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

Minot AFB Case [was: McGonagle's Ufological Stand]

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


>>>>Hi Gildas

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

>>>>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.

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

>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,
>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
>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

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



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