From: Stanton T. Friedman <fsphys.nul> Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2011 21:51:33 -0400 Archived: Wed, 02 Feb 2011 08:57:41 -0500 Subject: Re: Hopkins & Jacobs >From: Dave Haith <visions1.nul> >To: UFO UpDates <post.nul> >Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2011 18:50:56 -0000 >Subject: Re: Hopkins & Jacobs >>From: J. Maynard Gelinas <j.maynard.gelinas.nul> >>To: post.nul >>Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2011 11:57:06 -0500 >>Subject: Re: Hopkins & Jacobs >>>From: Dave Haith <visions1.nul> >>>To: UFO UpDates <post.nul> >>>Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2011 16:24:00 -0000 >>>Subject: Re: Hopkins & Jacobs <snip> >>Where's the physical evidence? If abductees are regularly >>abducted by aliens, then there exists a target for >>investigation. One assumes that surveiling a sample of abductees >>over time ought to generate not just one instance of recorded >>evidence, but a plethora. Repeated again and again. Where is >>this evidence in the public record? I haven't seen it. Why not? >>At least with some UFO sightings there are multiple witness >>sightings, multiple simultaneous RADAR echoes, film and video >>recordings across a range of the visible and nonvisible EM >>spectrum, and even physical traces. I will remain skeptical of >>abduction researcher's claims until they provide enough evidence >>to support their assertions. Not before. >Hi Maynard >I haven't said the whole scene doesn't throw up a lot of >questions like the lack of physical evidence. >Some would cite so called implants as evidence - certainly the >individual stories recounted by so many constitute evidence of >experience. >I don't know whether the abduction experience is physical or not >- we've all heard stories of abductees returning with muddy >boots or odd stains on clothing etc. >Whether these are valid or not I have no idea and like you I >will "remain sceptical of abduction researchers' claims" >I am simply saying that it is wise to continue to listen to >people who say these things have happened to them and compile as >much information as possible for present and future analysis. >Personally I suspect we are dealing with an experience which >transcends time and space and as such you probably wouldn't be >able to provide physical evidence. >If many of our physicists are talking of parallel universes, why >is it not possible that these might bleed through into ours >occasionally? Or we to these other realms? >So there may be reasons for lack of physical evidence - but no >reason to ignore the claimed abductees because they don't return >with an ET or Ultra-Terrrestrial ashtray. Let us not forget that the aliens are in charge not the abductees. Business cards are not left behind. In The Betty and Barney Hill case as reported in Captured! The Betty And Barney Hill UFO Experience (2007) by Kathleen Marden and myself, there was considerable physical evidence including Barney's scuffed shoes, the wart like growths that were medically removed from his groin, the broken binocular strap, Betty's dress tears and pink powder, the strange circular regions on their car as seen by a number of people to affect a compass brought close by, and the star map. Betty wasn't allowed to keep the "book" she had grabbed. There are also the implants removed by Dr. Roger Leir from various abductees. Let us not forget that absence of evidence is not evidence for absence. Stan Friedman Listen to 'Strange Days... Indeed' - The PodCast At: http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/sdi/program/ These contents above are copyright of the author and UFO UpDates - Toronto. They may not be reproduced without the express permission of both parties and are intended for educational use only.
[ Next Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp