Adam Spellman pick/mediocre comedian Nipsey Russell died Sunday at 80, putting Adam’s revised “Goofy Names” list on the board in a tie for 26th place with 20 points. Our updated standings:
1. In first place with 109 points…
Jack Spellman “Going for the Gold 2005”
2. In second place with 69 points…
Step Hopkins “Love That Dirty Water”
3. Tied with himself for third place with 62 points…
Dan Davis “2004 - list 1”
Dan Davis “2004 - list 2”
5. In fifth place with 59 points…
Burma Jones “Rockers 2005”
6. In sixth place with 51 points…
Ron Patalona “TV Land of the Lost Giants”
7. In seventh place with 47 points…
Ron Woods “Victims to Be”
8. In eighth place with 44 points…
Burma Jones “Rockers 2001 plus 1”
9. In ninth place with 41 points…
Martin von Nostrand “Writers”
10. In tenth place with 37 points…
Buzzo “Go Figure”
11. Tied for 11th place with 36 points…
Gidget Disraeli ”List 2005”
Consensus List
13. In 13th place with 35 points…
Adam Spellman “Follow the Leaders”
14. Tied for 14th place with 33 points…
Buzzo “Parasites at Law”
Dan Davis “Death Wish ‘99”
Jack Spellman “Network news gerontocracy”
Dick Hunt “More TV Stars Who Raised Me”
18. Tied for 18th place with 30 points…
Ken “2004 List”
Coach K “Handicapping Special”
20. Tied for 20th place with 21 points…
Buzzo “Adam & Eve”
Step Hopkins “Politicos”
Franklin Jay “Hardball 2004”
Joel Rappoport “Nine Has-Beens and a Lousy Calypso Singer”
Adam Starling “List Five”
Martin von Nostrand “2005”
26. Tied for 26th place with 20 points…
Erre Bosque “2005 List”
Buzzo “New Year’s Eve Party”
Step Hopkins “Politicos 2”
Step Hopkins “Politicos 3”
I.J. Reilly “GOP DOA RIP LOL”
Adam Spellman “Goofy Names”
Jack Spellman “More Gold 2005”
Kel Varnsen “Good to Go”
Robin West “Both Sides of the Law”
34. In 34th place with 19 points…
Jack Spellman “2004 – list #2”
36. Tied for 36th place with 18 points…
Ken “Legends of the Microphone”
Mike Sullivan “Draw Blood”
38. Tied for 38th place with 16 points…
Jessica Bewsee “If No One On My Lists Dies This Year, I'm Never Playing This Stupid Game Again”
Dan Davis “Another One”
Olympia Lambert “More losers for the new millennium. Rock and shock”
Sandra Lohm “List 2 – Boys”
Adam Starling “List Four”
Nicole Thomas “List 2”
44. Tied for 44th place with 15 points…
Dick Hunt “Even more TV celebs who helped raise me”
Jack Spellman “Beam ‘em up”
46. In 46th place with 13 points…
Jonathan Sewall “Nixon Agonistes”
47. In 47th place with 9 points…
I.J. Reilly “Old and/or Hack Directors”
[If she had renewed her 1999 “List II” and/or Y2K’s“People Who Turn My Stomach,” Shannon Koenig would now be in 48th place with 2 points.]
48. In 48th place with 1 point…
Walt Bostian
49. In last place with 0 points…
Everyone else
I was late with the post-Nipsey interview; Adam’s responses next week.
Missed some:
Jazz bassist Jack Lesberg died September 17 at 85.
Former major-league pitcher Frank Smith, relief ace for the 1950s Cincinnati Reds, died September 24 at 77.
Research chemist Leo Sternbach, inventor of Valium, hardly even noticed when he died September 28 at 97.
Blues guitarist Paul Pena died Saturday at 55.
Former major-league outfielder Pat Kelly, an All-Star, brother of NFL running back Leroy Kelly, and brother-in-law of big-leaguer Andre Thornton, died Sunday at 61. The same day, great American playwright August Wilson, who’d have been a gimme in the ’06 Pool, died at 60.
Singer Emilinha Borba, queen of Brazil’s golden age of radio died Monday at 82. The same day, British comedian Ronnie Barker, half of the The Two Ronnies (duh), died at 76; and former major-league outfielder Mario Encarnacion was found dead at age 30 in Taiwan, where he was playing for the Macoto Cobras of the Chinese Professional Baseball League.
You’d better bury/’Cause he’s decomposing fast: Mike Gibbons, drummer for the pop combo Badfinger, died Tuesday at 55. The same day, folk music producer-manager Harold Leventhal, who over the years represented Woodie and Arlo Guthrie, Burma pick Bob Dylan, Joan Baez, Verde point-scorer Johnny Cash, and erstwhile Verde pick Neil Young, among many others, died at 86; former Wyoming Governor Stan Hathaway, whose spinster sister Jane worked for a Los Angeles bank, died at 81; and former Ulster Defense Association thug Jim Gray was unsurprisingly gunned down on the streets of East Belfast at age 47. Sad. That nobody picked him, I mean.
Got some Personality Parade for you:
Q: Can you give me an update on screen legend [and Andrew, Theresa, Erin, and Adam Starling pick] Charlton Heston?
A: Heston, who turn[ed] 81 on Tuesday, retired from public life ni 202, after announcing that he was suffering from the onset of Alzheimer’s. He lives in Beverly Hills with his wife of 61 years, Lydia. The family declines to comment on his condition.
Q: How did [Dan pick] Christina Aguilera cut her hand? I have heard everything from a bar fight to a martini-drinking accident.
A: Her publicist says one of the pop star’s dogs knocked over a glass vase, and she cut her hand picking up the pieces. Christina, 24, had surgery to repair two sliced tendons, then wore a cast. It did not interfere with studio sessions for a new CD, due out next spring.
Q: Long before [Bine and Dick pick] Madonna jumped on the bandwagon, actor John Lithgow was penning books for kids. Does he have young children?
A: [Holy carp, who cares?]
Q: What’s become of [Killer pick] Patsy Ramsey? And do you think she’ll ever be indicted for the 1996 death of her daughter, JonBenet?
A: Patsy, 48, underwent chemotherapy for a fourth occurrence of ovarian cancer this year while staying at the Roswell, Ga., home of her father. We doubt she’ll be indicted. Police once said Patsy and husband John, 61, were under “an umbrella of suspicion” for JonBenet’s death, but in 2003 a district judge in Atlanta said the evidence suggested than an intruder killed the little girl.
Guilty Republican: Erre and Killer pick Tom DeLay, whose nickname seems to have morphed from “Hammer” to “Embattled,” on Monday was indicted again, this time for money laundering.
I.J. pick Sharon Stone on Tuesday forcefully, albeit incoherently, defended Nicole pick Kate Moss, giving what-for to the companies which have decided to end their contracts with the drug-snorting supermodel. Speaking in Paris, where Chanel announced her as its latest unstable, surgery-enhanced, comically addled spokesperson, the washed-up actress declared, “I'd like to say, as for Kate Moss, I understand that she has apologized and is changing her life, and I think that that is the most important thing that's happened. I think that we have to be aware that people are allowed to make mistakes in their life. Whether or not a house stands with her or not through it says more about the house than it does about her. If you are in here and haven't made a mistake, I'd like to meet you because I've been waiting for Jesus, and today would be the day.” While the assembled reporters scratched their heads, Stone abruptly left to do an interview with Radio France International.
Guilty Democrat: Adam Spellman pick Marion Barry is being investigated by the IRS, the agency’s jack-booted thugs nit-pickingly wanting actual proof that the drug-snorting politico has filed federal income tax returns since 1998. (Barry says he has, but the IRS collectively replied, “We call bullshit!”)
Comes word that Consensus Pick Michael Jackson is planning on writing and recording a song to benefit supermodels unfairly dumped by their corporate sponsors.
Selling syndication rights to The X Files in France was a mistake: Theresa forwards this chunk of purty pretend-language text:
Interview de Yves Sillard
29 septembre 2005
RFI Soir, Radio France International.
Vincent Roux: Et notre 2ème dossier ce soir : en France on les appelle des Phénomènes Aérospatiaux Non-identifiés, mais ils sont plus connus sous le nom d'ovnis. Ils peuvent fasciner ou faire sourire, mais ils intéressent aussi les scientifiques. Le CNES, l'agence spatiale française, à ainsi décider de relancer ses activités d'observation et d'analyse de ces phénomènes. Un comité de pilotage a été créé pour remettre en marche ce secteur, et notre invité ce soir est le président de ce comité de pilotage : Yves Sillard. Bonsoir...
Yves Sillard: Bonsoir... (sourire)
Vincent Roux: AlorsYves Sillard votre parcours est impressionnant ; vous avez travaillé sur le programme Concorde, vous avez été ensuite l'un des pères d'Ariane, vous avez dirigé le CNES, puis été Directeur Général de l'Armement. Autant dire Yves Sillard que si on vous a demandé que si on vous a demandé de diriger ce comité sur l'observation des ovnis, c'est qu'on veut aborder très sérieusement.
Yves Sillard: C'est un sujet qu'il faut aborder avec rigueur, sérieux, et sans avoir d'idées préconçues ni avoir peur de son ombre; c'est un sujet très intéressant d'ailleurs.
Vincent Roux: Et c'est un regard scientifique, qu'il faut porter sur la question...
Yves Sillard: Un regard rigoureux et scientifique... voilà.
Vincent Roux: Alors en l'occurence il s'agit de réactiver une structure qui a existé, le GEPAN, le Groupement d'Etude des Phénomènes Aérospatiaux Non Identifiés. Pourquoi ce GEPAN qui avait été créé en 1977 a ensuite été un peu mis en sommeil ?
Yves Sillard: Eh ben écoutez... Il s'agit là d'un phénomène... ce phénomène des... le problème des Phénomènes des Aérospatiaux Non-identifiés qui est très sérieux, qui met en jeu de multiples témoins qui sont dignes de foi, qui s'interrogent sur la nature des observations qu'ils ont pu faire, et qui attendent à juste titre des réponses aux questions qu'ils se posent. Je reviens donc un tout petit peu en arrière. Et donc pour moi il est du rôle du CNES d'essayer de répondre à ces attentes, même si dans certains cas la réponse n'est pas facile à formuler. Et j'avais créé le GEPAN, dont vous venez de parler, dans ce but en 1977, quand j'étais directeur général du CNES, et ce GEPAN a parfaitement fonctionné. Malheureusement, ce sujet, qui nécessite comme on vient de le dire d'être abordé avec une rigueur scientifique totale, fait, très souvent, l'objet de réactions passionnées, "pour", "contre", etc. et puis de campagnes invraisemblables de désinformation qui sont très souvent destinées à destabiliser, même à ridiculiser ceux qui traitent le sujet sérieusement. Alors dans les dernières années -- on peut dire depuis une quinzaine d'années-- eh ben le CNES a un peu cédé à ces campagnes de désinformation ; et un audit, qui a été fait dans les années 2001-2002, qui a impliqué l'audition de nombreuses personnalités, a recommandé de redonner au GEPAN des moyens normaux de fonctionnement -- sans lui donner des moyens fantastiques bien entendu -- et de faire superviser et orienter ses activités par par un comité de pilotage qui associe tous les différents organismes qui sont concernés par l'étude de ce phénomène. Et voilà, ces recommandations ont été suivies par Yannick d'Escatha, qui est l'actuel président du CNES, et d'où la 1ère réunion du comité de pilotage.
Vincent Roux: ...que vous avez donc présidé.
Yves Sillard: Voilà.
Vincent Roux: Avec qui allez-vous travailler sur ces questions ?
Yves Sillard: Alors le comité est très clairement constitué si vous voulez maintenant. Il associe un certain nombre de personnes du CNES et puis des représenants des principaux organismes qui en France sont concernés par cela. Ces organismes, c'est quoi ? C'est la Gendarmerie Nationale, la Police Nationale, la Sécurité Civile, l'Armée de l'Air, l'Aviation Civile, la Météorologie Nationale. Et en plus des organismes, nous avons quelques scientifiques, 4 scientifiques dans un 1er temps, qui sont spécialistes, qui ont des activités dans des domaines qui, de près ou de loin, peuvent intéresser le sujet. Par exemple la propulsion, l'électromagnétisme, l'astrophysique et aussi les sciences de l'homme.
Vincent Roux: Que des gens sérieux quoi, donc (sourire). Alors malgré les aléas du GEPAN, cela fait une trentaine d'années que le CNES accumule des informations, des rapports, des observations... Est-ce qu'il y a des phénomènes intéressants dans ces observations, des choses qu'on a pas su expliquer ?
Yves Sillard: Alors oui si vous voulez le CNES a d'abord mis au point une méthodologie très rigoureuse pour recueillir les témoignages et analyser ces témoignages de façon à créer une base de données qui existe aujourd'hui et qui est tout à fait remarquable. Et en France, entre 1951 et aujourd'hui-- parce que le CNES... le GEPAN constitué en 1977 est remonté un peu en amont -- il y a plusieurs milliers de cas qui ont été enregistrés, dont en particulier près de 200 cas qui résultent d'observations à bord d'avions. Alors tous ces cas et tous ces témoignages ont fait l'objet d'un classement extrêmement rigoureux comme je vous le disais, et finalement le CNES a classé tous ces phénomènes de... sur ces 50 dernières années en 4 catégories : une 1ère catégorie qu'on appelle les Phénomènes Aérospatiaux Non identifiés de catégorie A, les PAN A, qui sont des choses parfaitement identifiées ; les PAN B qui sont des choses presque sûrement parfaitement identifiées, ensuite une 3ème catégorie, les PAN C, çà ce sont ceux qui ne sont pas exploitables parce que les informations ne sont pas utilisables vraiment... c'est manque d'information, pas de clarté des témoignages, etc. et enfin dernier cas qui est les PAN D, qui eux sont parfaitement documentés, avec des témoins dont on a pu vérifier la qualité, mais qui sont inexplicables par des phénomènes connus aujourd'hui.
Vincent Roux: Et ils représentent quelle proportion à peu près ?
Yves Sillard: Alors c'est à peu près 15 % du total. Alors si on enlève les cas qui ne sont pas utilisables parce qu'ils ne sont pas intéressants, on peut se dire qu'ils se répartiraient à peu près de la même façon entre cas inexplicables et cas explicables, on peut dire de façon simple qu'il y a 75 à 76 % de cas identifiés -- bien identifiés, on sait ce que c'est -- et puis 25% de cas non identifiés, qui sont inexplicables par les phénomènes connus actuellement.
Vincent Roux: Alors justement l'observation de ces phénomènes aérospatiaux c'est, intellectuellement, scientifiquement stimulant j'imagine ? Ca bouscule un peu ?
Yves Sillard: Ah ben c'est stimulant... c'est-à-dire, ça doit être stim... parce que vous savez qu'un certain nombre de scientifiques refusent, en disant "c'est impossible, donc ça n'existe pas" ; donc ça, évidemment, ça ne nous paraît pas très scientifique. Par contre quand on se donne la peine de réfl... de regarder avec sérieux et en toute objectivité tous ces cas, dont certains sont non seulement des cas avec des d'observations visuelles de témoins sérieux mais également avec des... d'autres.. certains avec des traces... des échos radar enregistrés par des avions... euh... par des radars de bord et des radars au sol... euh... dans un certain nombre de cas des traces d'atterrissages et de... comment dire... de détérioration de la végétation... tout çà est extrêmement sérieux et soulève des questions. Et aujourd'hui évidemment on ne peut face à tout çà n'émettre que des hypothèses, et rien que des hypothèses.
Vincent Roux: Et être ce que ça peut aider, est-ce que ça peut avoir des applications scientifiques, est-ce que ça peut pousser justement la recherche dans certains domaines ?
Yves Sillard: Ah ben écoutez certainement, parce que on est tout naturellement amené à chercher à expliquer un certain nombre de ces cas... on a bien le sentiment qu'il s'agit des mobiles ayant des évolutions très supérieures si je puis dire aux mobiles aériens et spatiaux que nous savons envoyer actuellement... et puis par ailleurs ils ont des effets assez curieux sur les communications, les instruments de bord... tout ça appelle des explications et un certain nombre de recherches peuvent être faites pour essayer d'expliquer un peu comment ce genre de phénomènes peut se produire.
Vincent Roux: Dernière question. Yves Sillard: les américains ont un peu "inventé" ce phénomène ovnis... aujourd'hui est-ce qu'ils poursuivent encore leurs recherches ? On en parle beaucoup moins...
Yves Sillard: Alors si vous voulez, officiellement, les américains ont abandonné toutes recherches sur les ovnis après le dépot d'un rapport qui s'appelle Rapport Condon. Alors, si j'ai encore 1 mn, je peux dire simplement que ce rapport, curieusement, qui faisait apparaître dans le corps du rapport 30 % de phénomènes observés qui étaient complètement inexplicables, il concluait en disant que la poursuite de l'étude ne présentait pas d'intérêt. Il y avait une anomalie profonde entre les conclusions et le reste. Alors en réalité, moi je pense que les américains pratiquent sur le sujet -- auquel ils consacrent, j'en suis persuadé, des efforts d'investigation très supérieurs à ceux de tout autre pays -- ils pratiquent une politique délibérée et savamment orchestrée de désinformation. C'est la désinformation totale... Alors dans quel but ? Est-ce que c'est une crainte de voir leur suprématie remise en jeu si un jour on se trouvait face à une civilisation extérieure beaucoup plus avancée... Est-ce que c'est un soucis de garder pour eux un acquis potentiel de technologie... on en... ou toute autre explication, on en sait rien. Je comme dire, comme pour Kate mousse, je comprendre que avoir faire des excuses et être changing la vie, et je penser que que être le plus important chose que être produire. Je penser que devoir être averti que personne être permettre faire erreur dans leur vie. Si or not un maison tenir avec la ou non à travers dire plus au sujet le maison que au sujet la. Si vous être dans ici et avoir non faire un erreur, je comme rencontrer vous parce que je avoir être waiting pour Jésus, et aujourd'hui être le jour.
Vincent Roux: Yves Sillard, merci. Merci de ces explications, merci d'avoir été avec nous sur RFI, bonne soirée.
Sure, it looks like gibberish, but thanks to the miracles that are the Internet and Babelfish, we can translate it into pretend English and make something like sense of it:
Interview of Yves Sillard
September 29 2005
RFI Evening, Radio France International.
Red-headed Vincent: And our 2nd file this evening: in France one calls them Not-identified Aerospace Phenomena, but they are more known under the name of UFOS, hoh-HONH. They can fascinate or make smile, but they interest also the scientists, hoh-HONH. CNES, the French space agency, with thus deciding to start again its activities of observation and analysis of these phenomena, hoh-HONH. A steering committee was created to restart this sector, and our guest this evening is the president of this steering committee: Yves Sillard. Good evening, hoh-HONH...
Yves Sillard: Good evening, hoh-HONH... (to smile)
Red-headed Vincent: AlorsYves Sillard your course is impressive; you worked on the program Concorde, you were then one of the fathers of ARIANE, you directed the CNES, then be a General manager of the Armament, hoh-HONH. As much to say Yves Sillard that if it were asked you that if one asked you to direct this committee on the observation of the UFOS, it is that one wants to approach very seriously, hoh-HONH.
Yves Sillard: It is a subject which it is necessary to tackle with rigour, serious, and without having preconceived ideas nor to be afraid of its shade; it is a very interesting subject besides, hoh-HONH.
Red-headed Vincent: And it is a scientific glance, which it is necessary to carry on the question, hoh-HONH...
Yves Sillard: A rigorous and scientific glance... here, hoh-HONH.
Red-headed Vincent: Then in the event it is a question of reactivating a structure which existed, the GEPAN, the Grouping of Study of the Not Identified Aerospace Phenomena, hoh-HONH. Why this GEPAN which had been created in 1977 then was put a little in sleep?
Yves Sillard: Eh Ben listen, hoh-HONH... They are there a phenomenon, hoh-HONH... this phenomenon of... the problem of the Phenomena Aerospace Not-identified which is very serious, which brings into play multiple witnesses who are worthy of faith, which wonders about the nature of the observations that they could make, and which wait rightly of the answers to the questions until they are posed, hoh-HONH. I thus return very small little behind, hoh-HONH. And thus for me it is role of the CNES to try to answer these waitings, even if in certain cases the answer is not easy to formulate, hoh-HONH. And I had created the GEPAN, from which you come to speak, to this end in 1977, when I was a general manager of the CNES, and this GEPAN functioned perfectly, hoh-HONH. Unfortunately, this subject, which requires as one has just said it to be approached with a total rigour scientific, makes, very often, the object of impassioned reactions, "for", "against", etc and then of incredible misinformation campaigns which are very often intended for destabiliser, to even ridicule those which cover the subject seriously, hoh-HONH. Then in last years -- one can say since about fifteen years -- eh Ben the CNES a little yielded to these campaigns misinformation; and one to that, which was made in the years 2001-2002, which implied the hearing of many personalities, recommended to give again to the GEPAN of the normal means of operation -- without him to give fantastic means -- of course; and to make supervise and direct its activities by by a steering committee which associates all the various organizations which are concerned with the study of this phenomenon, hoh-HONH. And here are, these recommendations were followed by Yannick d' Escatha, which is the current president of the CNES, and from where the 1st meeting of the steering committee, hoh-HONH.
Red-headed Vincent: ... that you thus chaired, hoh-HONH.
Yves Sillard: Here, hoh-HONH.
Red-headed Vincent: With which you will work on these questions?
Yves Sillard: Then the committee is very clearly made up if you want now, hoh-HONH. It associates a certain number of people of the CNES and then représenants of the principal organizations which in France are concerned with that, hoh-HONH. Is these organizations, it what? It is the National Gendarmerie, the National police force, Civil Safety, the Air Force, the Civil aviation, National Meteorology, hoh-HONH. And in more of the organizations, we have some scientists, 4 scientists in one the 1st time, which is specialists, who have activities in fields which, in near or by far, can interest the subject, hoh-HONH. For example propulsion, electromagnetism, astrophysics and also social sciences, hoh-HONH.
Red-headed Vincent: That serious people what, therefore (to smile), hoh-HONH. Then in spite of the risks of the GEPAN, that makes about thirty years that the CNES accumulates information, reports/ratios, observations, hoh-HONH... Are there interesting phenomena in these observations, of the things which one did not know to explain?
Yves Sillard: Then yes if you want the CNES initially developed a very rigorous methodology to collect testimonys and to analyze these testimonys in order to create a data base which exists today and which is completely remarkable, hoh-HONH. And in France, between 1951 and today -- because the CNES, hoh-HONH... the GEPAN made up in 1977 went up a little upstream -- there are several thousands of cases which were recorded, including in particular nearly 200 cases which result from observations on board planes, hoh-HONH. Then all these cases and all these testimonys were the subject of an extremely rigorous classification as I said it to you, and finally the CNES classified all these phenomena of... over these 50 last years in 4 categories: one 1st category that one calls the Not identified Aerospace Phenomena of category A, SIDE A, which are perfectly identified things; the SIDE B which is things almost surely perfectly identified, then one 3rd category, the SIDE C, that it is those which are not exploitable because information is not usable really... it is lack of information, not clearness of testimonys, etc and finally last case which is the SIDE D, which them are documented perfectly, with witnesses whose one could check quality, but which is unexplainable by phenomena known today, hoh-HONH.
Red-headed Vincent: And they about represent which proportion?
Yves Sillard: Then it is about 15 % of the total, hoh-HONH. Then if one removes the cases which are not usable because they are not interesting, one can think that they would be distributed about in the same way between unexplainable cases and explainable cases, one can say in a simple way that there are 75 to 76 % of identified cases -- identified well, one knows what they is -- and then 25% of not identified cases, which are unexplainable by the phenomena currently known, hoh-HONH.
Red-headed Vincent: Then precisely is the observation of these aerospace phenomena it, intellectually, scientifically stimulant I imagine? Does Ca hustle a little?
Yves Sillard: Ah Ben it is stimulative... i.e., that must be stim... because you know that a certain number of scientists refuse, by saying "it is impossible, therefore that does not exist"; thus that, obviously, that does not appear scientist very to us, hoh-HONH. On the other hand when one gives oneself the sorrow of réfl... to look with serious and in all objectivity all these cases, of which some are not only cases with of visual observations of serious witnesses but also with... of others, hoh-HONH. some with traces... of the echoes radar recorded by planes... euh... by airborne radars and radars on the ground... euh... in a certain number of cases of the traces of landings and of... how to say... deterioration of the vegetation... all that is extremely serious and raises questions, hoh-HONH. And today obviously one cannot vis-a-vis with all that putting forth only assumptions, and only assumptions, hoh-HONH.
Red-headed Vincent: And being what that can help, that can have scientific applications, that can precisely push research in certain fields?
Yves Sillard: Ah Ben listen certainly, because one is quite naturally brought to seek to explain a certain number of these cases... one has well the feeling which they are the mobiles having of the much higher evolutions if I then to say to the air and space mobiles that we know to currently send... and then in addition they rather curious effects on the communications have, the instruments... all that calls explanations and a certain number of research can be made to try to explain a little how this kind of phenomena can occur, hoh-HONH.
Red-headed Vincent: Last question, hoh-HONH. Yves Sillard: did American "invent" this phenomenon UFOS a little... today they still continue their research? One speaks about it much less, hoh-HONH...
Yves Sillard: Then if you want, officially, American gave up all research on the UFOS after the dépot of a report/ratio which is called Rapport Condon, hoh-HONH. Then, if I have 1 more mn, I can to say simply that this report/ratio, curiously, which revealed in the body of the report/ratio 30 % of phenomena observed which were completely unexplainable, it concluded by saying that the continuation of the study was not of interest, hoh-HONH. There was a major anomaly between the conclusions and the remainder, hoh-HONH. Then actually, me I think that American practises on subject -- which they devote, I am persuaded of it, of the efforts of investigation much higher than those of any other country -- they practise a deliberated policy and learnedly orchestrated misinformation, hoh-HONH. It is the total misinformation, hoh-HONH... Then with a which aim? Is it a fear to see their given supremacy concerned if one day one were vis-a-vis with an external civilization much more advanced, hoh-HONH... Is they a concern of keeping for them a potential asset of technology... one in... or any other explanation, one knows anything of it, hoh-HONH. I'd like to say, as for Kate Moss, I understand that she has apologized and is changing her life, and I think that that is the most important thing that's happened, hoh-HONH. I think that we have to be aware that people are allowed to make mistakes in their life, hoh-HONH. Whether or not a house stands with her or not through it says more about the house than it does about her, hoh-HONH. If you are in here and haven't made a mistake, I'd like to meet you because I've been waiting for Jesus, and today would be the day, hoh-HONH.
Red-headed Vincent: Yves Sillard, thank you, hoh-HONH. Thank you for these explanations, thank you to have been with us on RFI, good evening, hoh-HONH.
Man, Babelfish gets more realistic all the time.
Hey, enjoy your long weekend.