UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2001 > Jan > Jan 11

Re: Fowl Play Made Pair Think Plane Went Down -

From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 15:29:05 -0600
Fwd Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 16:41:15 +0000
Subject: Re: Fowl Play Made Pair Think Plane Went Down -


 >From: Greg Sandow <greg@gregsandow.com>
 >Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 10:29:31 -0500
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: Fowl Play Made Pair Think Plane Went Down -

 >>Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2001 20:04:45 -0600
 >>From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >>Subject: Re: Fowl Play Made Pair Think Plane Went Down
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

Previously, I had written:

 >>Now that we know there was no crash and the witnesses were
 >>mistaken, where are the UFO analogies that were once in
 >>abundance?

 >>Just another case where witness testimony needs to be
 >>validated.

Greg replied:

 >I followed this story from the day it was first reported in the
 >NY Times. The witnesses weren't completely wrong. They did see a
 >plane, flying unexpectedly low. They thought they saw it crash.

<snip>

 >In the end, as we now know, there wasn't any crash, and the
 >witnesses were wrong in reporting that there was. But they were
 >right, despite initial skepticism, when they said they'd seen a
 >plane flying very low. The implication for ufology is very clear
 >-- when witnesses say they've seen something, they're not always
 >wrong. They might be wrong in some particulars, maybe even
 >important particulars, but in this case they were right about
 >the most basic fact, that there was a plane.

Hi, Greg!

I agree that witnesses can be correct. However, the important
thing to consider is whether the implications of the witnesses'
claims are supported by the eventual facts of the claims. In the
NYC case, the point was not whether they saw a plane flying low
or not. I don't believe that the authorities would question if
people simply saw a low flying plane. But, the implication of
their collective claims was that the plane crashed. THAT is what
the authorities were really interested in; not the flying - the
crashing.

As this relates to UFO sightings, I don't think authorities will
generally question that people, even hundreds of people, see
unexplained lights in the sky. However, the implications of
these claims - that these lights are ET craft - have yet to be
proven or, to be fair, even adequately investigated. Therefore,
the UFO analogy doesn't really connect in the way (I assume)
that you imply; that witnesses should be believed until proven
otherwise.

Witnesses see a plane and assume a crash that hasn't been
proven. Witnesses see an unknown object and assume an ET craft
that hasn't been proven. Now, THAT's an analogy that rings true
to me.

As I said before, I feel that witness CAN be correct. However,
the only way to know is to validate the claims of the witnesses
rather than assume them to be true because that's what we want
to believe.

Take care,

Roger




[ 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