|
The following article is a detailed analysis of the
lead article on UFOs replete with logical
fallacies, fraud, and out-and-out lies.
Note to the reader. My methodology here is to present
the author’s original statement in full before attempting a rebuttal
of it. The only statement of the author’s I have edited for brevity
occurs in Statement 9. Otherwise the author’s original article is
presented herein complete and unedited. To view the author’s
original article in context visit
http://www.world-mysteries.com/sci_6.htm.
-- Dirk
Biddle (BBsc).
A critical analysis of a skeptical report on the UFO phenomenon
by Dirk Biddle (BBsc)
NOTE:
Printable PDF
version of this article (190KB)
Statement 1: A UFO is an Unidentified Flying Object which
has been identified as a possible or actual alien spacecraft.
Rebuttal 1: This is abject nonsense right off the bat. A
UFO is exactly what it purports to be: an Unidentified Flying
Object. Being unidentified, the object then, by definition, cannot
possibly be “identified as a possible or actual alien spacecraft”,
or for that matter any other known, unknown, speculative, natural,
or supernatural phenomenon whatsoever.
With the author committing such a basic logical error in his very
first sentence, the reader can immediately sense this is probably
not going to be an intellectual discussion on the author’s behalf.
Note from the Editor:
After receipt of this article, and due to the criticism it
contained, the first paragraph of the lead UFO article was changed
slightly by the site editor in an effort to overcome
the logical inconsistencies pointed out.
Statement 2: Such objects include meteors, disintegrating
satellites, flocks of birds, aircraft, lights, weather balloons, and
just about anything moving within the visible band of
electromagnetism.
Rebuttal 2: Incredibly, just as the author falsely defines
UFOs as “possible or actual alien spacecraft”, he now intends to
re-define them, as “meteors, disintegrating satellites, flocks of
birds…” But notice something else, it is actually “possible or
actual alien spacecraft” that he re-defines as “meteors,
disintegrating satellites, flocks of birds…” Obviously the author is
very poorly educated in the English language. Quite possibly English
is not his first language and this article has been translated from
an original by someone with an equally poor grasp of the language,
but when writing articles that consist of definitions and logical
argument, this poor grasp of English is critical to meaning. One
would suggest the author find a person better qualified to translate
from his mother tongue (whatever that is) to English, the current
translation obviously not making even high school grade.
In the interests of brevity and so as not to bore the reader
unduly, from this point I will concentrate on the substance of the
author’s meaning and merely take for granted his probable illiteracy
in the English language. Thus grammatical errors and errors of
logical structure, such as those already encountered will be
ignored.
Notwithstanding, to reiterate, a UFO is unidentified and
therefore cannot be defined as “meteors, disintegrating satellites,
flocks of birds, aircraft, lights, weather balloons, and just about
anything moving within the visible band of electromagnetism”. As a
whole, this statement by the author is of course a wildly overstated
generalization, for which the author subsequently provides no
substantiation whatsoever. This is also a well known
pseudoscientific trick, designed to set up a bogus negative
association in the reader’s mind in the hope that the reader will
simply take for granted the author’s false and misleading statements
without examining the evidence for him or herself. I therefore
strongly encourage the reader to explore the evidence for him or
herself. There are many good websites out there and
http://www.ufoskeptic.org/
is as good a place to begin as any.
Statement 3: There are as many photographs of UFOs and
they are of equal quality: blurs and forgeries.
Rebuttal 3: This statement is patently false. There exist
many databases containing hundreds of very clear, high resolution
UFO photographs and videos, many of which have been examined by
qualified image specialists and have been determined to be real
images of unidentified flying objects.
It becomes very clear that the author has not conducted even the
smallest amount of research into this topic, otherwise the falsehood
of this statement would be obvious to him (see
http://www.ufoevidence.org/photographs/section/recent/photo411.htm
for just one example of the many information databases the author
might have investigated that would falsify his statement).
Even as early on in the article as this, it is already apparent
that either the author has conducted no research into the topic, and
therefore his statements on the matters at hand must naturally be
dismissed as mere ill-informed opinion, or the author has done his
research and is then perpetrating a direct fraud on the unsuspecting
reader, in which case he naturally cannot be believed in anything
further he has to say on the topic. I will let the reader decide for
themselves into which category the author actually falls – willfully
ignorant or just plain fraudster.
Statement 4: Other physical evidence, such as alleged
debris from alien crashes, or burn marks on the ground from alien
landings, or implants in bodies of alien abductees, have turned out
to be quite terrestrial, including forgeries.
Rebuttal 4: Again, the author has either not conducted his
research or is an out-and-out liar. There exists in fact a
substantial category of documented physical artefacts and physical
trace evidence allegedly left by UFOs (a good place to begin perhaps
would be at:
http://www.ufoevidence.org/topics/physicaltracecases.htm ).
Some of this evidence may indeed turn out to be forgery, but it does
not logically follow that all of the evidence is then an example of
forgery. This logical fallacy, committed by the author, is a well
known pseudoscientific method of argument, designed to gull the slow
witted. The reason why it is illogical can be demonstrated by the
following anecdote.
A doctor discovers one day that some of the patients presenting
to his surgery are feigning an illness to get out of work. These
people come in to his office, apparently exhibiting all the signs of
the flu, but in fact they are not ill at all. On discovering this,
the doctor must, (according to the author’s logic), conclude that
there is no such thing as the flu.
This is patently absurd and is of course based on a logical
fallacy. That is, if there exists one example of a forgery, then the
whole phenomenon must be considered a forgery. Of course this is the
argument most effectively employed in the crop circle debate. A
patent absurdity.
Statement 5: The main reasons for believing in UFOs are
the testimony of many people, the inability to distinguish science
fiction from science, the willingness to trust men telling fantastic
stories, the ability to distrust all contrary sources as being part
of a conspiracy to withhold the truth, and a desire for contact with
the world above. Belief in aliens in UFOs is akin to belief in
supernatural beings.
Rebuttal 5: Here the author concatenates a variety of
alleged reasons as to why people might believe in UFOs. Not only
that, he contends these are the main reasons for such a belief.
Leaving aside the fact that the main reason for a belief in UFOs is
actually the sheer weight of documented, reliable evidence - and
taking the author’s purported “reasons” one by one:
i) the testimony of people. Surely the author can have no real
argument with this. The testimony of qualified, reliable witnesses
is one of the cornerstones of our modern justice systems. Further,
qualified, reliable eyewitness testimony often forms the very
foundation of scientific investigation into a phenomenon.
ii) the inability to distinguish science fiction from science.
Let us take a moment to explore what the author is actually implying
here. Is the author seriously contending that qualified, highly
experienced UFO researchers believe that science fiction movies (eg;
Star Trek, Star Wars, I Robot, Dr. Who, etc.) are actually
documentaries? Or is the author contending that qualified, highly
experienced UFO researchers believe that science fiction novels (eg;
I Robot, Red Dwarf, Life, the Universe and Everything, etc.) are
non-fiction, scholarly treatises? Obviously, on close examination,
this assertion by the author carries no weight, but the author’s
intention is quite clear: to baselessly equate the UFO phenomenon in
the reader’s mind with fiction.
iii) the willingness to trust men telling fantastic stories.
This argument hinges on two un-stated hypotheses. First, that
qualified, highly experienced UFO researchers do no investigation
into the veracity of their sources (unlike the author of course!)
and second, that all those who relate UFO experiences are telling
“fantastic” tales. This latter is of course simply a re-statement of
the unreliability of eyewitness testimony argument, and the former
is so obviously a false, even ridiculous, assertion that one perhaps
begins to feel pity for an author, so narrow minded in world view,
that he cannot think logically about what he is actually contending.
iv) the ability to distrust all contrary sources as being part of
a conspiracy to withhold the truth. This contention hinges first on
the un-stated hypothesis that there is in fact contrary evidence to
the UFO phenomenon. This conjecture is patently false and here is
why. While it is true that many so called UFOs have subsequently
been explained as misidentified natural or man-made phenomena, there
remains a large body of sightings for which no such explanation can
be found. Such UFOs of course remain unidentified and therefore, by
definition, there can be no contrary evidence against them. Any
evidence can only be toward identification. It is then the sheer
number, type and veracity of the unexplained sightings that then
contributes toward the development of an “alien visitation”
hypothesis.
Second, we have the stated contention that UFO researchers
believe in a conspiracy to withhold the truth. One wonders if this
actually might not be a justified conclusion, for if the author
himself, a contrary source, with his obvious logical fallacies, his
lack of consistent argument for the negative, and his sheer
determination, despite the evidence against him, to continue his
nay-saying course, is not part of such a conspiracy, then what
alternative conclusion are we to draw? Unless of course he is
completely without rational thought on the matter and continues on
from sheer madness or idiocy. One other hypothesis of course
remains, and that is that he is himself an alien. This contention is
perhaps not as crazy as it may seem at first when we explore the
following argument.
v) a desire for contact with the world above. In direct
falsification of this statement, it may be stated that in truth
there are a number of technically qualified, highly experienced
researchers that actually remain justifiably fearful of what the UFO
phenomenon portends; in that the phenomenon seems to be able to
exert a certain demonstrated control over humankind, in the face of
which we are seemingly helpless to react. Thus, far from a desire
for contact, these researchers actively fear the possible
consequences of such contact. Indeed, given the evidence, should not
we all?
Besides, and to lighten the mood a little, in my (admittedly
limited) experience, no serious UFO researcher has indicated to me
that the author’s statement is a primary reason for their “belief”
in the UFO phenomenon, that is if it plays any part in their belief
system at all.
vi) Belief in aliens in UFOs is akin to belief in supernatural
beings. Really? Why? Just because the author says so? Where is the
peer reviewed, documented theoretical evidence that links UFOs to a
belief in the supernatural? Just because the author states it to be
so, does not mean it is so. Leaving aside the semantic difficulties
in the statement, exactly how does a belief in extraterrestrial
intelligences in control of technological craft equate to a belief
in the supernatural? It does not of course, only in the author’s
evidentially weak mind.
Statement 6: UFOlogy is the mythology of the space age.
Rebuttal 6: The Concise Oxford Dictionary defines myth as:
“Purely fictitious narrative, usually involving supernatural persons
etc. embodying popular ideas on natural phenomena etc.” and
mythology as: “Body of myths relating to a particular person or
subject; study of myths.”
One can clearly see that the author believes and means to imply
UFOlogy to be a study of the purely fictitious. Of course the author
has so far offered no evidence for this claim. On the contrary,
there is a huge body of well documented, scientifically
substantiated evidence that indicates the UFO phenomenon to be a
very real phenomenon. However, many serious researchers, with some
justification, refuse to be drawn to the “alien” hypothesis as an
explanation for this phenomenon. Nevertheless, none of these
researchers deny that a real phenomenon is actually occurring. Thus,
while the phenomenon itself is not fictitious, it remains possible
(although evidentially improbable) that the alien hypothesis to
explain it is. The original statement by the author shows up, once
again, his inability to grasp a true logical argument. For example
he could have used the logical argument I have just postulated to
refute the alien visitation hypothesis. But his grasp of logic is
apparently so weak that he did not see the real argument within his
own fallacious one.
Statement 7: Rather than angels...we now
have...extraterrestrials.
Rebuttal 7: What rubbish! Of course we have both. The
primary fallacy in this statement is that in the real world such
beliefs are not an either/or proposition. There currently co-exist
in the world believers and non-believers alike in one, or other, in
both, or in neither. The author’s statement actually has no direct
bearing on UFOlogy at all. It is merely a duplicitous attempt by the
author, by an implied appeal to the rationalist in us all, to effect
a link in the reader’s mind between an implied misguided belief in
“angels” and a supposedly similarly misguided belief in
“extraterrestrials”.
The series of dots in the author’s statement are of course meant
to convey the ridicule of a stand-up comedian, timing out his
delivery of a punch-line, “…wait for it…” and the audience is
supposed to fall about laughing. This descent into ridicule, in
place of well thought out argument, is another well known trick of
the pseudo scientist. It is however a childish prank, belonging to
the schoolyard bully who pokes his out tongue and derisively cries
“Ya, ya ya…”. Of course, just like the schoolyard bully, the author
hopes for a violent response, by which he can then legitimately
criticize his protagonist, but of course we the readers are above
that and the author is left only looking all the more foolish.
Statement 8: It seeks to give man deeper roots and
bearings in the universe. It is an expression of our hunger for
mystery...our hope for transcendental meaning. The ancient gods have
been transformed into space voyagers.
Rebuttal 8: Here the author pretends a philosophical
treatise. But there exists no philosophy to support his statements.
Quite the contrary, cultural anthropologists will inform you that
the UFO phenomenon actually threatens to have a very opposite effect
to that which the author supposes. That is; the UFO phenomenon
actually threatens to tear man’s place in the universe from his
grasp. It threatens to reduce to dust his self-perceived
pre-eminence and egocentric world view. It actively removes mystery
by replacing it with a rational explanation. It destroys
transcendental meaning by reducing the heavens and spiritual being
to the mere material; material beings, in manufactured space craft,
traveling from other worlds. Further, the ancient gods, far from
being “transformed into space voyagers”, have simply become
irrelevant in a rational modern world. These are not gods, these are
not supernatural spirits, here lies not a mystery, this is not
transcendental meaning… in fact the alien hypothesis postulates that
these are solid, real, down-to-earth, intelligent beings, traveling
in technologically developed space craft. The mystery that remains
then is only to be found deep within author’s mind.
Statement 9: The author, in this section of the article,
proceeds to quote Dr. Allen J. Hynek and his definition of what
constitutes a UFO. Then the author launches into an argument, the
essence of which is that; all the available evidence has not been
explored by UFOlogists. If all the evidence were explored, the alien
hypothesis would be found to be untenable. At last, a logically
sound argument…or have I created that soundness for him by
re-stating in precise terms? Never mind, it matters not. The author
then goes on to list what he perceives to be evidence UFOlogists
purportedly rely upon to support the alien hypothesis but evidence
that a “skeptic” (sic) would consider unreliable.
Rebuttal 9: To support his contention, the list of
perceived unreliable evidence which UFOlogists rely on to support
their own (alien) hypothesis consists:
(1) the testimony of people who claim to have seen aliens and/or
alien spacecraft. Here the author (once again), without
corroboration or considered explanation, is merely reiterating the
unreliability of eyewitness testimony argument.
(2) facts about the type of people who give the testimony. Of
course the author, by impugning by implication the character of the
eyewitnesses, is in fact merely restating the unreliable eyewitness
testimony argument (again…).
(3) the lack of contrary testimony or physical evidence that
would either explain the sighting by conventional means (weather
balloon, prank, meteor shower, reflection of light, etc.) or
discredit the reliability of the eyewitness. Ignoring for a moment
the semantic difficulties within this statement and concentrating on
just the author’s apparent meaning; with this statement, the author
simply restates, in different words, his original contention as
supporting evidence for his original contention… but wait, let us
examine this a little more closely. First, the basic logical
structure of the author’s argument as it includes this statement and
put as simply as possible, is: “All the evidence has not been
explored because all the evidence has not been explored”. This is
hardly a convincing argument. In fact it is so very obviously a
logically flawed argument (technically, a circular argument) that it
constitutes no argument at all.
Second, this section of the article was supposed to contain a
list of examples of reasons UFOlogists use to support their alien
visitation hypothesis, and that a skeptic would consider not to meet
strict evidential requirements. The actual statement constitutes no
such thing. That is, it certainly does not constitute a reason for a
belief in the alien hypothesis – as the author told us it was going
to be – and in fact it is quite difficult to make proper sense of it
at all in this context. What is it that the author is actually
saying here? One is lead inexorably to the conclusion that the
author has very little understanding of his own objectives in this
section of the article and that his grasp of what constitutes a
valid logical argument seems totally non-existent.
(4) alleged weaknesses in the arguments of skeptics against the UFOlogists. The last item is irrelevant to the issue, yet it plays a
disproportionately large role in UFOlogy.
First, once again, this
statement does not contribute to the author’s own stated aim in this
section of the article, which was that it was to constitute a list
of reasons for a belief in the alien hypothesis that a sceptic would
not consider able to fulfil strict evidential requirements. In other
words, this statement does not constitute a reason for a belief in
the alien hypothesis. What does it constitute then? Well, we do know
that the author has the temerity to contend that any weaknesses in
his own arguments are irrelevant to the topic at hand. Imagine that!
Someone approaches you and states “I do not believe your hypothesis
concerning reality to be correct. I have no legitimate arguments to
show you how your hypothesis might be incorrect, but that is
irrelevant, because your beliefs are simply wrong”. Apart from being
mind bogglingly boring and irritating, it is, once again, an example
of a circular argument and completely without substance. You would
probably consider this person to be an idiot at best. You might even
pity such a person for being unable to grasp the fundamentals of
basic social interaction. Certainly you would not take seriously any
contention that this person might have to make on the subject of
your belief systems. I therefore simply ask you, the reader, why
then should we take anything this author has to say on the subject
of UFOs seriously? Especially if, by his own admission, he as no
sound arguments to support his own propositions? For the author to
cry foul because he has no logical arguments to make on the subject
is the height of hypocrisy.
Statement 10: It seems reasonable to believe that the only reason
we cannot explain these sightings by conventional means is because
we do not have all the evidence - not because these sightings are
probably due to alien visitations. If we had all the evidence, we
would probably be able to explain the sightings by some conventional
means. The fact that we cannot prove that Mr. and Mrs. Barney Hill
were not abducted by aliens, does not support the hypothesis that
they were abducted by aliens.
Rebuttal 10: Where to start on this illogical mess? First, the
general thrust of the statement is clear; and that is a reiteration
of the author’s contention that UFOlogists have not taken into
account the sum total of all the available evidence, and that if
they did, they would discover their alien hypothesis to be
untenable. Let us pause for a moment of recollection. In previous
incarnations of this contention, has the author provided any
rational arguments in support? The only one that I can think of -
that even remotely touches on the subject - is the unreliability of
eyewitness testimony argument. But the author has repeated this
argument in various guises ad nauseaum, and has never provided a
rational, considered exploration of exactly why eyewitness testimony
might be considered to be unreliable, and under what conditions, and
in what circumstances. To the contrary, it is the sheer quantity of
technically qualified, trained, observer status eyewitness testimony
that provides the alien hypothesis with some considerable
legitimacy. So where exactly is the author’s evidence that UFOlogists do not take into account the sum total of all available
evidence? Exactly, the author has supplied none, and therefore we
must, as rational, impartial skeptics, reject the author’s
contention until proof has been supplied. But now let us explore the
author’s argument in finer detail.
Contention 1: It seems reasonable to believe that the only reason
we cannot explain these sightings by conventional means is because
we do not have all the evidence - not because these sightings are
probably due to alien visitations.
The first section of this statement is almost (finally!) logical.
Indeed, we cannot explain many UFO sightings by conventional means
because it is true that we have no evidence to indicate that it is a
conventional phenomenon that we are observing. The contentious part
in this statement is of course in the author’s use of the word
“only”. That is definitely not a logical part of the statement. For
example, it is clear that lack of evidence might not be the only
reason for being unable to explain the UFO phenomenon as
conventional. For example, our own perceptual limitations might play
a role in the phenomenon’s interpretability. But let us pass this by
as a minor slip by the author in an otherwise welcome rational
statement.
Contention 2: If we had all the evidence, we would probably be
able to explain the sightings by some conventional means.
Here the
author has turned clairvoyant, has traveled into the future, and
has there determined that future knowledge has turned out to support
a conventional interpretation of the UFO phenomenon. This is of
course poppycock and a totally irrational line of argument. For
example, it is equally likely that future knowledge will turn out to
actually support the alien hypothesis, or indeed, that future
knowledge will turn out to support neither the conventional
interpretation nor the alien hypothesis, but something entirely
different and completely outside of our current knowledge
altogether. Moreover, it is the current weight of reliable and well
documented evidence that tends to support the alien hypothesis. We
do not need to travel to the future to gather this evidence, it
exists in the here and now. The author has only to conduct a minimal
amount of research to discover this fact for himself (for example a
good place to start would be the website at:
http://www.ufoskeptic.org/ ).
Contention 3: The fact that we cannot prove that Mr. and Mrs.
Barney Hill were not abducted by aliens, does not support the
hypothesis that they were abducted by aliens.
Here the author
irrationally turns conventional scientific wisdom on its’ head and
hopes that we, the reader, will not note this logical error.
Nevertheless, for interest’s sake, if nothing else, let us first
refresh our memory. Betty and Barney Hill, in September 1961,
claimed that they were abducted by aliens after stopping their car
on Interstate Route 3 in New Hampshire (US) to observe what they
thought originally might have been an airplane or military
helicopter, but subsequently could only suppose to be a UFO with
alien beings inside. Their subsequent experiences were to become one
of the very first extensively documented and researched of the
classic abduction cases. The Hill’s abduction exhibited all the
hallmarks of the classic abduction experience: missing time, alien
“examination” and specimen collection, information exchange, and
physical and mental pathology following the experience. Following
their experience, and remembering only parts of their ordeal, once
at home, the Hill’s telephoned the nearby Pease Air Force Base to
report a UFO and also contacted a national UFO group. Eventually
they also sought medical help. What then followed was a series of
comprehensive and extensively documented research efforts by
qualified medical examiners, numerous government agencies and
reputable private UFO interests alike. Betty, a 41 year old welfare
worker, and Barney, her 39 year old husband, while obviously
traumatized by their experience, were a normal, average, middle
class couple who were to become part of one of the most remarkable
investigations in UFO history. Interestingly, none of the
researchers who investigated the case at the time could find fault
with the Hill’s story. Indeed, all were equally impressed with the
veracity of the Hill’s experience and their straightforward, down to
earth nature. Their landmark case and has changed the world of
UFOlogy forever.
With the Hill’s experience in mind as a welcome divergence, let
us now return to the author’s statement. As mentioned, with this
statement, the author has turned standard logical procedure on its
head, in essence placing the cart before the horse, and this causes
the reader to have to wade through a string of double negatives to
try and work out the legitimacy of the argument. A simple logical
exercise to illustrate the fallacy in this line of argument is
appropriate. Consider this statement (merely a re-statement of the
author’s argument): The fact that we cannot prove X was not caused
by Y, does not support the hypothesis that X was caused by Y. It is
quite a brain bender to try and follow the logic, but one helpful
approach is to simply to remove the double negatives, while
retaining the structure, and see if the argument still makes sense.
Thus: The fact that we can prove that X was caused by Y, does
support the hypothesis that X was not caused by Y. Immediately, with
this very simple operation, we can see the glaringly obvious logical
flaw in the argument. The first statement is diametrically opposed
to the second. In terms of logic, restating the primary contentions
in this way should not destroy the argument’s logical consistency
(that is if it was consistent to begin with). But here it does seem
to do exactly that. There is however no mystery here, it simply
means that the original statement contains the very same logical
flaw - and it is only the convolutions of the double negatives that
make it difficult for we mere mortals to see it. In short, the
author’s argument commits a severe logical error and is thus no
argument at all.
If the reader remains unconvinced that this exercise does indeed
point to a logical flaw in the author’s argument, let us then
attempt to restate the argument in more simple way. Thus: We cannot
prove a hypothesis, therefore the hypothesis is rejected. This
argument, while seemingly intuitively attractive on the surface,
actually demonstrates in the author a complete lack of understanding
of the scientific method. If the author understood how science
works, then he would know that we cannot actually prove anything at
all. Nothing! There will always remain a circumstance where an
hypothesis about reality might be falsified if new knowledge comes
to hand. The best we can hope for in science is to run as many
observational experiments as possible and then determine if any of
them falsify a particular hypothesis. The fact that an experiment
does not falsify a hypothesis, does not prove that hypothesis to be
true under all possible conditions. (and before the reader leaps on
this as showing a flaw of argument akin to the one described above,
please conduct the term reversal experiment and see the result). No,
an experiment that does not falsify a hypothesis merely indicates
that at this particular time and place, the hypothesis held true. It
in no way implies that at another time and under another
circumstance it will hold true. Nevertheless, as time goes by, and
more and more experiments are conducted that do not falsify the
hypothesis, the more certain we may become that the hypothesis
actually describes reality. However, this description of reality
will always remain just a hypothesis. In other words, we can never
attain the certainty of “proof positive”. There will always remain
that small possibility, that niggling doubt, that small probability,
that future knowledge will falsify our hypothesis, indeed any
hypothesis. The author then quite obviously does not understand
science or the scientific method and his argument has now proved to
be logically flawed by two independent methods.
[ There are some flaws in one of my own
arguments. That is: The critique using the logical formula found in
- Rebuttal 10: Contention 3: Para. 2.
This argument is invalid.
To Wit: 'The hypothesis is rejected, therefore it is
not.'
as opposed to ... 'The hypothesis was accepted, therefore it is.'
The latter is not true.
Therefore you cannot reverse terms in a logical
argument in the way you can, for example, in a mathematical argument
- and still have the same outcome.
The above then proves the logical flaw in my own
argument.
The first critique of your author's argument (remember
there are two in Contention 3, with a little piece on Betty and
Barney Hill as a preample) is therefore incorrect and needs to be
removed... or at the very least to have included, in parentheses, my
own argument (as above and this text) so that readers are not
mislead or confused in logic and so are able discount this type of
logical argument in their minds as invalid and thus they may move on
with a clearer head on the issue. ]
Statement 11: Many UFOlogists think that if eyewitnesses
such as Whitley Strieber, Betty and Barney Hill, or other alleged
alien abductees are not insane or evil, then they cannot be deluded
and are to be trusted with giving accurate accounts of alien
abduction. Yet, it seems obvious that most sane, good, normal people
are deluded about many things and not to be trusted about certain
things.
Rebuttal 11: The author’s argument here is that sane
people can be deluded. This is (again? …how boring) a re-statement
of the unreliability of eyewitness testimony. The author really is
having a hard time coming up with any different (or logical)
arguments. He resorts to restating this eyewitness testimony
argument over and over (and over), in different guises. However, as
already indicated, the author has provided no rational, considered,
exploration of the pros and cons of this argument. He simply seems
to believe that if he restates the argument enough times, the
audience will get sucked into it. There is nothing new at all in
this statement by the author and his audience is more intelligent
than the author gives them credit for and refuses to fall for his
obvious trickery.
Statement 12: UFOlogists would rather follow their faulty
logic than accept the conclusions of Project Blue Book, the U.S. Air
Force report which states that "after twenty-two years of
investigation...none of the unidentified objects reported and
evaluated posed a threat to our national security." (It was in this
Blue Book that Edward Ruppelt coined the term "UFO.")
Rebuttal 12: Really, the fallacy in this argument should
be obvious to a ten year old. That is, the fact that if a negative
conclusion was drawn about a threat to national security of the UFO
phenomenon, in itself does not negate the existence of that UFO
phenomenon at all. Indeed the statement relies on the existence of
the UFO phenomenon as a basis for its study, from which it may draw
conclusion about the nature of the phenomenon. Thus, far from
supporting the author’s contention concerning the fictitious nature
of the UFO phenomenon, it actually pre-supposes the phenomenon to be
real!
Statement 13: UFOlogists are unimpressed with the Condon
Report, as well. Edward U. Condon was the head of a scientific
research team which was contracted to the University of Colorado to
examine the UFO issue. His report concluded that "nothing has come
from the study of UFOs in the past 21 years that has added to
scientific knowledge...further extensive study of UFOs probably
cannot be justified in the expectation that science will be advanced
thereby."
Rebuttal 13: Again, the fallacy of this argument is
obvious. The statement merely supplies one man’s opinion (Condon’s)
that “…nothing has come from the study of UFOs … that has added to
scientific knowledge…” First, the UFO phenomenon must have existed
for it to have been studied (boring…) and second, it is well
documented that Condon actually wrote his report summary (from which
his statement supplied by the author here has been drawn) before the
investigation was complete - and some researchers (with good reason)
speculate that it was written even before the investigation had
begun - and further, it remains a fact that anyone can investigate
for themselves, that Condon’s summary is in direct contradiction to
the actual findings of the report proper. For example, if one
actually reads the content of the report, one will find a large
number of “unexplained” UFO sightings to which there was nothing the
researchers could bring to bear, with all their scientific resources
and expertise, that could ascribe these inexplicable UFO reports to
anything conventional or to anything at all within our current
sphere of knowledge. The author is simply being disingenuous here in
an effort to mislead the reader as to the facts. This is
reprehensible conduct from a supposedly serious reporter of the
facts.
Statement 14: It is assumed by UFOlogists that the
government, especially the CIA, is lying and covering up alien
landings and communication. However, there is no evidence for this
other than a general distrust of the government and the fact that
many government officials have lied, distorted the truth and been
mistaken when reporting to the general public.
Rebuttal 14: How are we to make sense of this? Leaving
aside the blatant misattributions concerning UFOlogist’s assumptions
about the CIA (we will come to this in the next section), the author
contends that UFOlogists have no evidence for a government cover-up
- but then he goes on to state that government officials have “lied,
distorted the truth and been mistaken when reporting to the general
public”. The author’s own statements indicate that a cover-up has
taken place. What then is the author playing at? Does he take his
readers, for fools? In my mind’s eye I can almost see him laughing
and sniggering at us collectively as he writes these foolish and
narrow-minded statements. You can almost hear the derision in his
tone as he voices his cynical incredulity at the gullibility of the
general public if they are to believe his words. What incredible
arrogance. What an anti-rational, anti-intellectual boor. It is
people like this author who seem to want to maintain the misery and
darkness of the human condition. He is anti-enlightenment incarnate.
If I was not myself an “enlightened” person (laughs out loud), I
would even suggest him to be devil in disguise, striving to sow his
evil seeds of doubt and conflict among the society of humans...
Statement 15: The CIA, however, has shown little interest
in UFOs since about 1950, except to encourage UFOlogists to believe
that reconnaissance flights might be alien craft.
Rebuttal 15: Leaving aside the author’s statement
concerning CIA misinformation, and therefore further evidence of
government cover-up, I simply offer the following to show that the
author should have conducted a little research before making such a
wildly inaccurate statement (Source:
http://www.cufos.org/IUR_article3.html )
In late 1993, inquiries from several UFO researchers led CIA
Director R. James Woolsey to order a review of all CIA files on
UFOs. This agency-wide search occurred in 1994 and centralized the
CIA’s UFO files. Taking advantage of this opportunity, government
historian Gerald K. Haines reviewed the documents, conducted
interviews, and wrote a study examining the CIA’s interest and
involvement in UFO investigation and government UFO policy from 1947
until 1990.
Haines’s study was published in Studies in Intelligence, a
classified journal published quarterly for the intelligence
community. The article, "CIA’s Role in the Study of UFOs, 1947–90,"
appeared in the first semiannual unclassified edition for 1997, on
pages 67–84.
(…and further down in the same article)
Note that the CIA is not accused of deception by Haines; rather,
it is the Air Force that willingly concocted the bogus explanations.
Reporters asked the Air Force for comment, and on August 4,
Brigadier General Ronald Sconyers told the press, "I cannot confirm
or deny that we lied. The Air Force is committed to providing
accurate and timely information within the confines of national
security."
I believe that should just about supply enough information to
show the author’s statement to be factually incorrect.
Statement 16: UFOlogists prefer another kind of lie to the
government lie. They support the work of NBC, for example, which
produced two dozen programs called "Project UFO," said to be based
on Project Blue Book. However, unlike the Air Force, NBC suggested
that there were documented cases of alien spacecraft sightings. The
programs, produced by Jack Webb of Dragnet fame, distorted and
falsified information to make the presentation look more believable.
No UFOlogist took NBC to task for lying. To the skeptic, NBC was
pandering to the taste of the viewing audience.
Rebuttal 16: Now we are getting into the realm of the true
fantasist (or should that be fanatic?). A TV program is distorting
the truth? Unthinkable! And shock horror, the program was even
suggesting that there were documented cases of alien spacecraft
sightings. Oh no, civilization will come to an end! NBC is pandering
to the tastes of their audience? Incredible! Whatever will happen
next! Wake up Mr. Author, TV is a fantasy land. It is their stock in
trade. It is the reason we all watch TV for, to escape reality. And
has the author considered that no UFOlogist criticized the program
because none thought it worth their while to bother (which makes me
wonder why I am bothering to do this). Was NBC lying? Did they
distort and falsify evidence? Well…this is TV we are talking about…I
have not seen the show, but if their contention was that we are
being visited by aliens in spacecraft, then there exists an almost
overwhelming amount of documented evidence to support this
conjecture. Is the author lying and distorting the evidence should
be the real question, and that is evident in his statements to this
point.
Statement 17: Government agents lie for all sorts of
reasons, but covering up alien landings does not seem to be one of
them.
Rebuttal 17: How does the author know this? Has he asked
any qualified government representative? Has he examined any
pertinent documents recovered under FOI legislation that do point to
the fact that governments have covered up alien landings (or crash
landings)? Does he in fact know that such documents exist? Has the
author in fact done any research that would back up this, or indeed
any of his other contentions? A resounding no to that question seems
warranted. The author quite obviously has conducted no research at
all. Besides, it is all too silly. The author has already stated
that he believes that government officials have (in his own words)
“lied, distorted the truth and been mistaken when reporting to the
general public” and “Government agents lie for all sorts of
reasons…”. What makes the author think it would be any different if
an alien (crash) landing were to occur?
Statement 18: Most unidentified flying objects are
eventually identified as hoaxes or astronomical events, aircraft,
satellites, weather balloons, or other natural phenomena. In studies
done by the Air Force, less than 2% of UFO sightings remain
unidentifiable.
Rebuttal 18: The author’s facts are simply wrong here –
can he actually point to any valid, peer reviewed “Air Force” study
that provides this 2% figure? I guarantee you that he cannot -
because no such study exists. Moreover, selective studies can be
cited to show practically anything. For example that the moon is
actually made of cheese or that there are canals on Mars. And who is
now to believe a government report on the UFO issue anyway? No, it
is all the evidence that must be accounted for, not just a small or
selective portion of it – and the author went to considerable
efforts (by his standards) to point out exactly this provision to
the reader in previous sections. The author cannot have it both
ways. Either the sum total of the evidence is weighed, or none at
all. Of course this latter is obviously the author’s preferred
position as it applies to himself. Evidence (and evidence of applied
research) is seriously lacking in any of the authors arguments to
this point.
Statement 19: It is more probable that with more
information those 2% would be identified as meteors, aircraft, etc.,
than that they are alien spacecraft.
Rebuttal 19: The author has (predictably and boringly)
turned into a clairvoyant again and is somehow able to foretell the
future. As I pointed out earlier, it is just as likely that future
knowledge will turn out to actually support the alien hypothesis, or
indeed, that future knowledge will turn out to support neither the
conventional interpretation nor the alien hypothesis, but something
entirely different and completely outside of our current knowledge.
Statement 20: The reason no logical explanation seems
credible to UFOlogists is probably because those making and hearing
the reports either do not want to hear a logical explanation or they
make little or no effort to find one.
Rebuttal 20: This statement assumes that highly qualified,
well trained, scientifically minded UFO researchers are in fact
illogical and do not accept, or search out, logical arguments.
First, the author has offered no proof whatsoever for this
contention, although he has baselessly repeated it throughout his
article, and second, there is ample proof that it is actually the
author who is illogical and cannot continence a logical argument and
that it is he who makes little or no effort to find one. Politicians
are adept at this kind of deception. It is a well known political
tactic to accuse your opponent of behaving exactly as you do, and
then to sit back and hope that the mud sticks. Unfortunately for the
author, the mud actually seems to have stuck to him.
Statement 21: In any case, the fact that some pilots or
scientists claim they cannot think of any logical explanations for
some perceptual observations is hardly proof that they have observed
alien spacecraft.
Rebuttal 21: Here we go again. Let me state clearly and
for the record one last time: No qualified, technically trained,
scientifically minded UFO researcher is claiming (or has ever
claimed) that because “some pilots or scientists claim they cannot
think of any logical explanations for some perceptual observations”
that this therefore constitutes proof of the alien hypothesis. This
is a well known pseudoscientific trick on the part of the author. It
is so commonly employed by quacks and charlatans that it has even
been given a generic term: that is the “straw man argument”. In this
type of argument, the author sets up a false hypothesis (in this
case that some - un-named - person or persons out there believe that
because trained observers cannot think of a logical explanation,
that this in itself is a proof of the alien hypothesis), and then
the author proceeds to negate the false argument. In these types of
cases, the actual argument never existed before the author dreamt it
up. It simply was not an issue in anybody’s mind. This is also akin
to an old favorite of the media: “Minister X has denied any
involvement in a sex scandal!”. Of course there was no such scandal,
but by merely asking the question it forces a denial, which in turn
(hopefully in the questioners mind at least) lends credence to the
contention. As mentioned, the straw man argument is the province of
quacks, charlatans and pseudo-scientists, company in which the author
seems to sit very comfortably.
Statement 22: Finally, it should be noted that UFOs are
usually observed by untrained skywatchers and almost never by
professional or amateur astronomers, people who spend inordinate
amounts of time observing the heavens above. One would think that
astronomers would have spotted some of these alien craft. Perhaps
the crafty aliens know that good scientists are skeptical and
inquisitive. Such beings might pose a threat to the security of a
story well-told.
Rebuttal 22: The author here seeks to dismisses out of
hand any and all UFO experiences reported by trained military
personnel, trained research scientists, trained astronomers and the
like. This in a misguided effort to convince his readers that no
reports of this kind have (or are being) made. Simply, the author’s
statement is factually incorrect (to call him a liar at this point
would seem trite). Professional astronomers have reported UFO
experiences and any cursory search of a decent UFO reports database
will turn up numerous examples (for example one could begin at:
http://www.afu.info/ ). The author also contends that “UFOs are
usually observed by untrained skywatchers” (one last foray into… you
guessed it …the unreliable eyewitness argument!). Well, duhhh! Who
does the author think populates this planet?
Finally, the author descends into farce (“Perhaps the crafty
aliens…”), but he is forgetting one significant point (even though,
incredibly, he makes it himself): good scientists are indeed
“skeptical (sic) and inquisitive” and that is exactly what makes
them good scientists (that and proper training) with the ability to
properly investigate and accurately and impartially report on the
UFO phenomenon. It is however much more than can be said about the
author. But then, a proper investigation of the facts and of the
evidence would pose a real threat to the author’s story, extremely
poorly told as it is, and to the security of a head stuck firmly in
the sand.
15 July 2006.
Dirk Biddle
Research Scientist
dbiddleAoptusnet.com.au
(replace A with @ to send e-mail to the author)
NOTE:
Printable PDF
version of this article (190KB)
© Dirk Biddle.
Presented with permission of the author.
NEW
UFO books and video (amazon.com) NEW
 |
I Know Why the Aliens Don't Land!
by Jeremy Vaeni |
|
About the Author
Jeremy Vaeni is a freelance writer/producer. He
has written and directed the short film, STUCK and the music
video, Tell Me. In 1993, he received the Abrahms Nonfiction
Award for Excellence (Most Improved Understanding) for two
short stories, "WHAT he DID TO ME" and, "The Train Station."
Both are revised and included in this book. In 2002 he
received the International Library of Poetry Editor’s Choice
Award. He continues to lead an unusual double life as an
average citizen and an alien... read more
Book Description
You'll laugh. You'll cry. You'll find out why.
Jeremy Vaeni is an alien abductee who does not
want us to take his word for that. Instead of the usual New
Age mumbo-jumbo, he takes us on a very real journey to the
heart of the abduction issue. Along the way, we find out how
humanity is stuck in the psychological patterns of its own
making and why aliens don't land on the White House lawn. So
basically, the usual New Age mumbo-jumbo--no wait! It's
different than that! Honest!
I Know Why The Aliens Don’t Land! is a revelation
with laughter. It is what happens when a true outside mystery
injects its presence into the self-parodying,
deconstructionist mind of Generation X.
|
|
U.F.O.s and Ancient Astronauts
Audio Book
Author: Tony Hudz
Narrator: Stanley Ralph Ross
Provider: Audio Renaissance
Media Type: Audiobook
Running Time: 1 hour
Format: Audible speech |
|
When Ezekiel saw a wheel, 'way in the middle of
the air, did he really see a pinwheeling spacecraft? Is
there, hidden in some secret government warehouse, wreckage
from a flying saucer that crashed over 30 years ago in New
Mexico? Is our planet an alien-breeding colony? Have people
been kidnapped by E.T.s? Or are UFOs just science fiction?
This thought-provoking program unravels the fantasy and fact
behind reported close encounters of every kind with beings
who may be from another galaxy - even another dimension.
|
 |
The
UFO Evidence - Volume 2 : A Thirty Year Report
by Richard Hall (Editor) |
|
Book Description
Patterned after the first volume published in 1964,
"The UFO Evidence, Volume II" is much anticipated
by the research community. The book reports 30 years of UFO
sightings since 1964 with related data and descriptive
features organized by category. In this report, the
sightings are arranged by witness categories. Among the
topics discussed are the now strongly established patterns
of UFO sightings, the growing evidence worldwide that UFOs
represent someone's technology, the history of government
sponsored UFO investigations, and political and human
responses to UFO sightings. The master chronology is an
incredibly complete listing, which also refers the reader to
pertinent sections in the book for fuller descriptions.
About the Author
Richard H. Hall is a well-known authority in the field of
ufology. In 1964 he compiled the first volume of The UFO
Evidence as a documentary report for the National
Investigation Committee on Aerial Phenomena. Hall is
outgoing Chairman of the Washington-based Fund for UFO
Research. He was a consultant to the 1966-68 University of
Colorado UFO study sponsored by the Air Force Office of
Scientific Research.
|
 |
Ufo
Mysteries:
A Reporter Seeks the Truth
by Curt Sutherly |
|
Covers a great deal of ground while presenting
a well-balanced documentation of UFO controversies and
general weirdness.
...an interesting look at key elements of the UFO field over
the past half-century by a qualified author...
|
 |
The
Omega Files;
Secret Nazi UFO Bases Revealed
by Branton |
|
The book describes how German engineers
actually flew flying saucers shortly before the end of World
War Two and how some of the dreaded Nazi's actually escaped
due to help from U.S's own version of the Secret
Government...and how they actually do their work today from
underground bases around the world. SPECIAL SECTION OF
PHOTOGRAPHS OF NAZI BUILT FLYING SAUCERS and stories told my
our own pilots of encounters with so-called Foo Fighters
during the war. Here is final proof that not all UFOS come
from outer space!
|
 |
The
Ufo Book:
Encyclopedia of the Extraterrestrial
by Jerome Clark |
|
With 200 entries in an A-to-Z format, The UFO
Book is the most comprehensive and up-to-date source of its
kind. One hundred photographs and drawings illustrate the
allegedly real and proven bogus evidence, helping readers
decide for themselves whether or not extraterrestrials
exist.
Jerome Clark is the former editor of the UFO
magazine Fate and former vice-president and current board
member of the J. Allen Hyneck Center for UFO Studies as well
as the editor of their quarterly publication The
International UFO Reporter. He has published several books
and a three-volume UFO Encyclopedia encompassing every
conceivable aspect of UFOs possible. In short, Clark has
spent the past four decades researching, analyzing and
bringing to light anything remotely connected to what the
world identifies as UFO's and extraterrestrial life. The UFO
Book is actually an abridgment of the much larger, two
volume work, The UFO Encyclopedia (2nd Edition) published in
the fall of 1997. Clark makes it very clear in the
introduction that, "Except in those instances where
good reason exists to doubt an informant's sincerity, The
UFO Book operates on the assumption that intellectual
agnosticism...". True to his word, The UFO Book is
clear, in-depth, cross-referenced and user friendly and goes
to extremes to stand above any hint of opinion regarding the
wealth of information contained in this book. The UFO Book
includes a historical overview of UFO phenomenon, an
overview of its terminology roots, and in-depth information
regarding resources in print an other forms of media. Every
subject, whether a discussion of a specific topic or a
specific incident is organized alphabetically with
painstakingly clear cross referencing throughout. The UFO
Book is engrossing reading that can fill a few minutes, an
hour, or more. It has the authoritative backbone that brings
this incredibly diverse and far reaching subject to light in
a meticulously objective manner. Clark has put into one
volume an incredible amount of research that is a must read
for anyone mildly curious about UFO's and extra-
terrestrials.
|
 |
Ufos:
Interplanetary Visitors: A Ufo Investigator Reports on the
Facts, Fables, and Fantasies of the Flying Saucer Conspiracy
by Raymond E. Fowler, J. Allen Hynek |
|
A UFO investigator reports on the facts,
fables, and fantasies of the flying saucer conspiracy.
Exciting, fully documented on-site personal investigations
of UFOs.
|
|
The
Coming: The Bible's Identity of "So-Called" UFOs
by Jamie Lance
|
|
Book Description
"The Coming" explains a mystery, the connection
between visitors from the sky and religion using years of
research by the author, including translations from Strong's
Concordance to back up every fact. This book does not
present personal theory as a possible explanation for this
phenomenon.
First of its kind, "The Coming" reveals the
matter-of-fact scriptural identity of these beings and the
gripping end-time agenda behind visitations of anomalous
craft, a mystery soon to culminate in the ultimate plan for
planet earth, the second coming.
In addition, author Jamie Lance reveals why the earth and
man was created, the scriptural origins behind mythical
creatures such as the Sphinx, and presents proof that life
existed on earth prior to the time of Adam.
Since the bible and gospel songs speak of heavenly chariots
and wheels of fire, "The Coming" lets the bible
speak for itself, providing the most unusual answers the
world has ever seen. Written in prose form, "The
Coming" is intriguing for professionals in both the
secular and theological fields as well as the average
individual.
Because sightings of anomalous craft are on the rise, in
these end-times, it's vital to know the bible's identity of
so-called UFOs. Other books raise more questions than they
answer. This book has your answers.
From the Publisher
There's no doubt as to the validity of many UFO sightings.
Some of the most educated and credible people, i.e. airline
pilots and ex-presidents, are witnessing these craft.
In "The Coming" you will find new information
that's not just idle speculation. This book is an
investigation of the UFO phenomenon that will lay aside
preconceived notions, interpretations, and present-day
theories, and take a straightforward look into the bible.
No one should have to question his belief, the validity of
the scriptures, or theorize that God was an ancient
astronaut. Author Jamie Lance provides full proof that the
answer to this mystery is revealed in scripture.
From the Author
In 1979, I decided my biblical research would not be shaded
by denominational interpretations. I began reading the bible
as I would a newspaper, not reading anything 'into' any
verse, but accepting each verse as stated.
Through decades of research, information about
extraterrestrials began popping-up in the strangest places.
As I documented each verse, the whole story fell into place
before I realized what I had discovered. The bible contains
the real identity of the creatures that visit our planet,
why they're here, and what's behind their abduction of
mankind. (And no, God was not an ancient astronaut. He does
not need to abduct man to see how our bodies are made.)
It was in 1994, while surfing the channels on satellite TV,
that I heard an eyewitness say he wished someone could tell
the world who these creatures are, why they're here, and not
to worry about it. This man's comment was the reason I
decided to write "The Coming" and share what the
bible reveals. But its answers are unusual, completely
different from all theories being tossed about. And while I
hate to use a worn-out saying, truth 'is' stranger than
fiction.
About the Author
Author Jamie Lance, with over two decades of biblical
research, is an expert on end-time prophecy, the bible's
true identity of America and Britton, and has a vast
knowledge of the subtle errors that occurred in translating
the bible's original Greek and Hebrew languages into
English. Lance makes sure to research with a
non-denominational eye.
Born in 1952, Lance became curious about anomalous craft and
claims of abduction by unknown creatures and was dedicated
to discover how these beings might relate to religious
beliefs. Lance now resides in Alabama.
|
|
|
And
Yet... They Fly!
by Guido Moosbrugger
|
|
Book Description
For more than 25 years, the Billy Meier case
has been reviewed by expert researchers, scientists and
journalists worldwide. Their conclusions are all the same:
Billy Meier is having contacts with extraterrestrials.
Austrian author, Guido Moosbrugger, has been
following the case for more than 20 years and has detailed
his findings in "And Yet They Fly!". In this
captivating book, Guido describes the extraterrestrials with
whom Billy is having contact, as well as their technology,
culture, home planet and reasons for visiting Earth.
"And Yet They Fly!" also contains more than 75
color photographs documenting the case. Among them, the
color, daytime photos of extraterrestrial spacecraft are
unsurpassed in their quality and clarity and are the best
UFO pictures ever taken. No other UFO case is as richly
documented with eyewitness accounts, photographic evidence,
metal sample analysis, sound-recordings and spacecraft
landing tracks, just to name a few.
If you ever had a question about the Billy
Meier contacts or are new to the subject, "And Yet They
Fly!" is the most comprehensive and well-documented
book ever released on this world-renown UFO case.
|
|
The
Time of Our Visitation
John E.
Chitty
|
|
Possibly the most extensive and complete analytical
literary work scrutinizing extraterrestrial intervention and
Biblical Scripture ever compiled. An astonishingly detailed scriptural
analysis exposing alien entities utilizing incredible
devices to literally perform the Creation of this Planet as
we know it. A global creation illustrating the mysterious
decimation of the Mesozoic dinosaurs and their entire
environment.An itemized inquisition into how universal beings
actually performed the Inundation of Noah, the dividing of
the Red Sea, dammed up the River Jordan and the destruction
of massive armies and cities. Incredible feats all performed
by utilizing the very same device which executed the
physical Creation of this Planet. The very same miraculous
device found within the UFO enigma.
An incredibly detailed account of Ezekiel's Wheels, being
nothing less than the delineation of five separate wheel
shaped stellar crafts. An itemized deduction of the craft's
physical characteristics, propulsion systems, flight
capabilities, weapons and humanoid pilots. Physical elements
paralleling that of the modern UFO mystery.
A profound sacred study establishing the existence of a true
Underworld empire under our very noses. A subterranean world
within a world, harboring physical beings and super
technology. Physical humanoid entities coexisting with
petite amphibious creatures known as the infamous Gray
beings commonly found within the UFO conundrum. An in-depth
study establishing not only the Gray's bases of operation,
global locations and motivation, but possibly their very
origin. A revealing study which will establish a new field
of research for the UFOlogist without government
involvement. A cosmic arena here on this Planet which will
terminate the need for government disclosure or "old
hat" Roswell.
UFO
books and video (amazon.com)
|
Dan Aykroyd Unplugged on UFO's
Although the majority of the top grossing Hollywood films are the
subject of UFO's and Extra Terrestrials no Hollywood celebrity has
ever come forward about the subject until now. Dan Aykroyd is the first ever celebrity to apply his brains and wit
to disclose the truth about the real UFO phenomenon in the documentary "Dan
Aykroyd Unplugged on UFO's." A self-sponsored researcher on the subject, in the
film Dan Aykroyd is backed up by many military personnel including several high
ranking NASA employees and the former Defense Minister of Canada. For more info
on the documentary please visit WWW.DAUFO.COM
.
Dan Aykroyd is the first celebrity ever to apply brains and wit to disclose
the real UFO phenomenon to the world in his new film, "Dan Aykroyd, Unplugged on
UFOs." In this film, Aykroyd is backed up by many credible military personnel.
Paul Hellyer, former Defense Minister of Canada, whom at 82,went public at the
University of Toronto in 2005 to say, "UFOs are as real as the airplanes that
fly over your head.... That is my unequivocal conclusion." Many top military
witnesses have come forward to testify before their deaths, such as NASA
Astronaut Gordon Cooper, Colonel Phillip Corso, on the Roswell Incident, Paul
Hellyer, Minister of Defense Canada, President Reagan, and more. The truth is
finally disclosed.
DVD Release Date: May 30, 2006
B000EU1Q0Y
|
