"Sir Arthur C.B.E. Wholeflaffers �.S.�." <nospam@newsranger.com> wrote in
message news:pe1_b.4018$_4.157@www.newsranger.com...
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,
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.
as I said before, unfortunately we don't have the technology or means to
zoom right up to those objects to see what they may be for ourselves. It
doesn't mean that the object doesn't exist, just that it is
unidentified.........as yet.
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.
just the fact that the government is making a mockery of such evidence,
encouraging those who believe that they must be crazy or it didn't happen
should raise the red flags. What are they hiding besides the fact that they
waste a lot of taxpayers' money??? As taxpayers, whose money they actually
SPEND we should be the first ones they have to be accountable to.
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")
knowing how governments think that what we (the people)don't know...won't
hurt us, is reasonable enough to ask more questions. If it is reasonable to
assume it 'might' hurt us or is a threat, then WE should know what we have
to fear. National security is one thing, but these sort of incidents happen
all over the planet. Its time humanity realized we are all in this
together.......not just the 'governments'. And since when did ANY government
care about the welfare of the population unless it had some direct effect on
them????
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. 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. We have standard
procedures
for accepting eyewitness testimony. These people and lots of other
abductees
certainly meet those standards for providing acceptable testimony.
I saw something strange back in the 60's when I was a teenager.It was a
cigar shaped rippling silver object. I still don't know WHAT it was, but it
was. But I do know what it WASN'T. Definitely not an airplane. And I was not
alone, yet people still think that we did not see anything more than a
plane. I have seen a lot of planes, even the concorde, and none of them even
slightly resembled what we saw.
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. 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? 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.
well, there is a lot of evidence that 'something' unusual is occuring. But
people who claim to be some sort of genetically modified humans by aliens is
another story. Perhaps those claims should be investigated and scientific
studies done on those individuals. We have the technology to compare the
human genome.
Question: We also have a situation of extremely high strangeness
associated with
a lot of UFO sightings. Stories where people floated through walls by
aliens,
or where beings seem to just appear in a room and then disappear--things
that
are absolutely fantastic. And yet, some of these abduction cases are
among the
most reputable ones. How do you account for that?
When you think about it everything is made up of atoms. Including humans.
Maybe there is a way those atoms are manipulated that we as yet do not know.
Take for example the old Star Trek shows. Technology of past SF has
occassionally turned out to be todays reality. I saw one episode where Kirk
and Spock landed on a planet whose star was going nova. All the inhabitants
were leaving to different planets through a doorway. The chosen planets had
all their information on small silver colored discs and when they put them
in a machine it showed scenes on those planets. The 'discs' looked like
today's CD's. That was back when the 8track was just becomeing new high
technology. So go figure.
SF: Arthur C. Clarke once said it very well: "Advanced technology is by
definition magic." If you tried to show your great-great grandfather a
television set, it would have been magic. Utterly impossible. There must
be
midgets inside. And yet, when humans landed on the moon-a remarkable thing
in
itself-we could watch it in real time, as it happened. Quite
extraordinary. A
pocket calculator today represents an enormously sophisticated kind of
device.
What about a hologram? You want crazy stuff! If you've ever seen a big
hologram,
you know you can put your hand through the darn thing, but it sure looks
like
there's something there. That's magic.
So, what I'm saying is, I don't have the faintest idea how to float
somebody
through a wall, but the way of science is to recognize that the
observations are
real, though the explanations may be all wet. And that's a problem for a
number
of ancient academics, fossilized physicists. If they don't understand how
something happens, it can't be. The sun has been fusioning up there, the
primary
source of energy for all our society, since the beginning. We figured out
in
1937-38 how the sun works, that it's fusion, not burning gas. But could
anybody
in his right mind suggest that it was fusioning until we knew about
fusion? Of
course not. So, you have to have a tolerance for ambiguity, for mystery,
and a
recognition that there are things we don't know. The more questions we
ask, the
more we don't know, because there's more we can dig into. The true
scientist
recognizes that. He'll say, "Gee, that's intriguing, that's different, how
could
we do that?" The false scientist says, "That's impossible, I'm going to
ignore
it." I'm reminded of Simon Newcomb, a great American astronomer of the
19th
century, who published in October, 1903, a long detailed paper considering
the
possibility of man flying in a vehicle. His conclusion was that the only
way man
would ever fly would be in a lighter than-air vehicle, a balloon. This was
two
months before the Wright Brothers' first flight, and when told about that,
he
said, "Well, maybe a pilot, but it'll never carry a passenger." He didn't
know
anything about flight. It's the basic assumptions that mattered. A little
over
20 years later, another great astronomer "proved" it would be impossible
to give
anything sufficient energy to get it into orbit around the earth. All he
proved
was that he had made the wrong assumptions. Finally, the example that kind
of
teases me the most is Dr. Campbell, a great Canadian astronomer, who
published
in 1941 a long detailed paper proving that the required initial launch
weight of
a chemical rocket able to get a man to the moon and back would be a
million-million tons. We accomplished it less than thirty years later,
with a
dumb old chemical rocket whose initial launch weight was 3,000 tons. He
was off
by a factor of 300 million. Why? Because he didn't know anything about
space
flight! All his assumptions were wrong.
most scientists get funding by publishing their finds. If they are laughed
at by their peers many would not receive funding and be termed crackpots or
worse.
We're stupid, we're silly, we're ridiculous, we're unprofessional. And
that's
the kicker here. Because we don't have explanations, because we cannot
duplicate, doesn't mean that it cannot happen. Friedman's Law, if you
will:
technological advancement almost invariably comes from doing things
differently
in an unpredictable way. The future is not an extrapolation of the past. A
great
scientist, Max Planck, once said, "New ideas come to be accepted, not
because
their opponents come to believe in them, but because their opponents die
and a
new generation grows up that's accustomed to them." So, I get upset at
professional people who put their pride before their science. They can't
figure
out how something could happen, so it couldn't, and that's the end of
that. And
that's not science, that's pseudo-science.
Man hasn't begun to investigate his true history.Over the ageshistorical
records were destroyed by opposing invaders. Some are considered mere
'legends'. Yet proofs of earlier advanced races exist all over this planet.
There are piramids built all over the world, from Egyipt, South America and
Asia. Burial mounds of huge proportions are all over this planet, their true
meanings and purpose lost. Monoliths like Stonehedge.And hillside carvings
and pictures that are only seen as what they are if you are looking down
from the sky as the Nasca lines. Legends of beings or angels visiting from
the sky are in all cultures all over this planet. The fact is we know barely
nothing about this planet we live on or our own past history in the past
10,000 years. So one shouldn't be skeptical that life on other planets is an
impossibility. But there are also those who make preposterous claims for
their own reasons, which have nothing to do with true facts. They are a
threat to those who seek the truth by the very fact that they bring derision
to anyone that is truly serious in seeking knowledge. In a way it is a worse
coverup than that of the governments.
Disinformation has a way of making information look like a joke. Some in
this group claim to be 'created' by 'aliens'. If that is the truth, then we
should be looking at those who make these claims with more of a scientific
approach. If there are forces 'out there' who are messing with humanity we
have a right to that knowledge as it concerns all of us. We have to know the
purpose, not just accept or shrug them off as nutcases. Study them, and find
out if they are really who they say they are.Unfortunately there are the
nutcase cultists seeking notoriety, personal gratification of their
selfimportance and making big bucks on the fools who follow them, and the
dead set skeptics who refuse to believe ANYTHING proven or not, and those
who are curious and have open minds to all and any possibilites. The fact is
if someone claims to have proof and knowledge and evidence they should then
back up those claims.Just because someone says it is doesn't necessarily
mean that it 'is' the truth. We have to then DEMAND the proof both from
those making the claims and those who are hiding it.