From: Martin Shough <parcellular.nul> Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2011 13:21:54 -0000 Archived: Wed, 23 Feb 2011 09:10:32 -0500 Subject: Minot AFB Case [was: McGonagle's Ufological Stand] >From: Gildas Bourdais <bourdais.gildas.nul> >To: <post.nul> >Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2011 12:10:14 +0100 >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. There is no need for protestations of amazement or puzzlement, Gildas. My question to you was perfectly clearly expressed. My interest in opening a detailed discussion, about specifics of what I agreed was a major case, was made explicit. My personal familiarity with the case was indicated to you. The language, context and intention of my question to you were thus all perfectly clear. You chose instead to answer, irrelevantly and uselessly, a question I did not ask. I could put it to you again: Why would would you do that? (But I no longer require an answer) >Why should I apologise to you? I don't want apologies and didn't ask for one. I was asking you to come out from behind the cover of your straw men and answer my direct question so that an important issue of theory could be probed in detail using the tool of the case you yourself recommended as ideal for the purpose. >I just tried to answer politely, with some info on that case, >and >you slap me in the face! No, I directly confronted your blatantly irrelevant and evasive non-answer to my direct question, which I consider to have been expressed plainly and courteously. >Another point: you repeat that I said it is a proof of ET >origin >of Ufos. Where did I say that? Quote me, please. Joe, responding directly to a question from Mike as to where he would rank ETH, said that it would be low on his list, at the top of which would be unknown natural "meteorological" phenomena (which Mike characterised more generally as "atmospheric" natural phenomena without objection from Joe). Your response to this on 17/02 was to sneer that it was "a really funny answer", and you threw down a challenge: "Let's test that with just one example". Your example was the Minot case. I'm sure everyone understood you. I understood you. The Minot case was your direct challenge to Joe's assertion that natural phenomena could explain such a "major case" (18/02). Very plainly, Gildas, you were saying that it was ridiculous - "funny" - to hold that a natural phenomenon could be more probable than ET in the case of the Minot affair. This is constructively a claim that Minot constitutes (for you) a proof of ET (or analogue thereof). >I don't remember having said that for the Minot case OK... Well, if you want to explain to us all that, really, you hadn't meant to say this, and that you _do_ think unknown natural phenomena might possibly explain Minot, then by all means do so. I will accept that I misunderstood owing to some strange failure of communication, and will withdraw my request to you to justify with specifics the claim I thought you were making.. We can still have a productive discussion about why you think this, insread >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? Ah, so there was no mistake. You _do_ regard the case as a proof of ET. At this point I would like to have been able to say, "OK, then, let's get one with it - now you can answer my question and we can have that discussion." But frankly your response, even now, is so empty and utterly pathetic that I see no hope of any kind of fruitful examination of the question with you. It's my fault. I should have known better. Martin Shough 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