From: Christopher Allan <cda.nul>
Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2004 23:13:24 -0000
Fwd Date: Thu, 09 Dec 2004 08:31:27 -0500
Subject: Re: Astronomy Evidence/Data Methodologies - Allan


>From: Brad Sparks <RB47x.nul>
>To: ufoupdates.nul
>Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2004 17:06:21 EST
>Subject: Re: Astronomy Evidence/Data Methodologies

>>From: Frank Warren <frank-warren.nul>
>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates.nul>
>>Date: Mon, 06 Dec 2004 09:16:25 -0800
>>Subject: Astronomy Evidence/Data Methodologies

<snip>

You mentioned meteors and meteorites.

I do believe that the lack of actual UFO hardware is the biggest
obstacle to scientific acceptance.

Meteorites were in a similar position for many decades. It took
several large falls, culminating in the L'Aigle fall in 1803, to
finally convince the scientific academy (in France) that
Chladni's ideas were correct and that meteorites actually fell
from the sky, and came from outer space.

I feel UFOs (assuming they are nuts & bolts spacecraft) will
never be accepted until & unless real hardware is found and
produced. If this proves very elusive, too bad: we shall have to
wait until such hardware, preferably in abundance, turns up.
Then, and only then, will there be a chance of finally proving
UFO reality to the scientific establishment. There is no clear
alternative.

It is useless to give the oft-repeated response that the
authorities already possess this hardware but are keeping it top
secret. This standard ufological rejoinder will cut no ice with
the scientific establishment (or the media), and you cannot
really blame them for poking derision at it. Ufology is too
world-wide for this 'buck passing' to be valid.

Hardware is needed, and sooner rather than later.


CDA