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

Re: UFOnet: Obsessive Search for Answers

Expand Messages
  • Roger Anderton
    Unfortunately investigation into the Phoenix lights is another dead end, for the following reasons: re- tv program Aliens and UFOs directed by John Borst: Ed
    Message 1 of 3 , Jul 3, 2000
    • 0 Attachment
      Unfortunately investigation into the Phoenix lights is another dead end, for
      the following reasons:


      re- tv program Aliens and UFOs directed by John Borst: Ed Ashley a former
      Aerospace employee, said that he contacted his friends in the aerospace
      industry after the Phoenix light episode, and they told him that it was
      'they' who were testing a new type of air craft.

      Ed goes on to explain that it is USAF policy not to say whether what was
      seen in the skies was a test air craft of theirs or not.

      It is part of Pentagon policy to neither confirm or deny whether a UFO is a
      test plane or not, because the mystique of 'it might being an alien ship'
      covers up their Black Ops.

      Some people think that test planes are based on alien technology. Who knows?

      The USAF at a high enough level, know what exactly is in the skies, whether
      it is a test craft or not, they also know whether they are using alien
      technology or not. 'We' do not know, and so are left with idle speculations,
      like speculating it is crafts based on alien technology or not. But all we
      are left with in the end: is what we are told by 'those in the know' , and
      if 'they' want to keep us in the dark then the dark is where we remain. (If
      later they reach a stage where they decide to enlighten us, then we have
      the choice of believing them or not. ) For now we stay in the dark, and
      there is no way forward in this investigation. Ed Ashley may or may not be
      telling us the truth, he may or may not be a reliable witness. But we are
      left with the possibility that the scenario he proposes could be true, and
      there is no way to prove or disprove it from our present methodology.

      The whole approach to UFOlogy is wrong. There is no headway that can be made
      with the approach that we have been pursuing for the past fifty years.
      Possible scenarios can be proposed (similar to Ed Ashley's proposal) that
      will always lead to dead ends. There is a different approach.

      ----- Original Message -----
      From: Bobbie Felder <jilain@...>
      To: <blackvault@...>
      Sent: Saturday, July 01, 2000 5:43 PM
      Subject: UFOnet: Obsessive Search for Answers


      > 'PHOENIX LIGHTS': OBSESSIVE SEARCH FOR ANSWERS
      >
      > In Close Encounters of the Third Kind, an Indiana suburbanite played by
      > Richard Dreyfuss sees some kind of spacecraft and becomes so obsessed that
      he
      > quits his job to investigate.
      >
      > It turns out that doesn't happen only in the movies.
      >
      > A Paradise Valley physician who witnessed the ''Phoenix Lights'' from her
      > mountainside home on the night of March 13, 1997, has put her career on
      hold,
      > devoted the past three years to research into the sighting and just
      finished a
      > 330-page book that contends conventional explanations don't wash.
      >
      > Her work included interviews with witnesses of the unusual lights, UFO
      > experts, optical experts, military experts, former astronauts and
      professors
      > in astrophysics and computer science. She's also studied reports of UFO
      > sightings from around the world similar to the one here.
      >
      > She agreed to an interview if only her professional name, Dr. Lynne, were
      > used. She was known that way appearing as a health consultant for two
      Phoenix
      > TV stations. Her husband of 28 years is also a physician.
      >
      > She started out as a skeptic, looking for logical answers and using her
      > medical training to analyze information methodically. Although she doesn't
      > know what lit the Arizona sky that night, she's ruled out ordinary
      answers.
      >
      > Lynne is stepping forward now - two TV interviews will also air soon -
      > largely because she believes the hundreds of witnesses of the Phoenix
      Lights
      > have been marginalized.
      >
      > ''They've been ignored or dismissed as unreliable,'' she said. ''They
      > deserve to know that what they saw was real and unexplained. I don't know
      what
      > it was, but I know that it was, and I have evidence to prove it.''
      >
      > The lights that evening were spotted along a 300-mile corridor from the
      > Nevada line through Prescott Valley and Phoenix to the northern edge of
      > Tucson. Many witnesses saw a huge ''V'' formation flying silently over the
      > state. Later in the night, a series of bright lights appeared on the
      city's
      > southern horizon.
      >
      > Those two events ''constitute one of the most dramatic UFO sightings in
      the
      > past 50 years,'' said Peter Davenport, director of the National UFO
      Reporting
      > Center in Seattle.
      >
      > Others, however, had less out-of-this-world explanations. The ''V''
      > formation may have been a squadron of military planes, and the balls of
      light
      > could have been high-intensity flares dropped in a training exercise.
      >
      > Lynne says those contentions are not supported by eyewitness accounts,
      > photographic evidence or optical tests.
      >
      > ''I've tried to examine the evidence scientifically and remain open to any
      > rational answers, but the evidence doesn't compute,'' she said.
      >
      > Her belief that the lights were not routine is reinforced by three other
      > sightings of bright, amber orbs from her home. The images on her photos
      and
      > videotape don't look the same as pictures of flares or aircraft lights.
      >
      > Lynne hardly fits the stereotype of a UFO fanatic. She's highly educated,
      > articulate and successful. She has no apparent motive for her
      investigation
      > other than to satisfy her intellectual curiosity. She says she's not
      > interested in trying to convince anyone of anything.
      >
      > Although I don't find her evidence as conclusive as she does, I'm
      impressed
      > by her work. Even though I'm still inclined to think the lights came from
      this
      > world, she gives good reason to doubt past explanations.
      >
      > I don't believe ET and his pals were in the sky that night. But I'd feel
      > better if we had a firmer fix on what was.
      >
      > Memo: Reach Wilson at Steve.Wilson@... or (602) 444-8775.
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > Copyright The Arizona Republic (2000)
      >
      > STEVE WILSON, The Arizona Republic, 'PHOENIX LIGHTS': OBSESSIVE SEARCH FOR
      > ANSWERS. , The Arizona Republic, 02-12-2000, pp A2.
      >
      > **coming to you live from deep in the backwoods of Mississippi**
      >
      > http://www.jilain.com
      > http://www.dragoncrest.net
      > ICQ #7524076
      >
      >
      > ~~~Tell me not, in mournful numbers,
      > Life is but an empty dream!
      > For the soul is dead that slumbers,
      > And things are not what they seem.~~~
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
      > Lonely? Get Firetalk!
      > Free, unlimited calls anywhere in the world.
      > Free voice chat on hundreds of topics.
      > http://click.egroups.com/1/5477/11/_/528298/_/962469788/
      > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
      >
      > UFOnet is an open, international, free news and discussion list devoted
      to:
      > UFOs, Strange Phenomena, Astronomy, Skywatching, SETI, the Latest on
      > Aerospace Research and Space Flight, Free & New Energy, Exoscience, etc.
      > To subscribe, send a blank e-mail message to:
      > ufonet-subscribe@egroups.com
      > To unsubscribe, send a blank e-mail message to:
      > ufonet-unsubscribe@egroups.com
      >
      > URL: http://www.ufonet.nl/ (Dutch)
      > Messages to the list-owner: jkumeling@...
      >
      > Word voor fl 20,- lid van de UFOnieuwsbrief. Zes maal per jaar in de echte
      brievenbus het laatste nieuws uit de ufologie, astronomie, ruimtevaart en
      aanverwante onderwerpen. Kijk op www.ufonet.nl!
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
    • Bobbie Felder
      ... Interesting post. Can you explain what different approach you re talking about? Thanks Bobbie **coming to you live from deep in the backwoods of
      Message 2 of 3 , Jul 3, 2000
      • 0 Attachment
        At 10:32 PM 7/3/00 +0100, "Roger Anderton" <R.J.Anderton@...> wrote:

        >The whole approach to UFOlogy is wrong. There is no headway that can be made
        >with the approach that we have been pursuing for the past fifty years.
        >Possible scenarios can be proposed (similar to Ed Ashley's proposal) that
        >will always lead to dead ends. There is a different approach.
        >

        Interesting post. Can you explain what "different approach" you're talking
        about?

        Thanks

        Bobbie

        **coming to you live from deep in the backwoods of Mississippi**

        http://www.jilain.com
        http://www.dragoncrest.net
        ICQ #7524076


        ~~~Tell me not, in mournful numbers,
        Life is but an empty dream!
        For the soul is dead that slumbers,
        And things are not what they seem.~~~
      • Roger Anderton
        ... From: Bobbie Felder To: Sent: Tuesday, July 04, 2000 2:54 AM Subject: Re: UFOnet: Obsessive Search for Answers
        Message 3 of 3 , Jul 4, 2000
        • 0 Attachment
          ----- Original Message -----
          From: Bobbie Felder <jilain@...>
          To: <ufonet@egroups.com>
          Sent: Tuesday, July 04, 2000 2:54 AM
          Subject: Re: UFOnet: Obsessive Search for Answers


          > At 10:32 PM 7/3/00 +0100, "Roger Anderton" <R.J.Anderton@...>
          wrote:
          >
          > >The whole approach to UFOlogy is wrong. There is no headway that can be
          made
          > >with the approach that we have been pursuing for the past fifty years.
          > >Possible scenarios can be proposed (similar to Ed Ashley's proposal)
          that
          > >will always lead to dead ends. There is a different approach.
          > >
          >
          > Interesting post. Can you explain what "different approach" you're
          talking
          > about?
          >
          > Thanks
          >
          > Bobbie
          >

          Yes, the different approach (to what UFO investigators normally pursue) is
          as follows:

          UFO investigation is really like trying to solve a detective whodunit case.

          The greatest fictional detective was Sherlock Holmes, and we still follow
          roughly his investigation method.

          One of his sayings was something like : Whenever you eliminate the
          impossible whatever remains no matter how improbable must be the truth.

          It would be nice to pursue such an idealization, and list all the possible
          answers to the UFO mystery and then prove one by one that they were not the
          answer to the mystery, and leaving just one possible answer, no matter how
          improbable as being the answer.

          i.e. a process of elimination.

          That would be then be very hard for sceptics to argue over, and most
          sensible people would consider the answer derived from such a method as case
          proven.

          Unfortunately we are denied from being able to pursue it.

          Everyone rushes off to solve the UFO mystery and gathers evidence :
          witnesses statements, this and that. But they never stop to consider STEP 1
          : What is possible?

          Some people believe interstellar travel is possible, some people believe it
          is not, some people believe time travel is possible etc. etc. How do you
          determine what is possible? - which is STEP ZERO.

          Everyone has rushed off to STEP TWO, THREE, FOUR or whatever and really we
          are stuck at STEP ZERO.

          We have not really properly begun our investigation.

          People at STEP FOUR or whatever say here I have proven that this particular
          UFO case cannot be explained by what we so far know. But we have not done
          STEP ZERO yet. All we have when someone presents us with something that
          cannot be explained, is 'something that cannot be explained'- in other words
          we merely prove that a mystery is a mystery, and we do not solve it.

          It is then the scientific methodology to ignore that which we cannot explain
          by our present knowledge, in the hopes that it will be explainable later by
          the new knowledge that we acquire.

          So, far 50 years of UFO investigation has gathered worthless data. It
          presents us with data we cannot explain, but we file it in a drawer and
          forget about it. It does not provide us with an answer to progress from STEP
          ZERO.

          Cheers Roger
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.