Thought-provoking article by Kevin Randle "I could point out, as I have before, that Ted Philips has catalogued some 4000 landing trace cases. What would have been the result if the academic community had spent the time attempting to learn something from these landing traces? We would be having a different conversation."
Agreed. I know Marley Woods is what is currently happening but I am very interested in perusing plans for getting these files digitized and available. It is one of the things I would like to ask Ted about. Hopefully he will be home sometime this week. Thanks, Ron
I respect Randle a lot, however I do not agree with some of his statements, particularly this one: As one example, let’s look, briefly, at the photographs taken by Paul Trent in May 1950. There are two possible explanations, given the clarity of the photographs and the story told by Trent and his wife. The pictures either show an unknown craft of a type not flown on Earth, or the pictures have been faked. There is no third possibility. How does Randle know about all craft flown on Earth, even in 1950? Could someone have faked the Trents by putting something there for them to see? Could the craft (if it is one) have been projected there through some means? I don't know, but the statement that "there is no third possibility" is the mirror opposite of the fundamentalist skeptic position that there are no unidentified objects in the skies and all UFO reports are errors or faked.
Projected there? By whom and for what conceivable purpose? Hmm, think I'll go with Randle's take. But anyway, the Trent photos are not ones I've ever made a big deal about. To me the best pics are the Belgian triangle and the Costa Rica pic taken in 1971 by a mapping plane.
As an AF man, he would be rather knowledgable in that area. The McMinnville pic shows something quite unlike technology even now, let alone 60 years ago. Surprising that no skeptic has uncovered evidence of this after half a century plus. There was a recent claim that hoaxers fooled Zamora. I don't buy that but it's noteworthy that nobody ever made a similar claim for McMinnville, let alone showed how on Earth they did it. No, I think Randle is right. Even the skeptics on his blog didn't say what you just did.
It is a curious and frustrating thing about the scientific community, about how they are so unwilling to even look. They are, however, quite willing to offer any number of explanations. Now maybe if they looked they wouldn't find anything. I'd be good with that. A lot of the evidence I have seen has not been compelling, but I haven't seen everything. So I'm always willing to look. Thus my frustration with folks claiming evidence and then not showing it. This is the other side of the coin. I just find it hilarious when I hear some scientists offering opinions on something they haven't invested any effort in whatsoever. The reasons they give are usually along the lines of not wanting to waste their time. In my opinion the real reasons are more emotional ones. They are afraid to look like fools.
OK, I realize that I am so tired of the ETH that I get ridiculous sometimes. It may be the most logical-sounding explanation to us at this point in history, but there is no evidence for the reality of extraterrestrial contact yet, as far as I can see. We just seem to make that assumption every time. There is probably evidence for extra-human interaction, but not aliens-from-other-planets as most people assume.
I've have often thought that the performance characteristics of many UFOs fit that of a projection of some type rather than a material object.
Ha ha! I just finished playing with my cat. I was shining a flashlight on the floor getting a kick out of watching her chase the light around. Makes me wonder if someone might be doing something similar to us.
That would explain sudden appearances and disappearances. But it would probably require a more advanced technology than what we possess, especially early in the history of the phenomenon.
Considering the evidence favoring the idea--photos of strange flying craft, landing trace cases etc-- what is remarkable is not that the "assumption" is made but that it has rather widespread opposition, from those favoring more exotic hypotheses. ETs are the best explanation because we know many other planets exist, and life can arise and evolve on a planetary surface--or else we wouldn't be here--whereas it is not at all clear if life is possible in some other kind of realm. Considering the very narrow of range of conditions required by life, making it rare even in a habitable Universe, it is very doubtful it could arise under wholly different conditions. Much evidence points to advanced technology operated by sentient beings--exactly what we should expect if the phenomenon represents essentially the same kind of progressive development, albeit more advanced.
Well, since we don't know this is all speculation. There's nothing to say the source of the projection is human technology. It does offer up the suggestion that what we are experiencing may not be a local phenomena. Whether it is natural or from some sort of intelligence, well again, we don't know.
Just to speculate ...perhaps some of it could be explained by electromagnetic or magneto-spheric events within or above the earth. I don't know. It's just a wild speculation. Some UFO/UAP phenomena has displayed behavior that appear to be directed by an intelligence such as has been reported around nuclear weapons facilities and so forth. I don't believe there is one answer that would explain all UFO/UAP phenomena.
I am the only person here to produce indisputable first hand photo evidence of the creature AND its female friend. I should get an award or something.
I'll say. If a significant part of the phenomenon is due to nature, it's surprising that it mostly escaped attention before '47, or intensified afterwards.
Truth be told, I lean toward the ETH myself. Regardless of how tired of it we are or how "boring" someone might find it to be, it remains in my book (and many others) the most probable explanation for some sightings. Although I think some percentage of sightings are human devices like UAVs and advanced aircraft designs, that doesn't explain the sightings around nuclear facilities in my book. Earth lights are very real and have to be included in there as well.
