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 Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 16:04:02 EDT
Fwd Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 17:19:46 -0400
Subject: Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?


 >From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
 >To: <updates@globalserve.net>
 >Subject: Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?
 >Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 17:08:50 +0100

 >>From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
 >>Date: Sun, 25 Jul 1999 21:53:12 EDT
 >>Subject: Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?
 >>To: updates@globalserve.net

 >>>From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
 >>>To: <updates@globalserve.net>
 >>>Subject: Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?
 >>>Date: Sun, 25 Jul 1999 11:56:28 +0100

 >>>>Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 22:14:34 +0000
 >>>>From: dave bowden <dave.bowden@cableinet.co.uk>
 >>>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
 >>>>Subject: Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?

 >>>>>From: Stan Friedman <fsphys@brunnet.net>
 >>>>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
 >>>>>Subject: Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?
 >>>>>Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 23:18:02 -0300

 >>>Good points. But I did answer this specific question - twice -
 >>>in detail. Check back through updates last week. The statistics
 >>>argument grew from that.

 >>>But I would also like to see others add their responses to this
 >>>question. Heres a stat for you. I bet there will be a far higher
 >>>number of US replies saying 'yes' and a far lower percentage of
 >>>UK/European responses that say no spacecraft has provably (or
 >>>probably) landed in their estimation.

 >>Dear Ms Randles et Al....

 >>Very curious as to your reason for this "stat?" Personally I am
 >>neither a proponent nor opponent of that view. I would frankly
 >>doubt it, as both France and Russia, to name two countries,
 >>appear to me to have a strong Ufological following and both
 >>appear NOT to have the degree of skepticism seen in England and
 >>the United States. But that's just a guess by someone who drinks
 >>a great deal of vin ordinaire...

 >>And is yous a "stat" or a "bet?"

 >>That's my excuse, what is your reasoning?

 >Hi,

 >I am afraid I do not follow what it is that you want me to
 >explain that I have not done already during this discussion. I
 >have explained in considerable detail last week the basis of my
 >argument about the figures I find for IFOs, UAP and possible
 >alien UFOs. If I go through it all again we risk boring the
 >list, but if there was any specific point you did not grasp from
 >that series of answers, please elaborate and I will try to
 >elucidate.

My question is over your use of the two words, "stat" and "bet."
They were used in the same paragraph ...

 >>>But I would also like to see others add their responses to this
 >>>question. Heres a stat for you. I bet there will be a far higher
 >>>number of US replies saying 'yes' and a far lower percentage of
 >>>UK/European responses that say no spacecraft has provably (or
 >>>probably) landed in their estimation.

My question was, is this a stat(istic) or are you guessing, as
in betting?  I do not claim to know the answer.  I am merely
asking the question.

You wrote that you were presenting a stat(istic) and then bet
that the stat would be in favor of lower percentage in Europe,
of ET landing.

Are there any stats which favor one or the other opinion?  And
what would be your guess as to the reason, if true?

Jim