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

Rebuttal to UFO Sceptics

Expand Messages
  • Roger Anderton
    Rebuttal to UFO Sceptics There are main two sides in the UFO controversy, those pro- ET explanation and those anti-; it is time that there was a Rebuttal to
    Message 1 of 1 , Apr 3, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      Rebuttal to UFO Sceptics

      There are main two sides in the UFO controversy, those pro- ET explanation and those anti-; it is time that there was a Rebuttal to the sceptics.

      An interesting article tries to deal with precisely that; in March 2004 issue of UFO Magazine-- Detective Constable Gary Heseltine (and UFO investigator) states one needs to have a list of the best UFO cases to be able to cite them as being examples for the ET hypothesis to counter sceptics. Cutting to the best parts of the article, Gary Heseltine says:

      "Rarely do the media display the best evidence for the ET hypothesis. I have followed this subject for over 28 years and it is simply not true to say that there is little evidence to support the ET hypothesis that will hold up close scrutiny."

      "What is true is that in the public domain that evidence does not present itself in the form of a 'nuts and bolts' alien vehicle. Instead it manifests itself in the form of compelling circumstantial evidence (bear in mind that many people are convicted of murder without the weapon being found or any independent witnesses to the attack and people are regularly convicted on this basis)."

      "I have been a police officer for over fourteen years and a detective for the last decade. That experience has given me a grounding in determining what 'evidence' really is. Linking that experience to the excellent testimonies of pilots, astronauts, cosmonauts, senior military figures, scientists, etc. has formed the basis of my belief system that some UFOs are indeed extraterrestrial in origin."

      "As a relative newcomer to active UFO research I can look at the subject from perhaps a slightly wider context than most who are within it."

      "I have watched and listened to so many UFO debates on TV and radio where sceptics reel off the same inaccuracies time after time. So much time is wasted because the subject has not addressed some key issues."

      "A sceptic will rarely speak in detail. They constantly make weeping generalisations. Sadly we (the ufologists) generally let them get away with it because we have not evolved our own basic standards - i.e. a series of 'stated cases' that would act as rebuttals."

      "From a police perspective all offences have what are called 'stated cases' that are held as defining reference points. In that same vein I have long thought that there have been enough genuine UFO cases over the last fifty years to allow us to adopt some 'stated cases' of our own, cases that have stood the test of time in terms of both investigation and analysis."

      Gary Heseltine then gives five UFO cases that he thinks have stood the test of time.

      One of the cases is Rendlesham Forest 1980 event; cutting to the interesting bit:

      "Halt [the UFO witness] has stated that the UFOs witnessed were not the lights of the Orfordness Lighthouse yet for over twenty years people who were present on the nights in question [i.e. the debunkers] have gone to great lengths to say that the numerous military witnesses were somehow duped by the 'strange' beams emitted from it."

      So, people who claim to be "sceptics" have been allowed to get away with talking nonsense for too long--- "they" say there is no evidence when there is, and "they" are allowed to give forth nonsense theories that do not fit the facts.


      UFO Magazine March 2004: The 'Stated Case' Principle by Gary Heseltine

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.