Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Fwd = UFO UpDate: Re: Scientists And The ET Hypothesis - Friedman

Expand Messages
  • Frits Westra
    Forwarded by: fwestra@hetnet.nl (Frits Westra) Originally from: UFO UpDates - Toronto Original Subject: UFO UpDate: Re:
    Message 1 of 3 , Feb 27, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      Forwarded by: fwestra@... (Frits Westra)
      Originally from: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@...>
      Original Subject: UFO UpDate: Re: Scientists And The ET Hypothesis - Friedman
      Original Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 07:57:49 -0500

      ========================== Forwarded message begins ======================

      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

      <snip>

      >Hello, Stan,

      >I have kept a lazy eye on this thread, but didn't particularly
      >want to take part in it. I did expect a previous correspondent
      >to make similar comments to the ones I have inserted below,
      >which is why I have delayed this post.

      >>John, you are surely blowing smoke if you actually believe there
      >>are no testable hypotheses. Actually I agree with Dick, you
      >>apparently haven't studied anything besides anecdotes... such as
      >>the stories in Weekly World News, Carl Sagan's favorite source
      >>of UFO data in 'Demon Haunted World'. No scientific studies are
      >>mentioned even though he was involved with two. Here are a few
      >>hypotheses, in no particular order:

      >>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 that
      >>the unknowns are just missed knowns is less than one percent
      >>based on a chisquare analysis of the two groups involving six
      >>different characteristics. See 'Blue Book Special Report No.14'
      >>somehow not noted in 13 anti-UFO books.

      >You have made a gross error here - you have assumed that because
      >the evidence in a particular case does not suggest a known
      >cause, the only possible solution is an alien spacecraft. What
      >about other possibilities, such as temporal disturbance, or
      >unknown terrestrial phenomena for example?

      Sorry, but I said nothing about this proving that some UFOs are
      alien spacecraft. That comes from combining the appearance of
      the UNKNOWNS (clearly manufactured objects) and their behavior
      (maneuverability, high acceleration high and no velocity etc).
      At that time we couldn't build things that look and act like
      that, therefore they were built someplace else. I was responding
      to John Rimmer's claim; "There is an inherent lack of content in
      the UFO data. It is impossible to come up with any testable
      hypothesis." I provided many testable hypotheses.

      >>2. If no unknowns represent alien spacecraft, than the better the
      >>quality of the sighting because of the duration of observation,
      >>the background of the observer, etc the less likely to be an
      >>unknown. Test Result? The better the quality of the sighting the
      >>MORE likely to be an unknown. Ibid.

      >As above.

      This is a testable hypothesis. UNKNOWNS are not merely poor or
      missed KNOWNS

      >>3. If unknowns are just poorly observed knowns, seen for only a
      >>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 and
      charts and with the original totally misleading press release.
      It is $25.00 US including Priority Mail from me at POB 958,
      Houlton, ME 04730-0958. or for my fellow Canadians 79 Pembroke
      Crescent, Fredericton, NB Canada E3B 2V1. for only $37CAD


      >>4. If unknowns are just poorly observed knowns, than the
      >>percentage of sightings listed as unknowns should decrease as
      >>the quality of the sightings increases. Test Result? The better
      >>the quality of the reports, the _less_ likely to be listed as
      >>'Insufficient Information'.

      >No dispute.

      >>5. The only reason sightings can't be identified is that there is
      >>insufficient data available to pin down an identification. Test
      >>result? In the largest study ever done, there was a separate
      >>category 'Insufficient Information'. Not enough data to justify
      >>any particular explanation. By definition these were not the
      >>unknowns

      >I am curious as to how it is possible to differentiate between
      >an "unknown" and an apparent object for which there is
      >insufficient information to identify it. Surely they must both
      >be "unknowns" ?

      Sorry, NO. But here are the definitions. They clearly show that
      the Insufficient Information cases are not the same as the
      UNKNOWNS

      UNKNOWN---"This designation in the identification code was
      assigned to those reports of sightings wherein the description
      of the object and its maneuvers could not be fitted to the
      pattern of any known object or phenomenon."

      INSUFFICIENT INFORMATION--"This identification category was
      assigned to a report when, upon final consideration, there was
      some essential item of information missing, or there was enough
      doubt about what data were available to disallow identification
      as a common object or some natural phenomenon. It is emphasized
      that this category of identification was not used as a
      convenient way to dispose of what might be called "poor
      unknowns", but as a category for reports that, perhaps could
      have been one of several known objects or natural phenomena. No
      reports identified as INSUFFICENINT INFORMATION contain
      authenticated facts or impressions that would prevent its being
      identified as a known object or phenomenon."

      I would add that no sighting report could be listed as an
      UNKNOWN unless all four BMI final report evaluators agreed. Any
      two could label it anything else.

      >>6. If there were really ET spacecraft flying around in the
      >>atmosphere, they should surely be observed by radar. Test
      >>result? There have indeed been many radar sightings including
      >>combined radar visual cases. See J.E. McDonald's >>congressional
      testimony.

      >But what is the evidence that the detected objects were
      >extraterrestrial spacecraft rather than an unknown terrestrial
      >phenomenon? All that can be factually determined is that we
      >don't know what generated the returns, surely?

      That is a long story... briefly the combination of appearance and
      behavior of the UNKNOWNS. If they were manuifactured here, they
      would be used in military applications. Fifty years later and
      they are not.

      >>7. If there were really ET spacecraft flying around in the
      >>atmosphere, governments should be very concerned about finding
      >>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 Carroll
      >>Bolender stated that "Reports which could effect National
      >>security are NOT part of the Blue Book system and would continue
      >>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 origin?
      >What about the possibility, for example, that the UFO's (and I
      >mean "UNIDENTIFIED flying objects") exposed weaknesses in the >nation's
      air defence? Would that fact not merit a high level of
      >interest from the DoD together with a high security rating?

      Especially if they were manufactured objects under intelligent
      control..Dick Hall's book discusses intelligent control.Again if
      the manufactured objects whose behavior we cannot yet duplicate
      were from earth, where are they in the world's air forces?

      >>8. If alien spacecraft were really flying around one, would
      >>expect them to land to make closer obswervations. Test? Ted
      >>Phillips has collected more than 5000 physical trace cases from
      >>70 countries. He considers 2000 to be excellent cases.

      >There is a difference between excellent cases and excellent
      >evidence of ET visitation.

      The question was about testable hypotheses. If it wasn't built
      on earth , it was built someplace else.

      Testimony is the best form of evidence in our courts. Of course,
      I would like to be able to exhibit a body and an ET craft. What
      would it be worth on today's market? What government would not
      protect such items? I can't produce a nuclear weapon for you
      either.

      >>9. Surely even aliens aren't perfect and if there are so many
      >>craft flying around, some ought to crash. Test? Read 'Crash at
      >>Corona: The Definitive Story of the Roswell Incident' by
      >>Berliner and Friedman .There were 2 crashes. Len
      >>Stringfield listed more than 60....

      >...and where is the irrefutable evidence? I say that there have
      >been at least 5 million crashed cheeses in the past hour, all of
      >them on my doorstep. Does this make it true?

      I talk about large scale scientific studies and the results of
      careful investigations by competent investigators of reports by
      competent observers. You may be a competent observer, but where
      is the investigation to support your ridiculous assertion since
      your doorstep isn't big enough to hold 5 million crashed
      cheeses?. I have written a great deal about the Roswell
      Incident. Have you read it? I talk about evidence not artifacts.

      >>10. Most sighting reports actually turn out to be secret
      >>government vehicles such as the U-2 and SR 71. Test? So where
      >>are the fancy 'secret vehicles' observed in the 1940s and 1950s?
      >>None seem to have showed up in the Korean War or Vietnam or the
      >>Gulf War. even though the whole point of development of advanced
      >>high performance craft would be for military applications. Bruce
      >>Maccabee showed that there was no increase in sightings when the
      >>U-2 and SR-71 started flying, despite claims to the contrary by
      >>the CIA historian.

      >I can't claim any expertise on 40's and 50's experimental
      >aircraft, but I can point out several example of more recent,
      >relatively bizarre looking aircraft that could at one time have
      >been reasonably misidentified. I would however challenge the
      >assertion that military traffic generates most
      >misidentifications-I would have thought most misidentifications >were of
      astronomical phenomena, satellites, or conventional
      >civil aircraft?

      It was the CIA and the USAF making the silly claim, not me.I am
      talking about a combination of appearance and behavior not just
      strange appearance.

      >>>>Rather, it is a
      >>>>>reflection of the sociology of science and ridicule of the
      >>>>>subject that has virtually made it a taboo subject.

      >>>>I think ufologists actually like believing that they are
      >>>>dangerous outsiders in a taboo subject which science rejects. If
      >>>>any great number of scientists decided there was worthwhile data
      >>>>in ufology and started doing UFO research in a big way, what
      >>>>would happen to all our hole-in- the-corner little magazines
      >>>>like Magonia and IUR? All our little groups and mailing lists?
      >>>>We'd be out there with the green cheese boyos, believe you me!

      >>I certainly don't believe I am a dangerous outsider in a taboo
      >>subject. If I did, would the title of my college and
      >>professional group lecture be 'Flying Saucers ARE Real'
      >>Where is the danger? I have had fewer than 12 hecklers in
      >>over 700 lectures. Two of them were drunk. There would be
      >>even more if spoke about religion or politics or figure I
      >>skating usually I travel by myself. No body guards. I never
      >>saw Bruce Maccabee with a bodyguard either. Just who would fund
      >>all these saucerian entrepreneurs? I suspect there are plenty of
      >>scientists working on the inside, just as there are at Area 51,
      >>even if they don't publish in the Physical Review.

      >I acknowledge that there may be covert studies of the phenomena
      >of UFO's being carried out by Government agencies, but again, I
      >point out that the 'U' in UFO stands for 'UNIDENTIFIED', and not
      >'Alien spacecraft'. I will venture even further and acknowledge
      >that there is a possibility that some UFOs could be alien
      >spacecraft, but qualify that with _we_do_not_know_that_they_
      >are_, because there is no real proof!

      Once again. I speak of evidence.I do NOT claim that I have "
      real proof" : bodies or wreckage. I also don't have an atomic
      bomb and can't buy one either.Look at the legal situation.
      Testimony, physical traces, acceptable photographs.,radar, etc
      This is a civil matter not a criminal one. My lecture is 'Flying
      Saucers ARE Real!' not UFOs are Real because I am interested in
      the wheat - flying saucers.. not the chaff: Identifiable flying
      objects.

      >Surely you must also acknowledge that there is a stigma
      >associated with UFO research by scientists? John Mack is
      >certainly of that opinion, judging by his comments at the Leeds
      >conference last year, and I am unaware of much resource being
      >applied to UFO research by universities compared to
      >resources applied to global warming, for instance?

      Why does the amount of resources being spent by universities
      have anything to do with the most classified subject in the USA?
      Stigmas are where one finds them. I was responding to Rimmer's
      comment. I have often discussed the laughter curtain. If one
      can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. If more ufologists
      would stand up to be counted (as John Mack and David Jacobs
      certainly have even if in academia), instead of hiding, we would
      all be better off

      >>>I think we would, mercifully, be put out of business and I
      >>>certainly would welcome a `takeover' by real scientists
      >>>well-funded for the work. But are you now psychoanalyzing
      >>>all Ufologists en masse?

      >>I wonder if all butterfly collectors are considered biologists?

      >I would certainly class butterfly collectors as people with a
      >biological interest, but do not assume that all biologists are
      >butterfly collectors - did I misunderstand this question?

      Something got left out. What I meant is that not all people
      interested in UFOs can be considered ufologists just as not all
      butterfly collectors are biologists.

      >To summarise, you seem to have decided that anything that is not
      >readily identifiable must be of alien origin - are you familiar
      >with European car manufacturers? If not, I own an old Citroen BX
      >which was sold to me by a visiting Venusian, would you be
      >interested in purchasing it as an alien artifact?

      This is frankly absurd. Where did I make such a silly claim? I
      have very often used the term "gray box". Interesting example;
      if the vehicle could fly straight up and down, make right angle
      turns at 2000 mph,fly straight at 7000mph without creating a
      sonic boom, etc etc one might say it was of ET origin.. Like the
      huge objects seen in the JAL case, the Yukon case, the CAI case
      (5 or 6 times the size of a 747 and moving 5400 miles per hour)

      >Joe McGonagle

      Looks like a lot of homework is needed joe. But please don't
      put words in my mouth.


      Stan Friedman




      \_______________________________________________/

      UFO UpDates - Toronto - ufoupdates@...
      A UFO & Related Phenomena E-Mail List operated by
      Errol Bruce-Knapp

      UFO UpDates Archives are available at
      The Virtually Strange Network:

      http://www.virtuallystrange.net/

      ========================== Forwarded message ends ========================
    • Frits Westra
      Forwarded by: fwestra@hetnet.nl (Frits Westra) Originally from: UFO UpDates - Toronto Original Subject: UFO UpDate: Re:
      Message 2 of 3 , Mar 3, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        Forwarded by: fwestra@... (Frits Westra)
        Originally from: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@...>
        Original Subject: UFO UpDate: Re: Scientists And The ET Hypothesis - Friedman
        Original Date: Sat, 02 Mar 2002 17:19:03 -0500

        ========================== Forwarded message begins ======================

        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

        ><snip>

        >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 that
        >>>>the unknowns are just missed knowns is less than one percent
        >>>>based on a chisquare analysis of the two groups involving six
        >>>>different characteristics. See 'Blue Book Special Report No.14'
        >>>>somehow not noted in 13 anti-UFO books.

        >>>You have made a gross error here - you have assumed that because
        >>>the evidence in a particular case does not suggest a known
        >>>cause, the only possible solution is an alien spacecraft. What
        >>>about other possibilities, such as temporal disturbance, or
        >>>unknown terrestrial phenomena for example?

        >>Sorry, but I said nothing about this proving that some UFOs are
        >>alien spacecraft. That comes from combining the appearance of
        >>the UNKNOWNS (clearly manufactured objects) and their behavior
        >>(maneuverability, high acceleration high and no velocity etc).
        >>At that time we couldn't build things that look and act like
        >>that, therefore they were built someplace else. I was responding
        >>to John Rimmer's claim; "There is an inherent lack of content in
        >>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 are
        >alien spacecraft, please can you explain why you included the
        >reference to them in your first statement?

        >>>>2. If no unknowns represent alien spacecraft, than the better the
        >>>>quality of the sighting because of the duration of observation,
        >>>>the background of the observer, etc the less likely to be an
        >>>>unknown. Test Result? The better the quality of the sighting the
        >>>>MORE likely to be an unknown. Ibid.

        >>>As above.

        >>This is a testable hypothesis. UNKNOWNS are not merely poor or
        >>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 ,or
        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.

        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 have
        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 were
        for 3201 cases)

        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.

        >>>>3. If unknowns are just poorly observed knowns, seen for only a
        >>>>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 and
        >>charts and with the original totally misleading press release.
        >>It is $25.00 US including Priority Mail from me at POB 958,
        >>Houlton, ME 04730-0958. or for my fellow Canadians 79 Pembroke
        >>Crescent, Fredericton, NB Canada E3B 2V1. for only $37CAD

        >Thanks, I may add it to my library at some point in the future,
        >if I ever catch up on the 20 or so books that I already have
        >waiting!

        <snip>

        >>>But what is the evidence that the detected objects were
        >>>extraterrestrial spacecraft rather than an unknown terrestrial
        >>>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
        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.

        >>That is a long story... briefly the combination of appearance and
        >>behavior of the UNKNOWNS. If they were manufactured here, they
        >>would be used in military applications. Fifty years later and
        >>they are not.

        >This is where I really disagree-the fact that there is apparently
        >something mechanical that current human science cannot replicate
        >(as far as we know!) doesn't automatically mean that they
        >originate from another planet in our universe-how can you exclude
        >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 than
        the Sun.

        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.

        >>>>7. If there were really ET spacecraft flying around in the
        >>>>atmosphere, governments should be very concerned about finding
        >>>>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 Carroll
        >>>>Bolender stated that "Reports which could effect National
        >>>>security are NOT part of the Blue Book system and would continue
        >>>>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 origin?

        Who is talking about "proving" some UNKNOWNS are ET spacecraft.?
        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.

        >>>What about the possibility, for example, that the UFO's (and I
        >>>mean "UNIDENTIFIED flying objects") exposed weaknesses in the
        >>. nation'sair defence? Would that fact not merit a high level of
        >>>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?

        <snip>

        >>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 - with
        >all of the references to alien spaceships, and no mention of any
        >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 medium
        >for discussions such as this, but it appears to me that there is
        >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 if
        >anyone else ever will!

        I have considered and often written about what you call "exotic
        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 unpredictable
        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:

        http://www.v-j-enterprises.com/sfpage.html


        Stan Friedman




        \_______________________________________________/

        UFO UpDates - Toronto - ufoupdates@...
        A UFO & Related Phenomena E-Mail List operated by
        Errol Bruce-Knapp

        UFO UpDates Archives are available at
        The Virtually Strange Network:

        http://www.virtuallystrange.net/

        ========================== Forwarded message ends ========================
      • Frits Westra
        Forwarded by: fwestra@hetnet.nl (Frits Westra) Originally from: UFO UpDates - Toronto Original Subject: UFO UpDate: Re:
        Message 3 of 3 , Mar 3, 2002
        • 0 Attachment
          Forwarded by: fwestra@... (Frits Westra)
          Originally from: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@...>
          Original Subject: UFO UpDate: Re: Scientists And The ET Hypothesis - Friedman
          Original Date: Sat, 02 Mar 2002 17:21:26 -0500

          ========================== Forwarded message begins ======================

          From: Stan Friedman <fsphys@...>
          To: <ufoupdates@...>
          Subject: Re: Scientists And The ET Hypothesis
          Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2002 17:30:54 -0400


          >From: Joe McGonagle <joem_cgonagle@...>
          >To: <ufoupdates@...>
          >Subject: Re: Scientists And The ET Hypothesis
          >Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2002 11:15:28 -0000

          >>Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2002 10:20:43 -0500
          >>From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@...>
          >>Subject: Scientists And The ET Hypothesis
          >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@...>

          ><snip>

          >>Actually, IMHO, the first thing to do it to prove that there are
          >>credible sightings of phenomena which cannot be explained in any
          >>conventional manner. This is where the skeptics attempt to
          >>establish their point of view: there is nothing strange
          >>happening because all credible sightings can be explained (no
          >>one except the fringe care about the uncredible sightings...
          >>and, of course, "credibility" can be the subject of a
          >>loooooonnngg discussion).

          >>So, let's first establish that there is at least one, well
          >>reported, credible sighting, presumably with a description that
          >>defies explanation in terms of a "natural" - read that as
          >>"unintelligent" - phenomenon.

          >>If we find one, then we can offer speculation as to what can
          >>explain the presence of said phenomenon.

          >It would certainly be a step in the right direction. Any such
          >case would need to be made up of valid data, ie Living, named
          >witnesses who are amenable to interview; Documents with credible
          >provenance; Original film negatives/camera film/video
          >recordings/ radar data etc.

          >I don't mean all of the above in a single case, but any data to
          >be used as evidence must be of the quality indicated above, and
          >the more seperate elements involved in the case, the better.

          >Unfortunately, no such case comes to mind-any suggestions,
          >anyone?

          Joe: May I respectfully suggest you read Dr. James E. McDonald's
          Congressional Testimony from the Hearings of July 29, 1968? It
          is 71 pages long and has information on 41 separate cases which
          he investigated. Best single paper of which I am aware about
          sightings.

          Jim was a Professor of Physics (Specialty Upper Atmosphere
          Physics) who personally spoke to more than 500 witnesses and
          gave presentations to many professional groups. He also wrote a
          number of papers which I believe are available from the FUND
          though the Cong. Testimony is not. Yes it is available from me
          at POB 958, Houlton, ME 04730-0958 $10. including First Class
          Postage. I do list a number of publications (Most not available
          from me) in TOP SECRET/MAJIC's 10 page Bibliography. Or try
          Bruce's book 'UFOs Are Real: and Here's the Proof'.


          Stan Friedman




          \_______________________________________________/

          UFO UpDates - Toronto - ufoupdates@...
          A UFO & Related Phenomena E-Mail List operated by
          Errol Bruce-Knapp

          UFO UpDates Archives are available at
          The Virtually Strange Network:

          http://www.virtuallystrange.net/

          ========================== Forwarded message ends ========================
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.