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 -> 1998 -> Feb -> Here

From: "Tom Burnett" <burnettc@gte.net>
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 05:33:08 -1000
Fwd Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 23:33:15 -0500
Subject: Re: 'UFO Sphere/Orb' over Brooklyn, NY


> From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
> To: updates@globalserve.net
> Subject: UFO UpDate: Re: 'UFO Sphere/Orb' over Brooklyn, NY
> Date: Tuesday, February 10, 1998 2:52 AM

> Date: Mon, 9 Feb 1998 22:30:13 -0500
> From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
> Subject: UFO UpDate: Re: 'UFO Sphere/Orb' over Brooklyn, NY
> To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>


> >From: "Tom Burnett" <burnettc@gte.net>
> >To: "UFO UpDates - Toronto" <updates@globalserve.net>
> >Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: 'UFO Sphere/Orb' over Brooklyn, NY
> >Date: Sun, 8 Feb 1998 08:52:19 -1000

> BE A SKEPTIC!!!!
> And understand that here you see the workings of an investigation.
> In the ufo "business", since UFOs/ET/Alien Flying Craft(AFC)
> DON'T EXIST acording to the "straight" world, the witness is
> always guilty until proven innocent (because no sane witness
> would report something that is impossible...obviously <g>).

> Alex says he saw saomething.  Then he took a picture of it.

> If you believe Alex....you don't need the picture!  His report is
> goo enough.   If you don't believe his report is accurate (maybe
> he honestly misidentified something.... or maybe he made the
> whole thing up---a hoax), then you have the picture to "prove"
> something was there.... Or was it?

<snip>

Aloha Bruce....

Thank you for your comments.  I agree with them to a point, but
my position is not exactly the way you present it.  First, I
neither dispute Alex's sighting report nor his photograph.  What
I dispute is a tendency, on the part of people who claim to be
investigators, to infer data which cannot be supported by the
evidence. In this case an eyewitness report and a photograph are
the evidence.  Unfortunately, neither the report nor the
photograph are clear and undisputable evidence anything, and
certainly not of the moral and ethical propensities of
extraterrestrials.

This is not an investigation since no one disputes Alex's
sighting report.
This is an exercise in futility.  The object has gone on its
merry way and no matter how much everyone argues about what it
may or may not have been, there is no possible way to know.  Even
if a similar object appears as you read this, you cannot know
whether it is the same object as before or whether it has the
same purpose.  When people start rationalizing evidence instead
of dispassionately looking at the evidence at hand, the
investigation becomes an imagination contest.

Cut to the chase.  I contend that arguing about something that is
not demonstrable one way or the other may be interesting, and may
certainly provoke thought among people who have no idea how to go
about their stated purpose, but is basically pointless.  Let's
develop a focus for all of this.  We can start a foundation, get
some sponsors, and  offer a million dollars to any non-government
entity who can demonstrate clear and unambiguous proof of first
contact.  Then turn the investigators loose on the applicants.
That would give UFOlogy a shot in the arm and generate some good
press for the cause.  And, it would also open up every claim to
public scrutiny. I think I can find the sponsors.  And no, I am
not joking.

Aloha
Tom Burnett