- Whenever I hear the question "do you believe in
UFOs?" in coversation I become immensely frustrated. To most of those
who have devoted even a reasonable portion of time to acquiring an understanding
of the phenomenon, the term "belief" simply doesn't, and should
never, apply. To use this expression shoves the UFO over into the category
of religion or even fantasy, and nothing could be more inaccurate or counter-productive.
UFOlogy is a scientific pursuit like any other. It takes absolutely no
leap of faith, no mustering of imagination or whimsy for any rational mind
to realize what is already a proven reality: Unidentified Flying Objects
of an inexplicable class and character exist and are as real and verified
as comets or the rings of Saturn (and may have been around just as long).
- The simple fact of the matter is, UFOs (and whatever
may be piloting them) are a substantive, verified and massively documented
phenomena ... but much of our culture and language perpetuate and cling
to the erroneous notion that we're dealing with some kind of specter or
myth of hysteria or mass-societal halucenation.
- I'll go one step further. One might 'believe' in fire-breathing
dragons or fairies ... yet, there is no evidence whatsoever that either
of these exist. However, one need only look at the facts now in evidence
to see that actual 'flying saucers' (not merely "unidentified flying
objects") do, indeed, exist.
- Those who know UFOs are 'real' need to make a serious
effort to cease using and condoning that negative terminology of doubt
inspired by our disinformation-driven culture. "Are you aware
of UFOs?" (ie, "have you been educated on the existence of flying
saucers?") should have replaced "Do you believe in UFOs?"
in both text and conversation long ago. We no longer are soliciting people
to 'believe'. Instead, we are (or should be) asking the uninformed to become
educated to the facts. The issue of visitors to this planet, wherever (or
whenever) they originate, is as vital an issue as any world geopolitical,
religious, or economic affair or policy. In fact, it is probably far more
- It is simply a matter of education. The evidence we have
for the existence of unidentified flying machines of advanced technology,
even if we toss out all photographic evidence and all abduction accounts
or close encounter experience testimonies from the most reliable, credible
civilian experiencers, is... massive. Even if we dismiss the most credible
testimony and eyewitness accounts, the evidence is simply enormous.
- What remains is a nearly a century of 'expert' interaction
with flying saucers (and other shaped craft of equally inexplicable propulsion
technology) under extremely scientific, verifiable, and examinable circumstances.
I am speaking of the countless military and commercial pilot interactions
with these remarkable, unknown machines, in situations where often entirely
empirical testing of data has been recorded. One could not ask for a much
better 'test lab' for the UFO phenomenon than in the cockpit of a military
fighter or commercial airliner.
- In both situations there are one, or more, specialists
in the field of atmospherics and aerodynamics in a 'flying laboratory,'
well-equipped with scientifically-approved and understood instrumentation
which can record and note verifiable time frames, locations, altitudes,
longitudes, latitudes of the UFO phenomena. Additionally, and obviously,
there is also (in countless cases) verification by radar -- which consitututes
a second 'laboratory' of qualified, educated and capable specialists interpreting
- Apart from pilots in their 'flying laboratories' and
their ground-based radar counterparts, there is now also the testimony
of astronauts who are increasingly detailing UFO evidence and information
outside of the stratosphere.
- From these three sources alone, there exists undeniable
proof of the 'flying saucer' which would hold up in any court of law.
- UFOs have entered practically every 'sensitive' international
airspace, been tracked on uncountable civilian and military radars, been
pursued by the finest and most advanced flying machines on the planet,
eye-witnessed by our best trained pilots, even fired upon (or so attempted)
by pilots dating all the way back to reports from WWI aviators over England.
- Our visitors have been tracked at speeds exceeding all
known propulsion or contemporary technology and fully-defying the laws
of *our* physics. Flying Saucers have on scores of occasions brought military
units, including our nuclear forces, to full alert and then engaged those
forces in what appear to be tests of our technological capacity. Flying
Saucers of gargantuan size have been seen at close range by both civilian
and military professionals and verified by radar...both ground and airborne.
Some would even say our visitors have taunted and played with our military...the
reports of incursions into our SAC bases being particularly extraordinary.
- Millions of dollars are spent every year by air force
units around the world from every advanced nation to intercept these aerial
interlopers. Countries do not spend that kind of money chasing Venus, 'heat
inversions' or entertaining myths. To suggest so is simply preposterous.
- The information and data, mountains of it, from these
civilian and military aviation and defense specialists regarding the UFO
match or exceed the information we have from "less than expert"
civilian eyewitnesses of UFOs, and only serves to validate and support
public accounts of UFOs and/or interactions with them. We accept without
reservation the existence of atomic and subatomic particles which only
a privileged handful of experts in that field of study have ever 'seen'
with the most advanced special instrumentation.
- Granted, there is far more 'scientific' data and knowledge
of atomic and subatomic particles than exists for flying saucers -- but
data is data, and evidence is evidence -- and we have no trouble in trusting
and being dependent upon the experiences and veracity of the physicists
and scientists involved. We accept the reality of these all but invisible
atomic and sub-atomic structures with no hesitation. And yet with the flying
saucer, we are not dealing with 'invisibles' at all.
- At best, one must define the flying saucer as transitory,
difficult and evasive -- but nonetheless, a real part of our physicial
universe. Unlike the atomic particle which is governed by laws already
understood, or well on the way to being understood within the sheer mechanics
of the universe itself and its conditions and measures, the UFO has behind
it an intelligence of its own. We can no more easily reach out and snatch
a flying saucer for examination than we can ball lightning... yet, both
exist. (There is strong indication our military has had examples of UFO
technology ...and its flight crews...for more than a half century, but
that is another subject altogether).
- Our public sector scientific evaluation of the flying
saucer is therefore more akin to hunting a rare and highly-advanced species
of animal formerly classified as 'cryptozooligical' but now definitely
reclassified as 'authentic' due to the sheer weight of verifiable and coherent
data from experts. Like the Tasmanian Tiger, we now know they "are"...
but to capture one for more advanced study proves to be essentially impossible.
- Ours Or 'Theirs'?
- It does appear that the U.S. military has developed craft
with similar appearance and capabilities as some 'flying saucers' (as reported
by many reasonable and credible individuals). However, history shows us
that the flying saucer has been coming and going on planet earth for generations,
and centuries, which rules out the idea that all flying saucers are manmade
craft of a clandestine technology.
- Considering these realities, our language regarding UFOs
should cease, immediately, to reflect the elements of myth, legend or fantasy,
and fully embrace its definitive reality, helping to bring in a new cultural
era regarding the UFO. We must each arm ourselves with these most primary
facts when dealing with those uneducated, prepared to give a rational defense
of the subject.
- There is absolutely no reason to ever feel awkward about
the issue simply because others are poorly-educated about the facts. And
educating them at every opportunity is paramount. The reality of UFOs is
such that its implications require every human being to become as aware
of it as their individual mental and emotional limits will allow. Our place
in the universe is likely to be defined by this very subject, be it a truth
we are ready to receive or a lie we are miserably destined to suffer.
- Either way, we don't "believe" in UFOs. No
faith is required. It is not a religion or occult pseudo science. It is
a reality. What we do with that reality is now squarely on the table.
- A Rebuttal
- Jim Foreman of The Skeptic Report. wrote to alert me
to his rebuttal...
- X-Sender: (on file)
- Date: Mon, 29 May 2000 03:23:03 -0700
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- From: "James H. Foreman"
- It's been almost a year, but I'm still here, fighting
the good fight.
- The Daily Skeptic died a horrible, slow death, but it's
been resurrected as The Skeptic Report. You might be happy to know that
I just completed a story about your recent article that appeared on Sightings.com.
Your article is well written, but it's wrong in a lot of places. Check
out our rebuttle:
- Jim Foreman
- Editor, The Skeptic Report
- His rebuttal is published as follows...
M A Y 2 9 , 2 0 0 0
- From the UFOs Suck File
- SORRY, IT'S STILL A BELIEF
- James Neff, the webmaster of rense.com,
is a gentleman with whom we've clashed before. He's always been courteous
and friendly in our dealings with him (except for that time he got really
pissed off at us*), and he is one of the more intelligent, articulate paranormalites
out there in the Internet's electronic soup. He also does some nifty artwork.
- The reason we bring him up is for this nice little article
he wrote for Jeff Rense's website (you can read it here) entitled "You
Don't Have to 'Believe' Anymore." This article basically extolls the
virtues of UFO worship, though he devotes the article to damning that anyone
could "believe" in UFOs at all. According to him, the existence
of UFOs is a proven fact, not open to belief at all. Here, Mr. Neff is
just plain wrong.
- OK, we'll grant that UFOs (in this, we mean Unidentified
Flying Objects) do exist. There are strange things in the sky that people
see and then report to their local branch of MUFON. Maybe these objects
are vehicles, or are at least unnatural phenomena built by intelligent
species. Some of them. Maybe. Does this mean that those few that are actually
physical, manufactured objects made by humans? Probably. Does this mean
that they're created by aliens? Absolutely not.
- But rather than condemn Mr. Neff without any corroboration,
let's let his own words convict him:
- "It takes absolutely no leap of
faith, no mustering of imagination or whimsy for any rational mind to realize
what is already a proven reality: UFOs exist and are as real and the Pacific
Ocean or the Rocky Mountains..."
Dated Note: 12/18/03 -- Given time, I have revised this statement based
on empirical facts. I overstated the case. I have replaced it with what
I consider far more approriate and accurate descriptives...
- "It takes absolutely
no leap of faith, no mustering of imagination or whimsy for any rational
mind to realize what is already a proven reality: Unidentified Flying Objects
of an inexplicable class and character exist and are as real and verified
as comets or the rings of Saturn (and may have been around just as long)."
- James Neff
- OK, maybe you're on to something there. Like we said,
we'll admit that people are seeing stuff.
- "...(and may have been here just
- What? Where's the corroboration for that? Does my rational
mind accept that? Hell, no! Sneaking in undocumented "whimsy"
into a somewhat corroborated statement of fact is just not very nice.
- "The issue of visitors to this planet,
wherever (or whenever) they originate, is as vital an issue as any world
geopolitical, religious, or economic affair or policy. In fact, it is probably
far more important."
- Ah, yes, an undocumented, unreliably recorded and outright
unproved event is definitely more important than, say, nuclear war or something.
Realize this, Mr. Neff, UFOs aren't alien creations until you (or someone
else) proves it. It ain't been proven yet. Case closed.
- "What remains is a nearly a century
of 'expert' interaction with flying saucers (and other shaped craft) under
extremely scientific, verifiable, and examinable circumstances. I am speaking
of the countless military and commercial pilot interactions with these
remarkable, unknown machines, in situations where often entirely empirical
testing of data has been recorded. One could not ask for a much better
'test lab' for the UFO phenomenon than in the cockpit of a military fighter
or commercial airliner.
- In both situations there are one, or
more, specialists in the field of atmospherics and aerodynamics in a 'flying
laboratory,' well-equipped with scientifically-approved and understood
instrumentation which can record and note verifiable time frames, locations,
altitudes, longitudes, latitudes of the UFO phenomena. Additionally, and
obviously, there is also (in countless cases) verification by radar --
which consitututes a second 'laboratory' of qualified, educated and capable
specialists interpreting data.
- Apart from pilots in their 'flying laboratories'
and their ground-based radar counterparts, there is now also the testimony
of astronauts who are increasingly detailing UFO evidence and information
outside of the stratosphere.
- From these three sources alone, there
exists undeniable proof of the 'flying saucer.' "
- No, that's not true at all. Other than grainy photographs,
radar ghosts and eyewitness testimony (which is always highly questionable...ask
any lawyer) I am not aware of anything empirical or scientific. Simply
noting that something is there, flying around, or might be flying around,
in no way proves (or even logically suggests) that it is an alien spacecraft.
- "Millions of dollars are spent every
year by air force units around the world from every advanced nation to
intercept these aerial interlopers. Countries do not spend that kind of
money chasing Venus, 'heat inversions' or entertaining myths. To suggest
so is simply preposterous."
- Prove it. Can't? I didn't think so. It's not like a paranormalite
to cite national governments as reliable about anything. I guess they do
when it serves their purposes.
- "We accept without reservation the
existence of atomic and subatomic particles which only a privileged handful
of experts in that field of study have ever 'seen' with the most advanced
- Uh huh. This doesn't explain why UFO supporters assume
that because these flying things are unidentified, that they also have
little gray men flying them around. That's "simply preposterous."
- "Granted, there is far more 'scientific'
data and knowledge of atomic and subatomic particles than exists for flying
saucers -- but data is data, and evidence is evidence -- and we have no
trouble in trusting and being dependent upon the experiences and veracity
of the physicists and scientists involved."
- I love it when paranormalites put the word scientific
in quotations. Like it's just some buzz word that scientists attach to
things to make them seem valid.
"Like the Tasmanian Tiger, we now know they "are"... but
to capture one for more advanced study proves to be essentially impossible."
- Uh, the Tasmanian Tiger "isn't," anymore, since
it's extinct, and we know for a fact that it was wiped out by Europeans,
since we still have their pelts. I met a guy who said he had an alien pelt
once, but it looked more like a bolt of suede leather left out in the rain.
- "However, history shows us that
the flying saucer has been coming and going on planet earth for generations,
and centuries, which rules out the idea that all flying saucers are manmade
craft of a clandestine technology."
- Pure speculation. There's no evidence for any of that
at all. There are also some pretty cool accounts of vampires, but close
examination by scientists familiar with body decay and pathology have shown
that vampires probably weren't supernatural. Thus, historical accounts
can't be trusted without modern analysis.
- What really saddens us about the flavor of this whole
article is the tendency for the people responsible for the dissemination
of UFO information to wholly embrace the scanty evidence for Unidentified
Flying Objects and then similarly assume, without any corroboration, that
the objects are alien in origin. That's inexcusable, unscientific, and
just plain unfair.
I love a skeptic, and consider myself one. A big one. It takes alot to
convince me of anything. I'm not even sure you are real, Jim :)
- You write:
- "This article basically extolls
the virtues of UFO worship, though he devotes the article to damning that
anyone could "believe" in UFOs at all.
God forbid ANYONE "worships" UFOs as you claim I have encouraged!
My entire point is that the UFO is undeserving of such mentality... because
of the weight of evidence.
Now, allow me to defend myself only on two points, the rest of which I'll
leave to the readers to evaluate using that wonderful gray matter between
their ears. My admonition: BE SKEPTICAL. That's the entire point. EDUCATE
yourself on the facts. Once the facts are in evidence, you will come to
the same conclusion. Either that, or, turn in denial and ignore the truth.
- (1) I make it very clear that we have in no way defined
the ORIGINS of the UFO; this has NOT been verified or proven -- admittedly
it is entirely speculative that they are "alien" craft from other
planets or 'outer space'. But what I DO say is that since these craft have
been recorded historically dating far beyond our own industrial revolution,
much less the invention of manned flight, we can surmise that these are
not all "ours" (ie, man made craft). You immediately debunk this
idea. Well, history is on my side here. Anyone can crack a Bible and read
about Ezekiel's UFO experience... anyone can read the Upanishads of the
Hindu's and read about 'air cars' powered by an energy source called 'sidis'...
and if one really wants to educate oneself on the true history of UFOs,
you can read quite a lot in this excellent NIGHTWATCH
article entitled "UFOs
Through The Ages...A Timeline." Because human beings have been
describing this same phenomena for so many centuries persuades me that
the phenomena is at the very least not a production of modern technology.
It remains to determine what they are, where they come from, etc. So we
are in agreement -- your first statement is:
"OK, we'll grant that UFOs (in this, we mean Unidentified Flying Objects)
do exist. There are strange things in the sky that people see and then
report to their local branch of MUFON. Maybe these objects are vehicles,
or are at least unnatural phenomena built by intelligent species."
- (2) My second point is to rise to your challenge of proof
that the military/air forces around the world spend millions of dollars
dealing with the UFO phenomena. These events are on record. Stanton Friedman
and many other researchers have amassed such data, and this is nothing
new or earthshaking (to the UFO educated). Iraqi & Israeli Air Force,
as well as the French government, have been entirely open about their UFO
encounters. Several of our own astronauts have openly told about their
encounters with UFOs when in the Air Force. Major Donald E. Kehoe spent
the latter part of his life documenting such cases provoked by personal
experience. Filer's Files frequently
and archivally have records of such events. These aren't buried someplace!
They've been known to anyone wanting to learn about it for years. Do you
have any idea how much it costs to send your best fighters after a radar
detected interloper traveling at 3000 mph over sensitive airspace (only
to close in on it and discover it's not a missile, but a silver disc with
brilliant lights playing cat and mouse)? Any person in the air force will
confirm this fact: it costs millions, even if it only happens a few times
a year. This website is overflowing with these cases and accounts, as are
many others. The documentation is openly available. The witnesses, expert.
The accounts, verified.
I will not defend the idea that UFOs are proven to be alien spacecraft.
I don't know what they are. I simply know they 'ARE' and that historically
the evidence for their existence reveals that, whatever their origin, it
is entirely unrelated to our own technological status here on earth. Hence,
it is not a "belief" system. It is a rational assembly of facts
with a reasonable conclusion. Flying Saucers (and other shapes and forms
of this same aerial phenomena) EXIST. They being of extraterrestrial origin
is, indeed, a speculation; as is, a metaphysical conclusion; as is a phenomenon
of nature. My personal speculation, based on the evidence, is that these
are craft with intelligent occupants and/or guided by intelligent means
which is not human; there is ample evidence of intelligent control behind
As I said, what we do with this reality is squarely on the table. I appreciate
your skeptical proddings. Keeps me on my toes :)
PS: The Tasmanian Tiger is "believed" to be extinct. But so was
the damned Coelacanth, captured in 1938.
- *This "pissed off" issue was a FORUM abuse
related issue. I could not link to their example because of the kind of
frames The Skeptic Report was using, but anyone interested in such soap
opera and longdead issues can find it at the original posting of Jim's
rebuttal to my piece.
Glenn (Name/email on file)
- The calibur of evidence is the evidence, not its source.
UFO documentation is riff with source, which is all but meaningless.
Nancy Reagan will tell you there is something to astrology, the Flat-Earth
society was founded by a Phd, and astronaut Edgar Mitchell believed in
mental telepathy (and later, a lot of other arcane things). If source is
proof of anything, then just about every thing imaginable must be true!
- Joe Blow says NASA is covering up. Joe Blow knows because
he use to work for NASA. More source baloney. UFO buffs have to realize
that Joe Blow can say anything he wants. But until Mr. Blow drags out the
evidence, it is meaningless.
- **** I was recently sent a video clip which supposedly
showed a UFO crashing in the desert. They sent it to the wrong fellow as,
despite the doctoring done to the video, I recognized it. I had watched
that video of an unmanned F-100 crashing after being launched from a ramp
possibly several dozen times. The UFO scene is so hoplessly mired in hoaxes
that it's a wonder there are any skeptics left who bother to debunk the
videos and pictures. The field is being left to the hoaxers who are busy
trying to hoax other hoaxers.
- I'd like to believe in visiting aliens, but not the ones
being presented in all these tales of the day. Thankfully, I don't have
to. I've looked at most of the so-called evidence, and I'm afraid all the
UFO community has is its tales. Stories of aliens do not aliens make.
- You sure must have read 'another' article than the one
I wrote. I said nothing of photos and nothing of 'tales.' I stated explicitly
that even if we toss OUT ALL photographic and even credible civilian eye
witness 'accounts and reports,' there remains a monumental amount of recorded,
documented data and evidence from experts in aerodynamics with cooaberative
radar to validate that these craft exist and do exceed all 'publicly known'
modern technological achievements. The interaction of air force units the
world over demonstrate the UFO is real. You don't scramble to intercept
popular imagination or hoaxes. You don't have seasoned pilots return to
the ground stunned by what they've encountered, and their experiences validated
by scientific instrumentation if it's all just the planet Venus or swamp
gas. The evidence is sufficient to stand up in any court of law.
From: "John Doe"
- Subject: Rebuttal to a Rebuttal
- CC: email@example.com
- " Sorry, It's Still A Belief " (..and other
- Mr. Foreman,
- You're a pretty cynical individual, I respect that and
applaud it in it's many forms. However, I hate to be the one to inform
you of this---you, Mr. Foreman, are the one who is dead wrong on the subject
of UFO's. You, Mr. Foreman, are the one who has not done the research,
devoted the time, nor spoken with the individuals whom this entire field
of LEGITIMATE research has affected. I'm so sick and tired of people blatantly
damning a subject of which they have NO UNDERSTANDING. None. I'm sure you
and Philip Klass would get along wonderfully...you should ask him where
his financial backing and funding for his "loosely" (at best)
based organization comes from. After he dodges the question several times
he'll tell you "the US Government." It's no secret, it's a known
fact. He's a skeptic such as yourself. Of course, his alterior motives
are less than constructive. I respect people who are not afraid to ask
questions and probe subjects until they are positive there is no shell
left unturned I do not respect individuals who jump on a bandwagon, which
is all you're doing here, so that they can sleep easy at night knowing
that there is "no such thing as aliens", you can rest easy because
you think you've seen all there is to see, heard all there is to hear,
and read all there is to read. You are so far from the truth, so far from
reality, I think you're going to need a map to get back.
- I used to be a skeptic such as you, so did my father,
an engineer. Of course he changed his tune quickly while he witnessed a
formation of UFO's light up the sky above Washington D.C. in 1952, along
with thousands and thousands of other witnesses. Funny how your entire
outlook on the world you live in (or should I say bubble) can be instantly
changed when it actually happens to you. It's like telling people "ya
know, rolling your car 4 times at 65mph isn't that bad, it's surviveable,
I don't know what all the hooplah is..." Then the day comes that it
actually happens to you, do you think you're still going to retain that
viewpoint? I don't think so.
- I have said this in the past, and I'm going to say it
again because self-styled researchers and egotistical skeptics just don't
seem to listen the first time around---do the research *before* you start
making claims. It's so easy and comfortable for you to sit back and say,
"yeah, well this doesn't exist, and that never happened, and this
was just swamp gas, blah, blah..." C'mon, you talk about being logical
when in fact all you're really accomplishing is a wonderful demonstration
of the antithesis of practical logic. (I think that was a required course
in my second year of college) Ruling EVERYTHING out gets you nowhere, you'll
be backpedaling the rest of your life with that philosophy.
- I have had two sightings of my own within the past 6
years, both of which were witnessed with other people. One, my brother,
the other a good friend of mine who happens to be a police officer, now
in Florida. The latter sighting occurred from the window of a 767 at 33,000
feet over New Mexico in 1995. I can tell you what it wasn't, but I can't
tell you with 100% certainty what is was either. It had to be unmanned,
or it had to have full control of the laws of inertia, because any human
being (or animal) would have been splattered against the back wall of the
craft with the g's it pulled. So, do you see me sitting here saying; "yeah,
these little aliens were waving at me out the window before they shot off
at high Mach instantaneously..." No. It could have been a chimp flying
the damn thing for all I know, but it would be one dead chimp if it were!
That's called "keeping an open mind" and staying open to ALL
possibilities, not just the most obvious.
- Bottomline is, this was an excercise in hearing myself
speak because (and forgive any offense), people like you will never admit
that you are aware of unidentified craft entering and exiting the atmosphere
of this planet on a daily basis. If a craft landed on your front lawn,
you STILL probably wouldn't believe your own eyes. I have pity for you,
personally. I hope you can get over that same skeptical "phase"
that I was in and maybe see what's really going on around you. I hope you
do, really. If you want to know more about what it is you're trying to
talk about, do the research, because so far all you've done is make unfounded
claims of your own, with no proof of your own otherwise. The US Government
tried to explain away UFO's as well...it was called Project Blue Book,
(this is Ufology 101). If you'd like to take a crack at explaining away
the THOUSANDS of cases THEY couldn't explain, then I'm sure we'd all be
interested to see what you come up with, in fact, so would the US Air Force.
The proof is here, if you've managed to get a look at ANY of the NASA footage
from STS flights of the past 6 years, there is literally hours worth of
footage of unexplained objects entering and exiting the upper atmosphere
of Earth. This was straight footage downloaded by numerous individuals
around the world off of NASA select TV, raw footage from space, in realtime.
I don't think you can get any more 'real' than that.
- The evidence is out there, you just haven't taken your
blinders off long enough to give it a second (or first) look. If you'd
viewed the data, done the research and THEN made the statements you have--it
would at least be credible, but all you're doing is playing Devil's advocate
with an empty revolver. Where's your ammo? Where is your support? It surely
can't be from your wonderful Geocities website (c'mon, in this day and
age you can pay $20 a month for a REAL hosting service, don't bring a knife
to a gunfight). I can't believe you have the gall to put down the sightings.com
website and call it "amaturish" when your own site is utterly
ridiculous. The key is to drive traffic TO your site, not AWAY. In your
case, I'm glad there is very little interest. Aside from namecalling, what
valid content do you have on your site? I can't seem to find any.
- You talk about fighting a war....what war? We already
know what's going on, we've all seen the facts and relevant evidence, you're
just lobbing water balloons over the wall at us! There is no war, only
you trying to clear your mind by making the world safe from us "paranormalites",
by debunking everything first, then maybe looking at the facts later if
it suits your own agenda. You're the one sticking quotes around a cutesy
little word you made up hoping it sounds "scientific", not us.
You don't see UFO researchers running around trying to debunk skeptics,
you don't see us making up immature names to tag skeptics with. If you're
going to play with the big boys, at least play by the rules and don't be
an ass about it. There is plenty of mutual respect to go around for everyone,
your e-mail to Mr. Neff was not indicative of that.
- Good luck, and happy hunting -- for more excuses.
- Best Regards,
- A Concerned (Veteran) Researcher & Artist