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: Tim D. Brigham <TBrigham@ksinc.net>
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 23:38:11 -0500
Fwd Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 09:36:24 -0400
Subject: Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?


 >From: Pat McCartney <ElPatricio@aol.com>
 >Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 13:01:17 EDT
 >Subject: Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?
 >To: updates@globalserve.net


 >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.

Might I add, without being caught up on this thread or knowing
Mr. Roberts' position I must admit, that nowhere in that quote
did he claim UFOs did not exist or that witness testimony is
worthless? he seems to me to merely be implying that evidence of
_what they are_ is lacking, not that everyone who sees one is
utterly full of .... beans, or an idiot.

Big difference. "Do you believe in UFOs?" is a question a lot of
folks ask. The answer, for me, is yes. Unfortunately, many
people seem to define UFO, in their own mind, as an ET
spaceship, without defining to the person they asked, what the
hell they meant. My opinion is that the true nature of what
_some_ (hey, I underlined the some!) UFOs are (and even some
abductions, when I'm not being as cynical as I often am) is
still undetermined.