From: Gildas Bourdais <bourdais.gildas.nul> Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2011 12:27:09 +0100 Archived: Sat, 26 Feb 2011 06:55:35 -0500 Subject: Re: Minot AFB Case >From: Martin Shough <parcellular.nul> >To: <post.nul> >Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2011 13:21:54 -0000 >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 <snip> >>>>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? <snip> >>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? <snip> >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. > > Well, I will stick to my "utterly pathetic" response. Yes, the Minot AFB cases of 1968, and of 1966, and many other similar cases (see also the book of Robert Salas on Malmstrom AFB), all point to a surveillance of nuclear weapons, very plausibly by ETs. Not by "little people" from Magonia. 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