reason, so many people in ufology seem to think that
>if you disagree vehemently with someone else on a ufoligical issue,
>you can't be friends with them - which is crazy.

I totally agree.

>Fact is: Andy and I still disagree on a lot when it comes to
>ufology (and - shock! even on the Berwyns on a few points), but
>it doesn't mean we can't sit down and have a pint together.
>Furthermore, Max says that my turnaround and standing in line
>approach came after I was viciously attacked in Andy's Armchair
>Ufologist re my views on the "British Roswell" - the Berwyn
>Mountain case of 1974.

>Er, no, actually, that isn't what happened. What happened was
>this: Andy sent me his report on the Berwyn incident which, when
>I read it, led me to believe that he had come up with the best
>explanation for the case. Granted, there are still some
>anomalies, but as far as being largely solved, I think Andy has
>done that.

>And as someone who has never "needed" to believe in UFOs, I
>decided to discard the Berwyn case as being an example of a
>genuine UFO incident and I moved on. And this was based on me
>studying Andy's data and comparing it to other people's and then
>coming to a conclusion.

Is this the hoax data, or the alleged real data that Roberts
produces without full disclosure how can you be sure that you
are not just another victim of the Roberts dis-information game?

For example, Roberts has stated that Margaret Fry does not keep
detailed contemporaneous notes from her interviews in public.

That is a lie, and I have seen the many diaries that Margaret
Fry has kept concerning her investigation of the Berwyn case.

>It had NOTHING to do with me getting in
>line, taking an easy option or not wanting to confront Andy and
>Dave and playing it safe. It comes down to the fact (and nothing
>else) that, as far as I am concerned, Andy had solved the story.
>In fact, I fail to see how when presented with the evidence
>anyone can see my stance as anything than what it is.

>Now it is true that many of my previous beliefs on the UFO
>subject have changed and changed radically, and it's also true
>that this is in part due to Dave and Andy. But...it's not due to
>me taking a soft line or "towing the line" or bullying tactics.

>You really think I would stand for something like that Max?

I would like to have said no, but to be honest with you Nick, I
am going to reproduce a private email that your mate Roberts
just could not help himself from circulating around. It concerns
this subject of the "Blue Hare" and your comments. If you,
actually made these comments. You could confirm or deny this?

I was always of the opinion that you are a stand up guy and we
have a number of mutual good friends in UK Ufology. I was
stunned to hear from Roberts that you thought that the "Blue
Hare" action against me and my research and ufology with regard
to the hoaxing, made you "chortle".


Email Roberts to Burns/ Williams etc 24/04/2002

I think you're in for a suprise then Matthew. Also, I think you
should ask Nick R what he thinks about the material he's seen
from the book. Er, and I think you should digest Nick's comments
(received yesterday evening) regarding our experiments:

>Hi Andy, Cheers for this, which made me chortle. I see nothing
>wrong in your logic about seeing how hoaxes develop etc. Much
>fun and keep up the good work! Best, Nick.


Nick, much fun? This was not even a hoax developing, it was an
attempt to plant false info into my research. Nick you know me.
So you thought that it was good fun that I had my time, money,
and effort wasted. ? Not to mention that the agenda of Roberts
and Clarke was purely to try and discredit my research. NOTHING
to do with science. If you believe that then you are not as
smart as I thought you were. I am a bit smarter than they gave
me credit for and to that end was able to resist the
implantation of bogus data in to my research.

How would you be if they had tried that stunt on you?

>If you do, you truly don't know me at all. It is purely and simply
>that the research they have done on Govt files in particular has
>led me to alter many of my views.

Would you care to alter your views of Clarke & Roberts now that
a fuller picture of what they are about has been revealed a year
after publication Clarke remains silent and even un-subscribed
from this list rather than answer the calls that the silence was
deafening. Even though up to the point of publication of the
usual suspects. Clarke had an opinion on just about everything.
I have shown he is a liar. Roberts has been reduced to sending
private posts to updates mailers, now claiming that the debate
is best on a one to one basis.

You have read the article, have you got anything to say about
the large amount of damming completely footnoted evidence
against Roberts & Clarke. Or do you still support them?

I just know that it may damage your credibility if you were to
write another book with an admitted HOAXER.

>It really is that simple. But
>as I don't "live" for UFOs in a geeky "I want to believe" style,

Nick, I agree, listen if you say that I am mistaken along with
the other UK Ufologists. Then OK, I am sorry if that was not the
case, I did not mean to offend you. If you want to disagree we
can do that and still remain on speaking terms, as you have all
ready stated.

>I have no problem changing my views when the evidence suggests
>change is needed.

What are your views now that evidence presented suggests change
is needed? Nick, I don't wish to fall out with you, but let's
face it you have read the article and change is needed, not
apologies for the behaviour of Clarke and Roberts.

Alfred Lehmberg's review and the download of the PDF file of
The Usual Suspects is available from

http://www.rense.com/general56/RETRURN.HTM

Max Burns