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 Location: Mothership -> UFO -> Updates -> 1999 -> Jul -> Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?

UFO UpDates Mailing List

From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@proaxis.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 13:25:23 -0700 (PDT)
Fwd Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 18:18:37 -0400
Subject: Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?


>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@GlobalServe.net>
>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
>Subject: Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?
>Date: Tue, 20 Jul 99 09:58:15 PDT

>In this context it may well be that scientists in the future,
>and maybe the not-so-distant future, will say that visitation by
>ET intelligence should have been evident as early as (say) the
>Nash-Fortenberry sighting of 1952.  Or maybe the RB-47 case of
>1957.  Pick your solid, unexplained report.  It is entirely
>possible that science will eventually decide that the "leap of
>faith" you mention was not taken by advocates of UFO reality but
>by those who maintained the stubborn belief, in the face of
>serious contrary evidence, that _no matter what_ all UFO
>sightings would all resolve into comfortingly prosaic causes.
>They haven't, but hey, who's going to let a little reality
>intrude on somebody's dreams?
>
>Jerry Clark

Hello Jerry,

I'd like to step in here to second your last two sentences
above, and to say that it seems more than just "possible" that
future science will make this judgment. It's a virtual
certainty, judging from the number of firm unexplainable UFO
reports.

As a corollary, it will very likely be similarly decided that
the figure one often hears, that 90% or 95% of all UFO reports
have prosaic explanations, was part of the dream. It has never
been good science for a ufologist to claim an IFO solution to a
UFO report on the basis that it *might possibly* have been
Venus, a weather balloon, aircraft, etc., over and against the
objections of witnesses who claim to know better. However, this
tactic made the dream easier to maintain, and made it easier for
the one-way "skeptics" to claim that if 95% of the cases can be
explained away, then surely the other 5% can be also. I suspect
the true percentage of IFOs lies somewhere between 50% and 75%.

Jim Deardorff