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: Pat McCartney <ElPatricio@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 13:01:17 EDT
Fwd Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 15:35:49 -0400
Subject: Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?


 >>Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 12:48:29 -0400
 >>From: Andy Roberts <Brigantia@compuserve.com
 >>Subject: Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net

 >From: Stan Friedman <fsphys@brunnet.net
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net
 >Subject: Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?
 >Date: Sat, 24 Jul 1999 11:57:04 -0300

 >We do the best we can. Every criminal court
 >judge in non jury trials listens to prosecution and defense
 >lawyers and witnesses and decides. Rarely is physical proof
 >available.

 >>Stanton's wiggly reasons to justify his belief (because that's
 >>all it is) in extraterrestrials visiting Earth reach new levels.
 >>Yes Stanton, criminal courts don't always have physical proof.
 >>Well spotted. But there is one teensy flaw in your argument
 >>here. Criminal courts are dealing with flesh and blood human
 >>beings (dead or alive), whose physical existance is without
 >>doubt. ET believers have no such physical proof. None,
 >>whatsoever. Hence you analogy is useless. It doesn't matter what
 >>you believe, what the statistics of belief show. All that
 >>matters in the ET debate is hard, physical proof. And there
 >>ain't any.


Andy's comments appear to miss the mark completely.
What Stan is clearly referring to is the testimony of witnesses
in a court trial. And witnesses in a court trial are directly
comparable to witnesses of a UFO sighting. In that sense,
the tools used to evaluate a trial witness' credibility can also
be used to evaluate whether a UFO witness is a trained
observer, has good character and is in possession
of his or her faculties.

In a courtroom _as in life_ the corroboration of multiple
witnesses is important and can lead, even in the absence
of Andy's vaunted physical evidence, to a verdict in either
criminal or civil cases. These are "flesh-and-blood" human
beings whose testimony we dismiss at the peril of our
intellectual integrity.

Yet one can add to the testimonials transient physical
evidence such as that associated with purported landings,
or the radar reflections that have accompanied a number
of UFO cases.

The only physical evidence that Andy seems willing
to accept _a crashed craft or preserved alien body_ might
have been available to us if the military had never taken
an interest in the subject.

I would remind Andy of the late U.S. Sen. Barry Goldwater's
efforts to gain access to the Wright Patterson AFB site where
alien debris was allegedly kept. Goldwater was a friend of the
base commander, Gen. Curtis LeMay, and moreover was
himself an officer with the Air Force Reserves and, most
importantly, chair of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.
As Goldwater reported to friends, he was told in no uncertain
terms that not only would he not be given access, but not to
ask again.

What, I ask, was so important that the chair of the Senate
intelligence committee would be deemed unworthy of gaining
entrance? Could it have been Andy's vaunted physical evidence?

Human testimony is also important in my field of work,
journalism. The rule we learn as apprentices is that no unnamed
source can be used unless a second, independent source
corroborates the first witness. By that measure, there are
hundreds, if not thousands of credible UFO sightings reported
by multiple, trustworthy witnesses.

While no one can say whether the crafts are truly
extraterrestrial rather than, say, interdimensional or time
travelers, to cloak one's reasonable doubt by insisting only
physical evidence counts is to reject the sum of human
experience.

Just another credulous resident of the States.

Pat McCartney