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: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@proaxis.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 21:58:49 -0700 (PDT)
Fwd Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 07:48:32 -0400
Subject: IFOs [was: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?]


 >Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 16:37:59 +0100
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
 >From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
 >Subject: Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?

 >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.

I lean heavily towards your over-zealous explanation. If John Q,
a (fictitious) MUFON investigator, has learned that others will
say he's not doing his job properly if he can only explain 50 to
75& of his UFO reports, he is likely to "explain away" a
considerably higher percentage, thereby being more likely to
receive kudos from certain colleagues for being a hard-nosed,
"scientific" skeptic.

 >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".

Call it UFO intelligence, then. If they can show themselves to
us in scores of thousands of screened cases over a 50 year
period but yet never once stay around long enough in the right
place for the news media to converge on it and show it to the
worldwide public, and never leave quite enough evidence behind
to satisfy the skeptic, this is intelligence in action. Think of
it, not once in over 100,000 cases leaving sufficient evidence
behind, yet over and over leaving almost enough evidence behind.