<incredible snip>

[reading this the day after I typed it up for you, Sage
 I see it's way off where the thread has descended to.
 But FWIW, here it is.Happy Thanksgiving ! ]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 I will try to answer you as best I can. It's up to you
whether you take it seriously or not. I apologize for the length.

 
    I never answer a , "Do you believe in UFO's?" - type question.
The reason being that belief is faith-based. Sure, everyone uses 
that word "belief" once in a while as an affirmative ( "I beleive
in America",etc.) But a UFO advocate has to be doubly cautious here
as their statement like, "I believe in UFO's" may  be twisted by
 a Debunker to make all the Advocate's arguments appear to be 
faith-based rather than reason-based, and therefore dismissable as
so much claptrap.

    A much more pertinate question is; "Do UFO's exist?" And of course
the answer is: YES ! It's Yes because 100's of people report seeing
them every year. A variety of reports, some with photographic evidence
or other supposed "physical" evidence are given out every year.
Certainly, a doubter such as yourself would be the first to answer
that reportage does not  equal proof - largely due to the lack of
controls on types of reports and accuracy of witnesses.


    To me, this leaves "nature" as the real 64,000 $ question. Whether
or not you or I "believe" in UFO's is irrelevant to their actual
existence. But although existence is apparent, the real question is,
"What is their true nature?" Regardless of whether UFO's are genuine
flying saucers, anomalous plasma or meteorological phenomena, Black
Projects, mundane objects that are simply mis-identified, or outright
hoaxes - Regardless - only by trying to answer the question of the
true NATURE of UFO's can we work towards some resolution that is
provable - even for you. 

    But what would it take in  real nuts-and-bolts, budgetable
apparatus, in toil and sweat to accomplish this goal? I'm going to
digress for a few lines and tell you about a show I saw last night on
public TV. It was an episode of NOVA about Biblical Archaeology
regarding a dig in the caves near Qumran. So what? Well, the guy in
charge was very scientific, used state-of-the-art equipment like
ground penatrating radar. There was a team of professionals
of a variety of disciplines; each bringing a specialized skill. The
"find" they were after- and made- was both dramatic and controversal.
They claim to have found legitmate ritual implements of the 2nd
Temple; hidden by Jewish Zealots from the Romans. Their conclusions
were considered very controversal. The guy in charge admitted his work
was not only scientific, but political and even religious as well. The
program ended with Academia still in doubt.

     So what's this got to do with UFO's? Because throughout the show
the archaeologist consistently relied on intuition, hunches, and just
plain luck to direct his efforts at times. He didn't pick this cave
out of thin air. It was known as the "Cave of Letters" and is famous
as such. He always used the best and latest techniques available to
verify discoveries and support his hypothesis. He worked within the
"Establishment", researched other work, published, submitted to
peer-review. All that and more. Yet, there was no doubt
that had he been a UFO Researcher the Debunkers would've torn him to
shreds. Suppostion? Guess work? Blind Luck?  And those conclusions!
Why all the REALLY important Jewsih Academics doubt this - could it
possibly be true? One of the ritual plates had a PAGAN theme on it -
Everybody who is Anybody just KNOWS that no real Temple artifact could
ever have a Pagan imprint on it. Impossible! In other words, a
Debunker would've denied the relevance of his work simply on
definitions of what's really "scientific" regardless of actual
practice by someone who clearly was well established in his field.

    Still, not once did anyone on this establishment TV show ever
accuse the guy in charge of being un-scientific. Wrong in his
conclusions perhaps - But no one questioned his methods as such. This
is where I see Debunkers failing. There has  been nothing comparable
in the UFO field. Academia would not have it. Government won't fund
it. Govt' agencies like the FAA and USAF won't lend their nationwide
network of radio comms and radars to such an investigation. Neither do
they fully or freely reveal what info they already have. Those numbers
of military and professional pilots who will discuss UFO's at all
admit that such reportage is a certain career killer. NASA, CIA, NSA ,
and NRO are all involved in gathering and analyzing data that is
gathered from or in the near-earth aerospace enviornment - they're not
talking either.

    So in conclusion, I can only ask you to answer your own questions;
What WOULD it really take to convince you? Short of little green men
on the West lawn of the White House - what would be acceptable proof?
Then ask yourself if such an effort has ever been forthcoming.
Clearly, the archaeologist in the NOVA show had no compunctions
whatsoever in using all kinds of "un-scientific" methods to gain data,
support theory; But he also was willing to put his findings to
reasonable standards of proof and peer-based review. Now notice that
the very people and organizations most able to gather data and make
conclusions are the ones most vehemently  opposed to co-operating.
That UFO's exist is a given. The real question is: What
is their true nature?

    Trying to Finding the answer to that will quickly bring you to
battle with powerful forces Scientific, Political, Academic, and even
Religious - They don't want to  find an answer. Why ? Plenty of time
and money has been squandered on much sillier  prospects. Is the
answer really all THAT dangerous? Maybe they already have the answer.
Consider that.

           Wishing you a Yummy Turkey Holocaust,

                                                     Andrew