From: Dave Haith <visions1.nul>
Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2008 18:07:05 +0100
Archived: Sat, 09 Aug 2008 07:44:00 -0400
Subject: Re: The 'Shadow People' & UFOs?


<snip>

Why oh why do the heavyweight researchers on this List, so
deplore anybody speculating on solutions to the UFO problem which
are, shall we say, out of the 'left field'?

As much as I admire these nuts and bolts researchers, let us all
freely admit they haven't taken us much closer to what UFOs
actually are, in 60 years or more.

So it seems to me the answers could well lie in a science of the
future: thus using the tools we have in this century, just won't
cut the mustard.

And speculation about what tomorrow's science might look like -
and how it might encompass, explain and validate the world we
now call paranormal, seems a reasonable pursuit.

I'm not suggesting all UFO research goes 'weird' but why
shouldn't some folk be allowed to think 'out of the box' on a
subject which is clearly 'out of the box'?

There almost seems a kind of bitterness from the 'old school' and
I can understand how they might feel to have slaved away with a
million reports and analyses, only to have these armchair
researchers yakking on about 'shadow people'.

I have no idea what Greg Boone thinks he's on to, but I feel sure
he'll enlighten us at some stage.

As Errol said on a recent podcast - all these areas including the
paranormal seem connected.

Mock and laugh if you like you purists, but my feeling is that
the final solution to UFOs will be closer to the world of quantum
and mysticism, than the nuts and bolts science of the here and
now.

Meanwhile can't we accept that UFO research is a 'broad church' -
 there's room for everybody.

Can't everybody just learn to get on - or at least tolerate one
another?


Dave Haith




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

See:

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