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 , 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.