Aliens On Earth.com Resources for those who are stranded here UFOs | Paranormal | Area 51 People | Places | Random Top 100 | What's New Catalog | New Books Search... for keyword(s)   in Page Titles in Book Title/Author in Contents of Pages ---other searches--- Metacrawler Yahoo FAST Search Google Altavista Dogpile Inference Find Northern Light IWon.com MSN Search Las Vegas Sun Our Bookstore is OPEN Mothership -> UFO -> Updates -> 1997 -> Nov -> Here

From: jpeterson@polaristel.net [Candy Peterson]
Date: Thu, 13 Nov 97 16:19:45 PST
Fwd Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 11:08:47 -0500
Subject: Re: ETH [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] &c


>Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 00:29:02 -0800
>From: John Koopmans <john.koopmans@sympatico.ca>
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>Subject: Re: ETH [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] &c


Thanks to all the insightful writers of this thread.

><SNIP>
(consideration of older ufological cases)

> Personally, I am
>more interested in the here and now, in trying to get a better
>feel for some of the commonalties of the contacts, in trying to
>get a better understanding of where this phenomenon might be
>heading, and in preparing myself for a possible total shift in
>the way we may have to think about our Universe. On a
>battlefield, sometimes you just have to rely on your best
>intuition - you don't always have the luxury of engaging in a
>traditional scientific investigation that might take more than 50
>years to complete.

An advice columnist, in reply to her reader's lament that college
would take _4_long_years_ to complete, said "four years from now,
would you rather be four years older with a college degree or
without one?" If we had consistently conducted open scientific
ufological research from "the beginning," would we be more likely
to have developed a better understanding of the phenomenon by
today, or not?

As largely unpaid hobbyists, we do the best investigating we can
(in the spare time remaining after reading UFO e-lists.  >;)

The tragedy of experiencers singularly fighting their own battles
is that we have even fewer opportunities to openly compare
information.  It's a tough field with an intractable subject; as
scary to people on all sides of the issue, not unlike the
Inquisition.  (!)

We have a tendency to divide and conquer within our _own_ ranks,
nevermind the mocking of the media, the seeming indifference of
governments and so on.

We can't even agree if the UFO phenomena/problems are entirely
physical, psychological, spiritual, temporal, or other. So much
effort is spent haggling over our "blind" individual perceptions,
we don't even know if we're examining the different parts of one
metaphorical elephant or a complex stew.

We just muddle along as best we can, according to our own
perspectives.

<snip>

>My question is: what would constitute the ultimate proof? My fear
>is that if we wait for the ultimate proof we may be too late to
>do anything about it. Certainly by now there is enough indication
>that something is going on to warrant a listening rather than an
>attacking attitude. However, let's not jump too quickly to any
>conclusions until we have done a lot of listening. For example,
>just because the experiences involve "non-human" beings, it
>doesn't follow that the visitors are necessarily
>extraterrestrial.

Minnesota MUFON is trying to discover specific clues about the
nature or abilities of the visitor/abductor force(s). I've asked
this list for leads on published or personal experiences in
trying to record abduction attempts (with any kind of cameras,
etc.)

So far, there have been no reply postings to the list.*

This could be due to any number of reasons, including:

 No or few such recording attempts have ever been undertaken.
 Small e-list membership or readership.
 Lack of trust, time, name recognition or personal gain.

It's a long process to gather data, and ufology is certainly
young, as sciences go. Until such time as "they" might make
themselves incontrovertibly obvious, we'll just continue to
gather and sort through the data, not to mention wrestling
among ourselves.


>> <snipped questions about what constitutes proof.>

>Good questions. But the more information we have, the better will
>be our ability to make a choice. And for this reason, we need
>more encouragement for those with a legitimate story to tell to
>come forward without the further abuse of being torn to shreds by
>those who demand ultimate proof.

>John K.

MUFON's Abduction Transcription Project is an example of
good science, collecting ufological data from experiencers
who have sought therapeutic help. Anonymity is preserved
while we glean what we can from nearly a thousand
therapeutic transcripts from all over North America.
No shredding, no abuse.

If you or someone you know has tried to record "alien
abductors", please contribute the pertinent information
to me or Minnesota MUFON.

This isn't about exhaustive lifelong case histories.
We just want the details of the attempts to catch 'em in
the act by means of any recording devices whatsoever.

Let's see if we can cooperate to confirm or dispel what
currently amounts to hearsay/urban legends about our
supposed inability to objectively detect the "alien
abductors".  If we can narrow down some of the
anecdotal reports floating around, we might begin
to discover the specifics about which devices "they"
can manipulate, and which they can't.

If "they" are omnipotent it may not matter at all what we do,
but if "they" aren't, shouldn't we do our best to find that out?

Thanks,

Candy Peterson
jpeterson@polaristel.net
-----------------------------------------
Minnesota MUFON
http://www.wavefront.com/~jhenry/
-----------------------------------------

*Thanks to Scott Carr for his e-mail response to our
research request. Check out his web page:
<http://www.erols.com/sardonica>  "The Flying Saucer Gazette."