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 -> 1999 -> Jul -> Here

From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 16:37:59 +0100
Fwd Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 22:13:56 -0400
Subject: Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?


 >Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 13:25:23 -0700 (PDT)
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>,
 >From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@proaxis.com>
 >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?


 >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%.


We can play with statistics as long as we like. I could argue
that if Jim Deardorff is only able to explain 50% to 75% of the
UFO reports he comes across then he's not doing his job
properly! Other investigators find they can explain 95%. Maybe
they're being over-zealous in explaining cases, maybe they're
just more thorough in getting the facts. Whatever the percentage
there is no evidence whatsoever that any of the puzzling cases -
and even a one-way skeptic like me admits that there are some
(Travis Walton, for instance) - represent "visitation by ET
intelligence".

The only dreams and leaps of faith here are from those who think
that, to misquote someone-or-other, "absence of evidence is
evidence of ET".

--

John Rimmer Magonia Magazine: a division of the P.L.A.
Driftwood Military-Industrial Complex www.magonia.demon.co.uk