UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2004 > Mar > Mar 7

Re: Depressing But Instructive - Hall

From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99.nul>
Date: Sun, 07 Mar 2004 15:58:31 +0000
Fwd Date: Sun, 07 Mar 2004 11:47:42 -0500
Subject: Re: Depressing But Instructive - Hall


>From: John Harney <magonia.nul>
>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2004 21:34:36 -0000
>Subject: Re: Depressing But Instructive

>>From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99.nul>
>>To: ufoupdates.nul
>>Date: Thu, 04 Mar 2004 11:14:03 +0000
>>Subject: UFO History: Depressing But Instructive

>On your UFO Page you deal with the story of the alleged killing
>of an ET at Fort Dix/McGuire AFB. The dead ET was said to have
>been hauled off to Wright-Patterson AFB (where else?).

>You consider this preposterous story to be authentic, despite
>the fact that it has - unlike Trindade, as Jerry Clark kept
>reminding us - _negative witnesses_. Yet you just sweep these
>negative witnesses aside with the words: "The fact that several
>of the officers involved have denied to other investigators
>having any knowledge of the incident is not surprising at all
>under the circumstances."


John,

On what basis do you conclude this "story" (i.e., direct
testimony from two witnesses and partial documentation) is
"preposterous?" Does your armchair have magic buttons that
reveal ytruth to you? I'm envious. Your total negative bias is
showing. Since there are no real UFOs, it can't be true.  (Non
potest, ergo non est.)

The NIDS investigator called me several times and tried to pry
loose my private and confidential files on the case, but I
didn't give them to him. Neither he nor any of the others at
NIDS interviewed the witnesses.

I can't prove the case is true because I lacked the resources to
follow-up the additional leads, but (as you conveniently left
out of your post) the primary witness checks out completely. I
met him on numerous occasions, his wife, his colleagues, etc. I
arranged for others to meet and question him, and in the fulll
sense of the word interrogate him. I am convinced his story is
true and the event is a closely held secret. Everything points
in that direction. But personal conviction obviously is not
proof, or even strong eveidence.

At this point I simply don't care whether you, NIDS, or anyone
else doesn't think the case is valid. I reported what I had
learned out of a sense of duty, and what I learned (in a
nutshell) is that the primary witness is a very solid with no
motive whatsoever for hoaxing. His connection with the case has
caused him lots of headaches over the years.

My reputation for careful, thorough investigation and a cautious
and conservative approach to the UFO subject (ask many people on
this list who utterly disagree with me about lots of things)
should give people pause about rejecting the report out of hand
as you are doing. I would advise you and everyone else to
suspend judgment.

  - Dick






[ 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