"�K� W�K?� �F�" <nospam@newsranger.com> wrote in message
news:43nkb.24576$cJ5.3811@www.newsranger.com...
In article <PNfkb.121216$9l5.73082@pd7tw2no>, tim gueguen says...
But there is no convincing evidence any of these sightings were of craft
of
non terrestrial origin.
False. It's really a shame to see how lazy the debunkers have gotten.
It used to be they would come up with at least a flimsey excuse
like ball lightning or swamp gas!!
Question: What level of proof is adequate proof, then?
SF: I talk in terms of evidence. The legal profession recognizes certain
standards: in a civil court, "preponderance of the evidence;" in a
criminal
court, "beyond a reasonable doubt." I think there is, right now, quite
sufficient evidence. Given the physical trace cases, the radar sightings,
the
photographs and the eye-witness testimony from people all over the world,
None of which have proven that any of the sightings are of non-terrestrial
craft.
we
have quite sufficient evidence to conclude that our planet is being
visited by
manufactured objects behaving in ways that we Earthlings cannot yet
duplicate,
and that therefore were produced someplace else. Now, the reason for that
little kicker about not being able to duplicate: every government in the
world
would love to be able to duplicate UFO flying capabilities. If we could
build
these things, we would be building them. So, if they weren't built here,
they
were built someplace else. There's nothing exotic about that. It's not
charismatic handwaving, it's perfectly good reasoning. We have an adequate
amount of evidence today to clearly establish that some-I emphasize
some-UFOs
are alien spacecraft. And I would take on anybody who says we don't. I
would say
it's entirely because they haven't reviewed that evidence, which is very
different from saying there is no evidence.
Question: Give me some examples. What are some of the strongest cases on
record
that you know of, and why do you find them so convincing?
SF: I feel the Roswell evidence makes a very strong case. We've talked to
more
than 240
(now over 350) people about that case; people at the Roswell Army Air
Force
base; people out at the rancher's site, including Mac Brazel's neighbors,
his
son, his daughter, and his daughter-in-law. We've talked to people who
handled
pieces of the wreckage at the base; we've talked to the people who were in
Texas
where it went; people who were crew members on the planes that carried
some of
the wreckage. I've talked to somebody who saw the bodies, people who were
threatened by the government-that's being kind-to shut up about this whole
thing. So that's an excellent case.
Bollocks. Roswell was a Project Mogul balloon, unless you're willing to
believe aliens transverse the galaxy in craft made out of mylar, balsa wood,
and flowered tape.
But I'm also impressed by cases like the one that occurred over George Air
Force
Base in California. Two jets had just finished maneuvering practice and
were
coming back to base. Both were flown by experienced pilots who had fought
in
Korea. The pilot in the lead plane spotted an object in the distance. It
looked
peculiar because it was standing still, so he radioed the ground. The
ground
control guy went outside with binoculars and watched the two planes go
after
this thing, meanwhile still talking to them by radio. And, as the lead
pilot
reported, the object was standing still, and in three seconds it was going
a
thousand miles an hour. It moved a pretty good angle through the sky, then
stopped dead again. The pilot switched direction a little bit, going after
it,
and it went back the other way. Again, in just a couple seconds of
acceleration,
it's going, he says, a thousand miles an hour. Stops dead. Zigzagging, in
other
words, back and forth across the sky. The lead pilot saw it, the pilot in
the
second plane saw it, and the guy on the ground watched this whole thing
while
listening to the radio conversations. Finally, the thing zipped away at
very
high speed. Now, what do you do with a case like that? These are military
pilots
reporting to a military control tower operator in broad daylight. You
can't say
they're lying. What for? This was a classified report. It makes no sense.
And
there are loads of cases like that. (Including Gordon Cooper's similar
case
described in his new book "Leap of Faith")
This is not proof of anything other than someone supposedly saw something
interesting in the sky, assuming of course this anecdote is actually
correctly relayed, or for that matter occured at all. Eyewitness testimony,
unless corroborated by other forms of evidence, is the weakest evidence.
I'm also impressed with some of the abduction cases; for example, the
Betty and
Barney Hill case. I was technical advisor on a television movie about
this case
called "The UFO Incident," and I've spent time with the Hills. These two
people
underwent individual medical hypnosis sessions weekly for three and a half
months. Betty was a social worker and supervisor in the welfare
department,
State of New Hampshire. Barney worked for the Post Office and was on the
Governor's Civil Rights Commission.
But the fellow who conducted the hypnosis didn't believe they encountered
aliens.
Our whole society would fall apart if we had
to say that people like this who report anything strange must either be
nuts or
else have some crazy angle to what they're doing.
Why?
We have standard procedures
for accepting eyewitness testimony. These people and lots of other
abductees
certainly meet those standards for providing acceptable testimony.
No they don't, since they cannot provide corroboration for their stories.
Such stories are the equivalent of someone claiming to have witnessed a
murder for which there is not only no body, but no evidence the victim or
his killer actually exist.
So, I get irked when I hear people say there isn't any evidence. We've got
things like the University of Colorado study, the Condon Report, in which
30% of
117 cases studied in detail couldn't be identified.
Unidentified does not mean they were extraterrestrial craft.
Bluebook Special Report 14
does a cross-comparison between 600-plus unknowns and the balance of
2000plus
cases that could be identified. They looked at six different
characteristics-apparent size, color, shape, speed, etc. -to see if there
was
any chance that the unknowns were just missed knowns. It was less than one
percent. They did a quality evaluation. They found that the better the
quality,
the more likely to be an unknown. That's exactly what you'd expect if
we're
dealing with something different. Because they had other categories: not
only
"unknown," but insufficient information, aircraft, astronomical, balloon,
psychological aberrations. The unknowns were different. And the
differences were
in the direction of being able to move with much greater maneuverability
and
much greater speed, to have a different shape, to have different lighting.
What
do people want?
More than anecdote. Actual alien spacecraft bits, alien body parts, or what
have you. Of course the cry of the fringe is that "the government is hiding
all the evidence." But of course if you take that stance you can be like
Don Palermo and claim UFOs are actually manmade craft powered by secret
technology hidden by a small cabal, and that its the claim that UFOs are
alien spacecraft that is part of the coverup.
We're dealing with vehicles in the air, many of them observed in
the early 1950s or late '40s, doing things that we certainly could not do.
So,
the evidence, for anybody who wants to take the time,-and it does take
time-is
overwhelming that some UFOs are alien spacecraft and that we're dealing
with a
kind of "Cosmic Watergate." No question.
Nonsense.
tim gueguen 101867