11914Fw: Scientists And The ET Hypothesis - McGonagle
- Mar 3, 2002
----- Original Message -----
From: "Joe McGonagle" <joem_cgonagle@...>
Sent: Sunday, March 03, 2002 8:48 PM
Subject: Re: Scientists And The ET Hypothesis - McGonagle
----- Original Message -----
> From: Stan Friedman <fsphys@...>
> To: <ufoupdates@...>
> Subject: Re: Scientists And The ET Hypothesis
> Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2002 15:44:11 -0400
> >From: Joe McGonagle <joem_cgonagle@...>
> >To: <ufoupdates@...>
> >Subject: Re: Scientists And The ET Hypothesis
> >Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 10:13:57 -0000
> >>From: Stan Friedman <fsphys@...>
> >>To: <ufoupdates@...>
> >>Subject: Re: Scientists And The ET Hypothesis
> >>Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 15:15:48 -0400
> >>>From: Joe McGonagle <joem_cgonagle@...>
> >>>To: <ufoupdates@...>
> >>>Subject: Re: Scientists And The ET Hypothesis
> >>>Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 20:31:19 -0000
> >>>>From: Stan Friedman <fsphys@...>
> >>>>To: <ufoupdates@...>
> >>>>Subject: Re: Scientists And The ET Hypothesis
> >>>>Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2002 20:02:53 -0400
Hello again Stan/List,
> >>>>1. If no true UFOs (The unknown UFOs still remaining after
> >>>>investigation by competent investigators) represent alien
> >>>>spacecraft, then there should be no difference in the
> >>>>characteristics of these unknowns as compared to the
> >>>>characteristics of the knowns. Test result? The probability
> >>>>the unknowns are just missed knowns is less than one
> >>>>based on a chisquare analysis of the two groups involving
> >>>>different characteristics. See 'Blue Book Special Report
> >>>>somehow not noted in 13 anti-UFO books.
> >>>You have made a gross error here - you have assumed that
> >>>the evidence in a particular case does not suggest a known
> >>>cause, the only possible solution is an alien spacecraft.
> >>>about other possibilities, such as temporal disturbance, or
> >>>unknown terrestrial phenomena for example?
> >>Sorry, but I said nothing about this proving that some UFOs
> >>alien spacecraft. That comes from combining the appearance of
> >>the UNKNOWNS (clearly manufactured objects) and their
> >>(maneuverability, high acceleration high and no velocity
> >>At that time we couldn't build things that look and act like
> >>that, therefore they were built someplace else. I was
> >>to John Rimmer's claim; "There is an inherent lack of content
> >>the UFO data. It is impossible to come up with any testable
> >>hypothesis." I provided many testable hypotheses.
> >I think I must have a comprehension problem here-if you aren't
> >suggesting that the above hypothesis proves that some UFO's
> >alien spacecraft, please can you explain why you included the
> >reference to them in your first statement?
I don't think you have addressed the point raised above, Stan.
What tests can be applied to the stated hypothesis #1 to
establish that UFO's (at least some of them) are of ET origin?
And which of these tests have produced results to confirm the
> >>>>2. If no unknowns represent alien spacecraft, than the
> >>>>quality of the sighting because of the duration of
> >>>>the background of the observer, etc the less likely to be
> >>>>unknown. Test Result? The better the quality of the
> >>>>MORE likely to be an unknown. Ibid.
> >>>As above.
> >>This is a testable hypothesis. UNKNOWNS are not merely poor
> >>missed KNOWNS
> >..or conclusively alien spacecraft?
> The comment from Rimmer was that there were no testable
> hypotheses. I showed that there were. What does conclusively
> mean here? There is a big difference (ask OJ Simpson) between
> civil and criminal matters. I say the evidence is overwhelming
> that _some_ UNKNOWNS by virtue of their appearance and behavior
> are intelligently controlled ET spacecraft. I am _not_ saying I
> know why there are here, how they got here, how they operate
> why they don't do a host of things some might expect that they
> would, could, or should. I would certainly say that the other
> categories probably don't contain any reports of ET spacecraft.
I still don't accept that appearance and behaviour are sufficient
evidence of ET origin. What about say, terrestrial under-sea
civilsations being responsible for the sightings?
> You may believe that the question is "What are UFOs?". To me
> that is frankly a silly question because any little time spent
> on the subject demonstrates that there are many things that
> been reported as UFOs that turn out, after investigation, to be
> Aircraft (20.10%), Balloons (14.0%), Astronomical Phenomena
> (25.5%), Psychological Manifestations (1.5%), Miscelaneous
> (8.0%). The insufficent Information cases were 9.3%. and the
> UNKNOWNS 21.5%.(The categorization percentages from BBSR 14
> for 3201 cases)
I could waste time arguing the percentages here, but they aren't
the issue. I readily concede that a percentage are
unexplained/unidentified/unknown, but there is not enough
evidence to categorically state that they are of ET origin. Once
UFO is identified, it becomes an IFO, so the question "what are
UFO's" is valid, unless you are arguing that they are IFO's
waiting to be identified as mundane phenomena, which is patently
not the case.
> I have no idea why you, and Rimmer, seem to feel that from your
> armchairs, almost 50 years removed ,you can throw out the work
> of the BMI professionals spending full time.
> So what if they warp space andor time to get here? They are
> still intelligently controlled craft from somewhere else.
Unfortunately, my armchair is too large to take with me when I
visit Cumbria or Wiltshire, the PRO won't allow me to take it in
with me, and nor will the Jodrell Bank Archive. I usually take a
garden chair on skywatches.
I am not suggesting that all of the work so far should be
discarded-among it there is probably valid data, but much of it
is diluted with invalid data, or poorly documented. Consequently,
much of it would benefit from being revisited and "weeded out".
> >>>>3. If unknowns are just poorly observed knowns, seen for
> >>>>brief time, than the duration of observation for the knowns
> >>>>should be greater than for the unknowns. Test Result? The
> >>>>average unknown was observed for a longer time than the
> >>>>average known.
> >>>No dispute, though I haven't checked your assertion.
> >>Just for instances like this I have made available copies of
> >>the 256 page Blue Book Special Report 14 with all the tables
> >>charts and with the original totally misleading press
> >>It is $25.00 US including Priority Mail from me at POB 958,
> >>Houlton, ME 04730-0958. or for my fellow Canadians 79
> >>Crescent, Fredericton, NB Canada E3B 2V1. for only $37CAD
> >Thanks, I may add it to my library at some point in the
> >if I ever catch up on the 20 or so books that I already have
> >>>But what is the evidence that the detected objects were
> >>>extraterrestrial spacecraft rather than an unknown
> >>>phenomenon? All that can be factually determined is that we
> >>>don't know what generated the returns, surely?
> Not surely at all. Right angle turns at very high speed, sudden
> stops and rapid acceleration to very high speed, to ability to
> move around our own vehicles in a clearly controlled fashion.
> all back in the 1940s and 1950s rule out aircraft, balloons,
> etc. The appearance to the witnesses indicate they were
> manufactured not just lights in the sky. the behavior to the
> radar and the witnesses says made someplace else.
So if it is not the case that all that can be factually
determined is that we don't know what generated the radar
returns, it suggests that you do know what generated the returns.
What did generate the returns, and how do you know this?
> >>That is a long story... briefly the combination of appearance
> >>behavior of the UNKNOWNS. If they were manufactured here,
> >>would be used in military applications. Fifty years later and
> >>they are not.
> >This is where I really disagree-the fact that there is
> >something mechanical that current human science cannot
> >(as far as we know!) doesn't automatically mean that they
> >originate from another planet in our universe-how can you
> >objects from the future of our own planet, for instance?
> I don't talk of the universe. I talk of our local neighborhood.
> Within 54 light years there are 1000 stars of which 46 are
> similar to the Sun and might be xpected to have planets and
> life. At least two of these stars are a billion years older
> the Sun.
You have my greatest respect for making such a bold statement and
placing yourself on a limb, but you suggest that the source of
some UFO's not only are from other planets in the universe, but
even from (in astronomical terms) our immediate neighbourhood. If
you are expressing that as a personal belief, that is fine. If
you are stating that as fact, then I challenge you to demonstrate
> I am not at all excluding objects from our future though I am
> surprised that you find that easier to accept than simple ET
> spacecraft from the local neighborhood. Objects from our future
> are not from here now. It seeems to me that therefore they are
> manufactured intelligently controlled ET vehicles.
Okay, I am willing to expand the meaning of extraterrestrial to
include "terrestrial but from the future" for the purpose of this
discussion. But how can you exclude EM induced misperception, or
(I don't remember the techical term) the brain substituting a
relatively recognisable object in place of an object that is too
fantastic to represent in the conscious part of the brain?
> >>>>7. If there were really ET spacecraft flying around in the
> >>>>atmosphere, governments should be very concerned about
> >>>>out more about the objects being seen. Test result? Wilbert
> >>>>Smith learned that Flying Saucers are the most classified
> >>>>subject in the US, even more than the H-Bomb. General
> >>>>Bolender stated that "Reports which could effect National
> >>>>security are NOT part of the Blue Book system and would
> >>>>to be be made under JANAP 146 and AF Regulation 55-
> >>>>11. even if Blue Book were cancelled.
> >>>Does this prove that that UFOs are of extraterrestrial
> Who is talking about "proving" some UNKNOWNS are ET
> We are talking evidence of appearance and behavior indicating
> they are not from Earth. Of course there is a concern from a
> defense viewpoint.. what do they want, what can we do about
> their superior flight capability? The point is that we have
> been exposed to very little of the highly classified data about
> UFO sightings that could effect national security.
My comments regarding appearance and behaviour apply again here.
> >>>What about the possibility, for example, that the UFO's (and
> >>>mean "UNIDENTIFIED flying objects") exposed weaknesses in
> >>. nation'sair defence? Would that fact not merit a high level
> >>>interest from the DoD together with a high security rating?
> Sure. The question is do their behavior and appearance indicate
> they are not from Earth? The answer is yes. In the Iranian jet
> case, which was very highly distributed in the defense
> community, the fact that various military systems were turned
> off apparently by the UNKNOWN that was being chased would have
> been of great concern. If the aliens can do it, how about other
> civilizations here?
My comments regarding appearance and behaviour apply again here.
> >>Looks like a lot of homework is needed joe. But please don't
> >>put words in my mouth.
> >Sorry, Stan, I am really having a bad comprehension week -
> >all of the references to alien spaceships, and no mention of
> >alternative exotic explanations, I cannot still come to any
> >other conclusion. I haven't deliberately put words in your
> >mouth, and I appreciate that often email is not the best
> >for discussions such as this, but it appears to me that there
> >a consistent inability to consider other exotic solutions in
> >your writings in this thread.
> >As for homework, the day that I stop learning will be the day
> >that my life ends..... I will never know enough, and I doubt
> >anyone else ever will!
> I have considered and often written about what you call
> solutions". I maintain that a 5 dimensional time warping craft
> from Sirius is an ET spacecraft. It doesn't have to work by the
> systems I have worked on such as nuclear fission or better yet
> nuclear fusion. I have often pointed out that technological
> progress comes from doing things differently in an
> fashion. The future is not an extrapolation of the past. I
> expect that our alien visitors are using technology about which
> we know nothing. Check my website for some papers:
I'll make a point of reading your papers, Stan, but I am pretty
busy at the moment. I hope you accept that I don't mean to be
offensive, but that I am trying to understand how you (and other
ETH believers) reach their conclusions, and if their propogation
of the ETH solution is really justified. As yet, while I accept
the ETH as a valid hypothesis, I have not come across any
evidence to prove the hypothesis, and fail to understand why it
has so much acceptance amongst experienced researchers.
I can, however, understand why experiencers hold such beliefs, be
they right or wrong, and accept that they are in the main
struggling to come to terms with what for them is a real,
> Stan Friedman
- Next post in topic >>