UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2007 > Aug > Aug 25

Re: Brad Sparks' 'Forthcoming' Roswell Revelations?

From: Don Ledger <dledger.nul>
Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 13:17:42 -0300
Archived: Sat, 25 Aug 2007 11:00:00 -0400
Subject: Re: Brad Sparks' 'Forthcoming' Roswell Revelations?


>From: Steven Kaeser <steve.nul>
>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 17:55:57 -0400
>Subject: Re: Brad Sparks' 'Forthcoming' Roswell Revelations?

>>From: Rick Nielsen <nilthchi.nul>
>>To: ufoupdates.nul
>>Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 17:45:08 -0700 (PDT)
>>Subject: Re: Brad Sparks' 'Forthcoming' Roswell Revelations?

><snip>

>>I'd like to butt in...

>>This field is fraught with frustrations, isn't it? The UFO
>>pilots aren't forthcoming.

>>But we do know that 'they' are in our skies. We know that 'they'
>>have been flying for decades at least. Those UFOs have been
>>happening without credible humanity taking credit for it.

>>The best way to move this study forward is to include open peer
>>review, with as little belittling as possible. Dick Hall has his
>>place, as does Brad Sparks. And so does everyone else.

>>Thanks to EBK, for keeping us all in touch!

>While Errol has his critics, I also believe this List is a
>valuable forum for many of us to review current thoughts and
>information.

>I'm not sure what you mean by "open peer review", and who you
>would expect to perform that "review" (or more importantly how
>much expertise they would have to properly review the facts and
>proposed theories). Open peer review by Internet posters in
>general isn't helpful, and I think we're at the point of
>disagreement over who is an "expert" in the field. I notice that
>you didn't use the word 'science' in your suggestion, and I
>sense that many are too frustrated with the limitations imposed
>by the scientific analysis.


Just butting in here for a moment...

Science isn't the be-all and end-all of any study. Often they
get it wrong-or perhaps thought to be right until new data comes
along. I was watching a program last night on NOVA re. the first
"Americans".

The Clovis point [spear-tip] kept coming up at 13,000 years ago
for the first peoples coming across from Asia - remember when it
was 10,000 years ago - but know one could figure out why this
point just popped up.

But anyway, the 13,000 year ago date got carved in stone until a
few archeologists began to dig deeper, and sure enough they
began to find evidence of human habitation back to 16,000 years
ago.

Naturally they were upsetting the apple-cart and were then
accused of falsifying and hoaxing because it went against the
mainstream. It took a few years and the credibility of the
archeologists who were writing papers on this new data before
the old Clovis point period as being the furthest back began to
crumble and I'm willing to bet that it will go back further than
that.

There is evidence now that the first hominids came from Asia and
not Africa.

Egyptology rejects any data that pushes the history of that
religion back further than 5,500 years ago, yet evidence
suggests that it goes back as much as 9,000.

Science has a lot of it's own problems and often ignores its own
hard evidence.

For the most part science ignores the UFO phenomenon, but those
scientists that don't ignore it usually find compelling evidence
once they actually study the data. There is a growing list to
support that.


Don Ledger



Listen to 'Strange Days... Indeed' - The PodCast

See:

http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/sdi/program/


[ 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