UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2007 > Jan > Jan 26

Re: Barksdale Fliers Are Source Of UFO Story -

From: Joe McGonagle <joe.mcgonagle.nul>
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2007 13:04:36 +0000
Fwd Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2007 08:15:16 -0500
Subject: Re: Barksdale Fliers Are Source Of UFO Story -


>From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates.nul>
>To: - UFO UpDates Subscribers - <UFO-UpDates.nul>
>Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2007 07:22:23 -0500
>Subject: UFO UpDate: Barksdale Fliers Are Source Of UFO Story

>Source: The Shreveport Times, Louisiana, USA

>http://tinyurl.com/3djgn6

>January 26, 2007

>Barksdale Fliers Are Source Of UFO Story
>A-10s' flares fooled people on the ground

>By John Andrew Prime
>jprime.nul

>It wasn't little green men, but rather green-suited airmen from
>Barksdale Air Force Base who lit up the skies over Arkansas on
>Jan. 9.

>The online publication WorldNet Daily initially reported the
>appearance of mysterious lights over northwest Arkansas, brought
>to their attention by a retired Air Force F-16 pilot who lives
>near Van Buren, Ark., and was perplexed by the sight.

<snip>



Hello List,

This is a follow-on from a previous post at:

http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/2007/jan/m18-003.shtml

The main witness, a 61-year-old with 32 years military service,
some of which was spent as an F-16 pilot is quoted as saying:

"I believe these lights were not of this world, and I feel a
duty and responsibility to come forward," Col. Brian Fields told
WND. "I have no idea what they were."

And:

"I'm certain it wasn't an aircraft [from Earth]," said Fields,
who also ruled out the possibility of flares, saying they didn't
descend like flares typically do. "It's not anything I ever had
any experience with. They were some kind of energy or
something."

Now, I know that some members of this List will scream "cover
up!" at the explanation that these were flares, but hopefully
someone with a bit of sense will follow this up and determine if
the explanation is viable. I also fully expect that it will turn
out to be so.

If that is the case, what does that say about the value placed
on the testimony of "expert witnesses"? I have tried making this
point in the past, yet some people still seem to place
inordinate importance on so called "expert witnesses".

This is not intended to be a slur on the witnesses concerned, I
have previously been in the position of saying "that is
definitely _not_ a helicopter" based on considerable familiarity
with helicopter activities, only to discover that what we all
saw was in fact a police helicopter.

I actually have a recording on video of me asserting that the
object was not a helicopter). I have also chased Sirius for a
hundred miles before turning back - still not knowing that it
was Sirius until the following day.

I have no doubt that in most cases, the witnesses genuinely
believe that what they saw was not a conventional object, but
human perception, even for the most "expert" of witnesses is
fallible.

Other good examples of the fallibility of "expert witnesses"
include the "Cosford Incident" which is covered in detail at:

http://www.uk-ufo.org/cosford

and the 1990 Tornado case which has been admirably covered (in
English) by the UFO Working Group Netherlands at:

http://www.ufonet.nl/nieuws/tornado/index2.html

Another aspect of this Arkansas case is the religious
interpretation placed on the event by the witness.


Regards,

Joe




[ 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