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

Fw: Scientists And The ET Hypothesis - McGonagle

Expand Messages
  • Joe McGonagle
    ... From: Joe McGonagle To: Sent: Sunday, March 03, 2002 8:48 PM Subject: Re: Scientists And The
    Message 1 of 3 , Mar 3, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: "Joe McGonagle" <joem_cgonagle@...>
      To: <ufoupdates@...>
      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
      >
      > ><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?
      >

      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
      ETH?

      > >>>>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.
      >

      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
      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 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
      a
      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
      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.
      >

      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
      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.
      >

      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
      the fact.

      > 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
      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.
      >

      My comments regarding appearance and behaviour apply again here.

      > >>>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?
      >

      My comments regarding appearance and behaviour apply again 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
      >
      >
      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,
      tangible experience.

      > Stan Friedman

      Regards, Joe
    • Joe McGonagle
      ... From: Joe McGonagle To: Sent: Sunday, March 03, 2002 8:42 PM Subject: Re: Scientists And The
      Message 2 of 3 , Mar 3, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        ----- Original Message -----
        From: "Joe McGonagle" <joem_cgonagle@...>
        To: <ufoupdates@...>
        Sent: Sunday, March 03, 2002 8:42 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 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>

        > >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

        Thanks, Stan, I have just ordered some of your articles from your
        site.

        Regards, Joe
      • Joe McGonagle
        ... From: Joe McGonagle To: Sent: Sunday, March 03, 2002 7:53 PM Subject: Re: Scientists And The
        Message 3 of 3 , Mar 3, 2002
        • 0 Attachment
          ----- Original Message -----
          From: "Joe McGonagle" <joem_cgonagle@...>
          To: <ufoupdates@...>
          Sent: Sunday, March 03, 2002 7:53 PM
          Subject: Re: Scientists And The ET Hypothesis - McGonagle



          ----- Original Message -----
          > From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@...>
          > Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2002 13:08:55 EST
          > Subject: Re: Scientists And The ET Hypothesis
          > To: ufoupdates@...
          >
          >
          > >Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2002 10:20:43 -0500
          > >From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@...>
          > >Subject: Scientists And The ET Hypothesis
          > >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@...>
          >
          >
          > >>From: Joe McGonagle <joem_cgonagle@...>
          > >>To: <ufonet@yahoogroups.com>
          > >>Subject: Re: Scientists And The ET Hypothesis
          > >>Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2002 00:12:00 -0000
          >
          Oops, I missed my manners on some previous postings in my hurry
          to respond-

          Hello, Jim et al,

          [snip]

          > I speak for me. My opinion may be too fine a point, but it is a
          > point worth one's attention. The word "UFO" Stan's... stands,
          > sorry, for "Unidientified" flying object. And it is my opinion
          > that very few, too few in fact, researchers claim that these
          are
          > craft from another planet. Rather, that the only really
          > reasonable fit appears to be the 'other' planet... time...
          > space... dimension theory. It's the only one which fits into
          > that weirdly shaped and very complex hole in the box.
          >

          Again, I have to disagree-the concept that an ET craft is the
          only solution to fit the known facts is the easiest to
          understand, but that doesn't make it true. How about
          shape-shifting demons, terrestrial under-sea civilisations, EM
          induced misperceptions, for examples? They can also be made to
          fit the known facts.

          > >>It is my contention that the scientific approach should not
          be
          > >>to prove that UFOs are spaceships from another planet, but to
          > >>attempt to identify what UFOs are.
          >
          > Seems to me that is what is going on. But then, there is the
          > phenomena which relates UFOs to the abdcution experience. Now
          > if both assumptions are true, where does one go from there?
          >

          My point is that it is not what is going on in most cases,
          especially in "popular ufology". Most of the emphasis is on the
          ETH, with little regard for other hypotheses which are equally
          valid, both exotic and (relatively) mundane.

          [snip]

          > >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.
          >
          > Bruce, there are too many to mention. The problem is that no
          > one outside of the small community of nutcases (like our little
          > group here) believe what we have to say. And likely never will.
          > Unless we provide or 'they' provide a bolt holding the framous
          > to the trihydropaducal generator. And maybe not even that.
          >

          Again, it comes down to lack of quality data. I don't think that
          the lack of quality data is because there is none, but that it
          hasn't been adequately documented, and has been diluted with a
          lot of very poor-quality data to such a point that the filters
          are clogged.

          Regards, Joe
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.