Aliens On Earth.com Resources for those who are stranded here Our Bookstore is OPEN Over 5000 new & used titles, competitively priced! Topics: UFOs - Paranormal - Area 51 - Ghosts - Forteana - Conspiracy - History - Biography - Psychology - Religion - Crime - Health - Geography - Maps - Science - Money - Language - Recreation - Technology - Fiction - Other - New 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 Mothership -> UFO -> Updates -> 1998 -> May -> Here

From: Brian Straight <brians@mdbs.com>
Date: Mon, 18 May 1998 10:31:52 -0500
Fwd Date: Mon, 18 May 1998 13:43:10 -0400
Subject: Re: Time to retire 'Ufologist', 'Ufology'

>From: SGB List 2 <SGBList2@aol.com> [Stephen Bassett]
>Date: Sun, 17 May 1998 13:09:03 EDT
>To: updates@globalserve.net
>Subject: Time to retire 'UFOlogist', 'UFOlogy'


>The extraterrestrial origin of some craft in our midst has been
>proven for some time.  What is at issue now is the inability of
>individuals to accept the verdict based on the level of
>resistance they possess to the implications.

>The amount of proof available is so massive, many refuse to
>examine it because, frankly, they don't have the time.

At the risk of being contentious here, where is this proof?  I
have not seen one independent laboratory report on the analysis
of materials recovered from so-called crash sites that indicates
they are of anything but terrestrial origin.

Witness testimony is not 'proof' either. In my own experience, I
have found individual witnesses to be sincere, but in many cases
this testimony is contradicted by the statements of other
witnesses, and sometimes, upon reinterview, by the original
witness him/herself. Which means that testimony is very useful,
but is too empirically unreliable to be considered proof.

Like many on this list, I would be willing to consider your
hypothesis--I try to be open-minded but critical (as we all
should be), but I don't see "massive proof."

And please don't draw conclusions about the inability of people
like myself to deal with the implications of proof of the
extraterrestrial nature of UFOs -- I'd be exhilarated if this
were proven.  But the fact is, there really is not one shred of
evidence (but plenty of stories) that UFOs are extraterrestrial
in nature.

I would agree that there are a number independently-corroborated
(via radar, etc.) incidents.  But to jump from the observation of
an anomalous phenomenon to the conclusion that it is
extraterrestrial in nature is quite a logical stretch.

Brian