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 ><snip> >>>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 >>case. >>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. Martin 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 Sarkozy? Gildas Bourdais 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 | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp