UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2011 > Feb > Feb 23

Re: McGonagle's Ufological Stand

From: Gildas Bourdais <bourdais.gildas.nul>
Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2011 12:10:14 +0100
Archived: Wed, 23 Feb 2011 07:04:23 -0500
Subject: Re: McGonagle's Ufological Stand

>From: Martin Shough <parcellular.nul>
>To: <post.nul>
>Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2011 16:18:29 -0000
>Subject: Re: McGonagle's Ufological Stand

>>From: Gildas Bourdais <bourdais.gildas.nul>
>>To: <post.nul>
>>Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2011 11:04:52 +0100
>>Subject: Re: McGonagle's Ufological Stand

>>>From: Martin Shough <parcellular.nul>
>>>To: <post.nul>
>>>Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2011 14:57:39 -0000
>>>Subject: Re: McGonagle's Ufological Stand


>>>Hi Gildas

>>>I believe I've expressed the opinion before on this List that
>>>Minot AFB 1968 is a fascinating and presently unexplained case.

>>>I have had some small involvement with aspects of the (ongoing)
>>>research project you refer to in recent years. But I would
>>>describe the witness evidence as sometimes ambiguous, the
>>>documentation as incomplete and flawed, crucial aspects of its
>>>reconstruction as uncertain, and the anwer to the very complex
>>>question "What happened?" as an ultimately inconclusive one.

>>>For clarity can you point to one aspect of this group of
>>>incidents and explain why it is exceptionally strong evidence
>>>for something that could not be explained by unrecognised
>>>natural phenomena of some type? So that we can have a focused
>>>discussion about it?

>>There is plenty of information available on that extraordinary

>>For instance in these books:

>>- Scientific Ufology by Kevin Randle (1999), pages 60 to 70;

>>- UFOs and Nukes by Robert Hastings (2010) chapter 15.

>>Hastings refers to the report of the main researchers, Thomas
>>Tullien and James Klotz, "The Minot UFO Incident Report"

>This is very disappointing. I didn't ask you for book titles. I
>explained that I've had some personal involvement with aspects
>of this project and a lot of contact with Tom, as well as with
>Jim when he was still on board, over a number of years. You
>should assume from this that I know a bit about it. So when I
>asked you to nominate a specific feature or aspect of the case,
>that for you makes it such a stand-out argument for ET, so that
>we could have a focused discussion, I didn't mean "can you
>recommend some introductory reading". Why would you think I
>meant that?

>I'm sure you won't excuse yourself on the grounds that you
>haven't the time or the interest or the knowledge to address
>specifics in detail, since a response along those lines from Joe
>drew a stinging criticism from you.


I find your answer amazing. Why should I apologise to you? I
just tried to answer politely, with some info on that case, and
you slap me in the face!

Another point: you repeat that I said it is a proof of ET origin
of Ufos. Where did I say that? Quote me, please.

I don't remember having said that for the Minot case but, since
you insist, well, I do think it's a pretty good show of a Ufo
with capacities far beyond any human craft. In other words, of
ET origin. You can quote that now.

Another point: the testimony of the copilot Bradford Runyon,
prime time on ABC coast to coast (also passed on French TV now)
is a convincing proof of the reality of the case, coming
together with a series of other testimonies.

What more do yo want? A confirmation by the French President

Gildas Bourdais

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



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 | 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