UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 1999 > Apr > Apr 6

Re: Friedman vs. Krauss Debate

From: Stan Friedman <fsphys@brunnet.net>
Date: Tue, 6 Apr 1999 08:57:43 -0300
Fwd Date: Tue, 06 Apr 1999 20:59:51 -0400
Subject: Re: Friedman vs. Krauss Debate

>Date: Mon, 5 Apr 1999 22:15:35 +0100
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>From: John Rimmer <magonia@magonia.demon.co.uk>
>Subject: Re: Friedman vs. Krauss Debate

>>From: Mark Cashman <mcashman@ix.netcom.com>
>>Date: Mon, 5 Apr 1999 10:02:58 -0400
>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>>Subject: Re: Friedman vs. Krauss Debate

>>>Date: Fri, 2 Apr 1999 17:36:57 +0100
>>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>>>From: John Rimmer <magonia@magonia.demon.co.uk>
>>>Subject: Re: Friedman vs. Krauss Debate


>>>I know it's a hopeless question, and Serge Salvaille has
>>>specifically ruled himself out from answering it, but I'll try
>>>again: can we have a list of the ten UFO cases giving the best
>>>evidence for an extraterrestrial origin for the UFO phenomenon?.

>>>I won't hold my breath.

>>John seems to forget that we went through this exercise a number
>>of months ago - in two ways. 1) Lists of cases were advanced.
>>and 2) The nature of the provability of the ETH was discussed,
>>and it did not include the "10 case" strawman.

>>John also seems to hold the odd idea that failing to prove the
>>ETH renders the whole phenomenon moot.

>I'm not quite sure what you mean by this. Are you saying that I
>think that if one is unable to prove the ETH then the UFO
>phenomenon is not worthy of study? This is obviously not the
>case, otherwise why would I be spending my time publishing a
>magazine and wearing my fingertips away replying to these
>postings? My dictionary defines "moot" as "debatable" or
>"discussion of a hypothetical case", in which case I certainly
>think the whole phenomenon is "moot" - isn't that the whole
>point of this debate and discussion forum?

>>As he and most of the
>>readers on this list know, while I am not an ETH proponent, I am
>>an OEH (Objective Existence Hypothesis) proponent. Objective
>>existence is the most parsimonious explanation of a phenomenon
>>whose many highest quality cases include the hundreds in the
>>Project 1947 EM Effects catalog, the BUFORA and CUFOS vehicle
>>interference studies, the Schuessler catalog of medical effects
>>from UFOs and the Phillips Physical Trace catalog.

>Yes, we did go through this a few months ago, but only one
>person came up with a list of ten cases. Rather more replies
>were in the nature of Mark Cashman's response above; that there
>were "hundreds" of cases which could not be explained in mundane
>terms and so must represent some novel (if not necessarily
>extraterrestrial) phenomenon. Does Mark Cashman think that
>_every_one_ of the cases in the BUFORA, CUFOS, Phillips, etc.,
>catalogues has been so thoroughly investigated at source that
>all more parsimonious explanations can be ruled out? Surely not!
>No, he simply thinks that because lots and lots of people have
>been unable to come up with plausible explanations for lots and
>lots of cases, this somehow proves that a novel and previously
>unknown object is present.

>Nevertheless I do give credit to Mr Cashman for coming up with a
>list of cases claimed to be evidential for a physical phenomenon
>- although not indicative of an extraterrestrial origin, which
>is what I asked for - and I am sure that we will take a longer
>look at some of them in Magonia or the Monthly Supplement.

I hate  to jump into such a learned discussion, but would like
to suggest that John and others read Dr. James E. McDonald's
"Statement on UFOs" to the House Subcommittee on Sciece and
Astronautics, July 29, l968.

The paper ($10.00postpaid from UFORI, POB 958, Houlton, ME
04730-0958) is 71 pages long, has data on 41 cases carefully
evaluated by Jim whose specialty was Upper atmosphere physics.

It is clear that trained observers were observing manufactured
objects behaving in ways that we Earthlings could not duplicate
at the time, or we would 31 years later be building them instead
of F-16s, F117s etc.

If they weren't built here on Earth, they were built elsewhere -
hence are of ET origin... regardless of whether they warp space
and time to get here or use other yet to be discovered

Here is a quote from a case (I opened the volume at random)

"According to an official case-summary (Ref. 7, Rept. 10), two
airmen in an F-94 "made visual and radar contact with a large,
round white object larger than any known type of aircraft" near
1915 PST on 12/10/52 near Odessa (WA). The radar operator in the
F-94 had airborne radar contact with the object for 15 minutes,
and during the same interval, ground radar was also tracking it.
The summary states that "the object appeared to be level with
the intercepting F-94 at 26,000-27,000 feet and it pointed out
that " a dim reddish white light came from the object as it
hovered, reversed direction almost instantaneously and then

Please note that the ET explanation doesn't tell us from whence
cometh the UFO, except not from here.

It tells us nothing about how it got here, what its pilots want,
where it is going etc., etc.

Note this was 47 years ago. and there is another page in Jim's
discusson about this case in which he destroys
Menzel's"scientific" explanation.

Lists be damned.

Stan Friedman

[ 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