Tuesday, January 9, 2007

Hoofprints in the Dust


The story is allegorical and serves a point. The government workers represent the scientific community. The passengers on the train represent people from all walks of society, in different countries spread out among all continents. The oriental strangers represent UFO's, and those who occupy them.

The evidence is plentiful and corroborative. First there is the matter of eyewitnesses. Eyewitness testimony is acceptable as evidence and proof in a court of law. In England, witnesses are forbidden from speaking with barristers, or lawyers, to prevent them from being coached on their testimony. How many people have reported UFO sightings? Let's rule out 95% of all eyewitness testimony out of hand [even though they represent a wide cross sampling of the population] and say that these people were mad, projected their beliefs on explainable events, or were imagining things. What about the other reports? The ones that state these vehicles (and I realize that I use this term in a leading manner) wobble and spin as they move, seemingly without sound. That they accelerate at astounding speeds and demonstrate changes in direction that are well beyond any man made machine? Meteors? Swamp gas? Plasma from underground rock compression? What of objects in orbit recorded by the space shuttle that have changed direction with no outside force acting upon them? Of course, if the scientific community were to acknowledge this phenomenon, they would have to admit they were wrong. Frankly, (and this is opinion) I think they are way too proud, too puffed up, too full of themselves to do so. After all, THEY have all the answers, right? Want to use the scientific method? Cross index the number of UFO reports, the characteristics of the object that were observed, and then plug that into some statistical analysis to try to calculate the chance that all these people came up with many of the same stories out of thin air. I don't think so.

Secondly is the matter of physical evidence, or hoofprints from my analogy. The above photo is taken from the Westall School incident, where on April 6th, 1966, numerous schoolchildren and teachers observed a UFO land near their school, one example of my "hoofprints in the dust." The scorched marks on the ground clearly indicates something happened. One would think this testimony might be taken seriously. Nope. Just like the government officials in my story, it is discounted.

Here I will give a caveat which is that there are a large number of hoaxes which have been perpetrated by those who seekto draw attention to themselves. Billy Meier in particular irks me to no end because he was plainly using plastic models suspended by lines. People like Dan Akroyd want to be taken seriously regarding their stand on UFO's but when they release videos, they contain footage from- you guessed it- Billy Meier. That's annoying as hell.

However, if we remove all photographic evidence completely, save for pictures which are taken from space, how is this explained? These pictures clearly cannot be hoaxed. Data from satellites producing evidence which appears to back up the claims of those with corroborated testimony, and which also backs up the pictorial and physical evidence as mentioned earlier.

Thirdly is the proliferation of home video cameras which have captured these craft in operation. Admittedly, along with the widespread availability and affordability of video cameras is the use of computer technology to manipulate images. Are all random witnesses with video cameras hoaxers? 100 percent?

Consequently, there needs to be a more thorough examination of this phenomenon by the scientific community. No poo-pooing by way of pride and ego that such a thing could not possibly exist. The ramifications are too large to overlook. Truth must be known!

No comments: