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: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 13:24:50 +0100
Fwd Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 16:45:29 -0400
Subject: Re: IFOs


Hi,

There have been some curious responses to my posting in reply to
the question asked about whether - in my 25 years experience -
one alien spacecraft had conclusively been seen. I thought I
answered it fully and properly. Evidently not. It seems that for
some of you unless I can be bullied into saying - yes, sure,
they are here I admit it, then it isn't good enough.

Well, sorry, I cannot honestly do that . I am afraid this
attitude is, in my view, a large part of what is wrong with
ufology. The plea - do we have to wait another 25 years for an
answer - seems to be saying, go on, say they are here, I don't
want to keep waiting to hear you say what I want you to say. I
reckon we do have a good part of the answer. I understand what's
going on far more than when I started. Its just that you don't
seem to like what I say I have found. Problem is if you stand 25
years at a bus stop waiting for a train it won't show up.

As for Stanton's facts and figures. Some of them need to be
interpreted. Yes, Condon found a third unsolved. But so would I
if I selected the 60 best cases from the past year rather than
studied the 6000 or whatever total sightings that have happened.

I cannot change the results of what I find to make people happy.
As I replied (and sorry its going to sound repetitive but as
some of you don't seem to grasp what I am saying its necessary)
here is what I actually find. And so, by the way, do a lot of
other ufologists beyond the US. Many researchers in the US seem
unaware that there is a ufology beyond the East Coast or the
West Coast. But there is and when you add it up its actually
bigger and very different from whats in the US as well. Note I
did not say better. That is not my argument.

In the UK in an average year we get say 300 sightings. Of thise
we can pretty conclusively explain around 180 (60%). I don't
think there are too many disputes so far. Of the rest I contend,
from my experience, that another 30 - 35% (it does vary - and
thats maybe another 100 cases) are probably explainable. You
cannot ever say for sure because the data to prove them is not
there. But they are LITS or low definition incidents where it is
best to err on the side of caution. For instance, witness A sees
a blinking red light in the sky. You cannot find any aircraft
supposed to be up there. Now, sure, of course, the blinking
light could be a UFO disguised as a navigation beacon. But in my
estimation it would be more sensibler to say that the blinking
light was probably an aircraft and move on. Thats why I do and I
wont apologise for doing it.  Frankly, I don't regard it as good
ufology or good science to do anything else.

Now, if said light, did a right angled turn, or flew over
streetlamps and they suddenly went off, or anything that is
logically inconsistent with an an aircraft I would not determine
it was a probable aircraft and in my opinion it would not be
good science or ufology to do so.

Yes, there are cases where we may judge something an IFO when in
truth it probably is unexplained. But there are also cases that
are presumed to be unsolved that turn out, years later, to be an
IFO. I have encountered many and indeed the book Andy, Dave and
I have written ('The UFOs that never were') is full of them.

I am not sure why these figures are creating such a stir,
because to me they are what you find - nothing more, nothing
less. If others find different results then there could be many
reasons. These range from I am overly pessimistic and rate far
too many cases as IFOs to you are far too optimistic and term as
UFOs cases that really don't deserve it.

But what we are all agreed upon is that there are unsolved,
currently unexplainable cases. I say 5%, someone else might say
10%. I really don't think we can justify much more as there are
not more than 10% cases that are of any reasonable definition
and to term a LITS as a UFO is normally I believe unduly risky.

So, those cases (in my view no more than 20 cases per year in
the UK - but still enough to prove to my complete satisfaction
that there is a real UFO m ystery) need to be interpreted.

It is possible that every one of them is an alien spacecraft. Of
course it is. But is that what you are saying? I doubt it. Any
investigator who has been out there in the field year after year
and is actually investigating cases knows that in many instances
we are dealing with reports as follows.

Witness B sees a glow through trees. Going to investigate they
find a fiery orange mass with a centre that looks like the
embers of a fire. A faint whiff of ozone emerges and the object
rises, perhaps with a humming noise, and the witness reports
that their skin felt prickly as it climbed into clouds, causing
them to apparently part slightly as it did so.

In my experience that is a fairly good, but not atypical
unsolved case. Now, yes, of course it might be a spaceship. I
cant prove it wasnt and you cannot prove it was. We are in the
field of probabilities here. When you match hundreds of cases of
this type you find patterns, consistencies, that stand out. We
can make deductions from them. The UFO, for instance, is
ionizing the atmosphere (cloud parting, ozone smell, tingling
sensations, etc).The glow changes colour according to the state
of the atmosphere and chemical changes resulting. There are
genuine, physical properties that emerge and they imply a
physically real, but quite possibly natural, origin.

So where do we stand? We can, of course, decide that here the
ionization results from a propulsion system on a spacecraft. But
in case after case like this one thats an inference that whilst
not impossible is unsupported by real facts. On the other hand,
we know from atmospheric physics and from the history of para
science that reports like this have long occurred and they even
tend to recur in certain places and at certain times. They obey
rules. The consensus from this, in my view quite reasonably, is
that the more likely answer for such reports is that we are
dealing with some sort of unidentified atmospheric phenomenon -
a UAP. It will expand our knowledge to understand it, but the
presumption of alien intelligence behind such cases is neither
necessary here nor evidenced by the facts. This does not mean it
isnt so. It just means, as I look at things, that it is the
option best taken only after others (such as UAP) are proven
untenable. Thats how we work, by taking the simplest answer,
showing it doesnt fit, finding the next possibility, eliminating
that, and being dragged kicking and screaming (but willing  to
go there if necessary) to the most extreme view that an alien
craft was witnessed.

My argument is that in most cases a UAP works. So I currently
accept that this is what we are dealing with much of the time.
Sure, its a judgement call, but not one I made up for fun or one
that has anything to do with the loopy tales people invent to
try to justify to themselves why I say this. Its not because the
government pay me to say so. Its not because I am terrified of
accepting alien contact. I wish the government would pay me to
study UFOs (I could use the money as writing books that don't
proclaim the aliens have landed is no way to get rich quick, I
promise you). I would be as excited, delighted and vindicated as
anyone if the aliens were coming here because it would be such a
huge event and much of my life has been spent contemplating the
possibility. So nothing would be of more fascination to me. The
truth is that I make my judgement call on the balance of the
evidence and that call is that most unsolved cases are UAP.
Sorry if that offends you or it isnt what you want to hear. You
are totally free to believe otherwise (and I am in no way saying
I am right and you cannot be). You are equally free to try to
persuade me through evidence - and I'll listen (as I always
have). But I  cannot deny what my present experience tells me.

Now, as I also said, there remain cases (and I reckon 1% but it
could be up to 2%) (so maybe 4 or 5 per annum in the UK) that
defy any reasonable attempt to force fit an IFO or UAP solution.
So I don't do that. I regard them as unsolved and in those cases
regard the possibility that another intelligence is behind them
as both reasonable and a theory worth exploring. I cannot say
that there is certainty here - as asked.  Thats because even
good cases do crumble and because there may always be factors we
havent thought of yet or phenomena and science that we have not
caught up with. 1999 is not the summit of the learning curve and
to reject a case as not possibly being some unrecognised
phenomenon because we don't yet know of a phenomenon that behaves
this way is as wrong as the argument often used by ETHers. They
say, sceptics foolishly deny alien presence on the grounds that
we cannot do it yet. But one day we might. So UFOs could be more
advanced craft flown by people who can do it. Absolutely. No
dispute from me on that. But equally, the things we regard of as
craft could be non alien phenomena emerging from an
understanding of science we don't yet have. So we have to let
that caveat work both ways.

On balance, I don't think these last unsolved cases will be
natural phenomena as the hints of intelligence are quite strong.
But I cant prove it. I do think there is a reasonable chance
they might be contact with another intelligence. But I cannot
prove that either and hard evidence is undeniably in short
supply. Sufficiently so to take seriously workable alternative
possibilities, such as Persinger's, and recognise that we cannot
say with assurance as I am being asked to do here that aliens
have landed in spacecraft.

In my view, there may well be an 'alien' contact afoot in a few
cases. But most of ufology is not it. Even with the few puzzle
cases where it is a realistic option the usual ET interpretation
is but one evaluation. Alien contact may be happening on a mind
to mind, consciousness basis. So there could be alien imagery
without alien artefacts. Maybe in space you cross the light
years via virtual reality mentality. I see the argument here as
grounded in proper evidence. We have theories but no proof that
alien star travel in craft can happen. We have evidence (enough
in my view to accept) that mind to mind contact that by passes
the normal rules of time and space does exist. Hence, why assume
(as most of ufology does) that an advanced civilisation would
build a photon rocket (or whatever) and come here? Why assume
(as most of science does) that ET would phone home using a radio
set. Its a useless piece of technology with which to contact
another star system. You ring home and tell mum to put the tea
on and when she gets the message 50 years later you are all
dead. I don't find it at all improbable that other, better
methods may be discovered soon (in the galactic time scale) and
that aliens would laugh at our idea that they talk to each other
using radio waves as we might smile at the islanders of Hawaii
trying to get hold of San Francisco using two tin cans and a
(very) long piece of string. Of course, if they are 100 years
more advanced in understanding the how and why of consciousness
alien  contact that way could be happening all the time. If so
who on earth would know about it? Professor Big Bucks tuning his
1000 foot radio dish skyward? Nope. But sensitive, artistic,
apparently psychically atuned witnesses who might catch and
decode the attempts to say 'hello earth'. Oddly these just
happen to be the very people who are the ones having alien
contact experiences. That coincidence is enough to make me sit
up and take notice. But not many others in ufology it seems, to
whom this idea is garbage because it dispenses with their
apparent desire to have real spaceships coming here. And of
course they may be. Again no argument there. But equally, as I
have just shown, they may not. Which is what I said in my
posting yesterday.

Moreover, even if another intelligence is visiting us in craft
(a prospect I am less convinced by than that alien contact is
going on I might add) then we should not conclude that it comes
from zeta reticuli just because it says so. There are good
arguments you can make for various other origins. To cite three
- from inter-dimensional reality inter-penetrating briefly
through our own. Or as the true primary denizens of earth, not
usually perceived by most of us because (as a lower life form)
our senses are not generally equipped to detect them (but some,
quite sensitive souls sometimes can). We are like ants trying to
perceive humans. Or maybe visitors from our own future (the
argument several abductees have told me that visitors have
shared with them) - on the premise that if time travel ever
becomes possible in the future history of earth our descendants
could come here, study us and may deliberately play to the
gallery to disguise their activities. In fact some of the
evidence is better interpreted as a result of time travellers as
it is in terms of ET spacecraft.

Jerry Clark tells me this is changing my mind and that my views
are 'all over the map'. Perhaps. But I don't think it improper to
consider viable options. ET spacecraft is clearly  one - and a
not unreasonable one - for a few cases, but not the only one.

Hope this helps to clarify things. By the way - has that train
arrived yet?

Best wishes,