From: Sean Jones <email@example.com> 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 <firstname.lastname@example.org> [Peter Brookesmith] >Subject: ETH [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] &c >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <email@example.com> >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.
[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp