UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 1997 > Nov > Nov 11

Re: ETH [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] &c

From: Sean Jones <tedric@tedric.demon.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 14:22:34 +0000
Fwd Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 10:41:52 -0500
Subject: Re: ETH [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] &c

This is for all but most especially for Peter Brookesmith
                                (aka Peregrine Mendoza)


>Date: Thu, 30 Oct 1997 21:29:27 -0500
>From: Peregrine Mendoza <101653.2205@compuserve.com> [Peter Brookesmith]
>Subject: ETH [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] &c
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>

>The general
>rule, irritatingly conservative as it is, remains in place: if
>you want to argue that UFOs are ET, it's up to you to prove it,
>not for the doubters to disprove it. The door is wide open here.

At first I thought this was bloody simple because I thought that
it would be very easy to explain just exactly what the Extra
Terrestial Hypothesis is, but unfortuanately I misread it, I had
thought he meant explain exactly what the ETH is.

Before we can go any further I will have to explain exactly what
it is that I understand the ETH to be.

I believe the ETH to be quite simple:

Some of the Unidentified Flying Objects that are sighted by
witnesses could be vehicles from another planet.

Quite simple, nothing more prosaic is needed, all the other
paraphenalia surrounding the ETH is only associative not directly
ETH, (IMHO).

That stated we can now move on.

What is an unidentified flying object (UFO)? The late Dr J. Allen
Hynek, who spent 40 years studying the enigma, would respond to
such a question by posing another: "Unidenitified to whom?"
('UFO: the Complete Sightings' catalogue, by Peter Brookesmith)

It is the UFO's that remain unidentified which intrigue
ufologists and puzzle the public. They may represent as little as
five percent of UFO reports,
('UFO The Government Files', by Peter Brookesmith)
((two excellent books even if I do dissagree with most of his
conclusions))

Quite simply not every report of a UFO remains a mystery. Of all
the UFO reports as Peter correctly points out 95 percent are
explainable, ie, conventional aircraft, blimps, birds, rare
weather conditions, kites and even dare I say it, "earth lights".
However it is the unexplained UFO's
that we are all interested in.

Of this five percent of UFO's let me put it to you that *some*
could be experimental/secret technology. So lets knock off
another 1 percent just for that. We are now down to a
conservative 4 percent of all sightings that just will not be
explained away. We are therefore left with three basic choices.

1) The witness is lying.
A) In which case what about the multiple witness sightings that
are reported??

2) There is not enough available information to elimnate the
object as an unidentified.
A) You still left with a witness who says he/she saw something.

3) There was indeed something there, we just don't know what it
was.

There are many ideas of what that object might be, but where did
it come from is perhaps the most intrigueing.

The Atlantis and Inner Earth theories are two other explanations
but they tend to hold less water (please forgive the pun) than
the most popular by far, the Extra Terrestial Hypothesis. F.D.
Drake, a United States astrophysicist devised an equation to
prove mathematically that there must be other life in the
universe. His equation mathematically suggests the relationship
of the number of stars like earth's, the number of stars with
planetary systems, the number of planets in each system having
conditions suitable for the origin of life, the number of those
planets on which life could actually develope, the number of
those planets on which intelligent life could evolve, the number
of those intelligent populations that could develope
civilisations capable of interstellar travel. So we have a
mathematical formula that *proves* that there must be life out
there, and a high probability that some of them have the
capability of interstellar travel.

Now we are at the point where we must either accept that there is
life out there or stuff it, there is no life out there. If you
are one of those who will not accept that there is life out there
then you have no credence in the ETH.

If you are one of those who believes that there is indeed life
out there then please read on.

Is it unreasonable to suggest that this intelligent other life,
which has achived interstellar travel, has traveled to our lovely
planet earth? Stan Friedman has already shown us that we do not
need to exceed the speed of light to visit other stars and/or
solar systems. One reason they might have for coming here is: We
have been broadcasting for many years our radio and TV signals
into outer space, might they not be coming to investigate the
source of those signals?? That is only one suggestion and of
course, there is much evidence that our visitors have been
visiting earth a lot longer than that.

So my understanding of the ETH: "Some of the Unidentified Flying
Objects that are sighted by witnesses could indeed be vehicles
from another planet" has credibility. Its only a matter of
weather you agree with me or not.

Finally Peter

BUT as to hardcore physical proof to substantiate the ETH, I must
bow down to you, and apologise, for I have none personally.

But is it not a *reasonable* hypothesis??


                       Sean Jones
          A man humbled by the fact that he cannot lay his hand
          on the nearest alien artifact or delta wing spacecraft.


Search for other documents from or mentioning: tedric | 101653.2205

[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |

UFO UpDates Main Index

UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp


Archive programming by Glenn Campbell at Glenn-Campbell.com