UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2007 > Nov > Nov 23

Re: 'Unidentified'

From: Joe McGonagle <joe.mcgonagle.nul>
Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 17:10:38 +0000
Archived: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 09:33:54 -0500
Subject: Re: 'Unidentified'

>From: Vincent Boudreau <vincentboudreau.nul>
>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 14:31:09 -0500 (EST)
>Subject: Re: Pilots & UAP

>Does it ever start to be identifiable as a constructed object
>not from this Earth?

I think it is possible, but that it hasn't happened yet. The
obvious way in which it would be possible would be the retrieval
of the object. I daresay that other methods are also available,
though the global acceptance of any such method might vary.

>With all due respect, this notion of "unidentified" seems to be
>the new spin, a la mode du jour, hinting that the witnesses
>_failed_ in some way.

No, I don't think it is new, and I also don't think it is the
witness's fault - if anyone _has_ to be blamed for failure in
cases with a fair degree of information, then it is the
investigators and researchers, whether they be military,
scientific, or voluntary. At the end of the day though, if
something is genuinely not identified, does it actually have to
be anyone's fault? There are many things which we (mankind)
don't know.


>I think it should be stated that, at some point, the _true_
>unknowns are not unidentified. They should be considered as some
>alien manifestation, meaning not fabricated by mankind as we
>know it.

Why? If this were so, secret military aircraft would be
classified as alien, for example (if I understand you

'Unknown' means exactly that - we just don't know what it was.

>The term 'alien' itself is the object of a debate. They might be
>interdimensional, extraterrestrial, time travelers, whatever.

Several people (including myself) have made the same point, but
it seems that only the ETH is acceptable for the true believers.

>As much as there is danger! of classifying all strange
>observations and unknowns as UFOs, the re is a danger in
>classifying all UFOs as unidentified, especially when the label
>infers something was amiss.

>"Unidentified" is some kind of negative assessment.

I don't see why - it's simply an acknowledgement that we don't
know everything.

>James Penniston saw and touched something in Rendlesham Forest.
>_Unidentified_ does not apply to it.

>It was alien wasn't it? So were the Iranian and Peruvian

>If the word "alien" is too much for some people, how about
>"artificial but not manmade"?

How do you establish with certainty that it wasn't man-made?

>It is also a negative assessment, but it is more convenient and
>more exact than "unidentified".

It is only more exact in cases when it _is_ artificial and
_isn't_ man-made.



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



[ 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