UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2003 > Dec > Dec 9

Re: Ufology - Ten Questions - Fleming

From: Lan Fleming <lfleming5@houston.rr.com>
Date: Tue, 09 Dec 2003 09:43:17 -0600
Fwd Date: Tue, 09 Dec 2003 15:13:00 -0500
Subject: Re: Ufology - Ten Questions - Fleming

>From: Sean Jones <tedric@tedric.demon.co.uk>
>To: UFO Updates <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
>Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2003 22:16:06 +0000
>Subject: Re: Ufology - Ten Questions - Jones

>>From: Stuart Miller <Stuart.Miller4@btinternet.com>
>>To: UFO Updates <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
>>Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2003 21:48:19 -0000
>>Subject: Re: Ufology - Ten Questions

>>On the contrary sir, you do have enough evidence.

>Any physical evidence, verified by accredited & un-biased

There is a large amount of ground trace, radar, and of course
photographic evidence (also physical) that you could say has
been verified by accredited scientists. The problem is that as
soon as a scientist verifies any of it, he is no longer
considered "unbiased" by so-called skeptics.

>>Criminals are often convicted just on the basis of witness
>>testimony alone.

>Really? Not in this country that I am aware of. Perhaps you
>could cite me a case or two? Witness testimony as far as I am
>aware, (and I am really ready to be proved wrong for the sake of
>ufology) has never been enough on it's own to make a conviction
>without supporting evidence.

You mean supporting evidence like radar, ground-trace, and
photographic evidence? See above.

>For I am _damn_ certain if it was then Ufology would be _far_
>more credible in the eyes of Joe Q Public.

I thought the complaint of "skeptics" was that John Q. Public
found the evidence _too_ credible for their liking. Opinion
polls consistently have shown that's the case.