UFO COVER-UP EVIDENCE...

"Ron Miller" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...
In sci.astro Ron Miller wrote:

The old, tired litany of the frustrated pseudoscientist. "If a
scientist
refuses to even consider my patently goofy notions, they must be
true."

Just which "patently goofy" notions are you attempting to attribute to
me? I do not recall putting forth any such. (with the possible exception
of my ideas on the Red Shift)

Did I mention your name?

What in the world makes you think that UFOs have *not* been looked
into
by
mainstream science? They have, and every single time anything
resembling
evidence has been found utterly wanting. It ain't up to the scientists
to
prove anything. You think UFOs are spacecraft piloted by aliens? Well,
then,
you prove it.

I believe the term "utterly wanting" is a bit of an overstatement.
What was it, something like a third of the Bluebook cases
remained "unexplained"? Sure, the Condon report found evidence
"utterly wanting", but did you read the minority dissent by the
portion of the project staff that strongly disagreed with the
findings. The point is not which group of scientists is correct,
the point is at least they were acting like scientists and
gathering data and trying to understand it. Are these people
therefore kooks?

You are confusing "unexplained" with "unexplainable".

And you are correct it isn't up to scientists to "prove"
anything. But it is for them to try to understand the
world in which we live. To rope off certain areas with
ridicule as "off limits" hardly seems scientific to me.

It's the people who persist in insisting that discredited theories,
unsupported ideas and anecdotal "evidence" are on an equal par with
theories
that are well-supported by evidence and experiment. Just because some
farmer
comes running in from the north forty claiming he's seen a UFO run off
with
one of his cows or some blue-haired spinster claims to be in contact with
aliens from the planet Moomaw doesn't mean that scientists should just
throw
up their hands and say, "Well, damn, I guess that means I need to throw
everything I know out the old window."

As I keep saying, not all theories are equal. Just because someone comes
up
with what seems to be a bright idea doesn't automatically put it on the
same
par with, say, evolution or the Big Bang.

I love Dr. Sagan's "Dragon in my garage" argument for this one. You claim
it and some one comes to see it and sees nothing..."My Dragons is
invisible"... tests to see if it leave footprints... "Dragon resided in
another dimension"... pulls out thermal meter to test for fire..."Dragons
fire is cold"... The premise being that if there is no way to examine the
dragon, and there can be no proof offered for its existence, what is the
point of even saying it exists? If no one but the claimant can witness the
dragon or it's powers.

I don't know of any Amateur Astronomers that have seen UFO's... statistical
fluke? Nope! Knowledge. That inexplicable brilliant light on the horizon
just before sunset... It moves (mind trick) and flashes brightly from green
to red... An AA would know right away that it was Venus or Sirius. A
not-so-trained eye might imagine many more fascinating explanations... "I've
never seen a star do THAT!!!" is a typical response (Yes, I have had this
conversation with countless non-astronomer friends).

- Harrison.

In article , "Martin Lewicki"
wrote:


kevin wrote in
news:20031026185134.7c17c3b6.kev145324@sneakemail. com:
On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 08:58:25 -0400
"Steven M. Sherman" wrote:
Ron Miller wrote:
wrote in message
...

In sci.astro Ron Miller wrote:
The old, tired litany of the frustrated pseudoscientist. "If a
scientist refuses to even consider my patently goofy notions, they
must be true."
Just which "patently goofy" notions are you attempting to attribute
to me? I do not recall putting forth any such. (with the possible
exception of my ideas on the Red Shift)
Did I mention your name?

What in the world makes you think that UFOs have *not* been looked
into
by

mainstream science? They have, and every single time anything
resembling evidence has been found utterly wanting. It ain't up to
the scientists
to

prove anything. You think UFOs are spacecraft piloted by aliens?
Well,
then,

you prove it.
I believe the term "utterly wanting" is a bit of an overstatement.
What was it, something like a third of the Bluebook cases remained
"unexplained"? Sure, the Condon report found evidence "utterly
wanting", but did you read the minority dissent by the portion of
the project staff that strongly disagreed with the findings. The
point is not which group of scientists is correct, the point is at
least they were acting like scientists and gathering data and trying
to understand it. Are these people therefore kooks?
You are confusing "unexplained" with "unexplainable".
And you are correct it isn't up to scientists to "prove" anything.
But it is for them to try to understand the world in which we live.
To rope off certain areas with ridicule as "off limits" hardly seems
scientific to me.
It's the people who persist in insisting that discredited theories,
unsupported ideas and anecdotal "evidence" are on an equal par with
theories that are well-supported by evidence and experiment. Just
because some farmer comes running in from the north forty claiming
he's seen a UFO run off with one of his cows or some blue-haired
spinster claims to be in contact with aliens from the planet Moomaw
doesn't mean that scientists should just throw up their hands and
say, "Well, damn, I guess that means I need to throw everything I
know out the old window."
As I keep saying, not all theories are equal. Just because someone
comes up with what seems to be a bright idea doesn't automatically
put it on the same par with, say, evolution or the Big Bang. RM

The question of evidence is a somewhat different matter. We have many
people of unquestionable integrity, who have reported UFOs. If they
were in a court of law and testified that they saw person "A" kill
person "unknown", then person "A" would be found guilty. They could
even be put to death. But for that to happen you would need a dead
person "unknown". We do not have a dead person "unknown" and as best
we can tell no one is dead. None the less, an unquestionable person
says they saw it happen. Now you are on the jury - what is the
verdict.
Not really wishing to get involved in a such a discussion, but...if you
have a whole evening free you might like to read up on events at
Rendlesham UK in 1980, a US military base. The MOD were recently forced
by a Lord??(cant remember his name) to release documents concerning the
events which were available at the MOD's web site for downloading a
while ago.
Forgive me if I dont give a specific link or links as there are so many
and it just isnt possible to select a best or better link from them all
at google.
I make no judgements other than to say its a fascinating read.
A probable but fascinating explanation for Rendlesham lies here
http://ds.dial.pipex.com/town/close/kca07/index.htm


Nah, that is NOT what the people there claim to have seen. These
were highly trained military personnel, I think they would be able to
tell the difference. You need to come up with a better and more
plausible explanation than that.






Steve

Martin

[posted and mailed]

"kevin" wrote in news:bnrsuj$14tmak$1@ID-
75584.news.uni-berlin.de:

In article , "Martin Lewicki"
wrote:


kevin wrote in
news:20031026185134.7c17c3b6.kev145324@sneakemail. com:
On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 08:58:25 -0400
"Steven M. Sherman" wrote:
Ron Miller wrote:
wrote in message
...

In sci.astro Ron Miller wrote:
The old, tired litany of the frustrated pseudoscientist. "If a
scientist refuses to even consider my patently goofy notions, they
must be true."
Just which "patently goofy" notions are you attempting to attribute
to me? I do not recall putting forth any such. (with the possible
exception of my ideas on the Red Shift)
Did I mention your name?

What in the world makes you think that UFOs have *not* been looked
into by

mainstream science? They have, and every single time anything
resembling evidence has been found utterly wanting. It ain't up to
the scientists to

prove anything. You think UFOs are spacecraft piloted by aliens?
Well,
then,

you prove it.
I believe the term "utterly wanting" is a bit of an overstatement.
What was it, something like a third of the Bluebook cases remained
"unexplained"? Sure, the Condon report found evidence "utterly
wanting", but did you read the minority dissent by the portion of
the project staff that strongly disagreed with the findings. The
point is not which group of scientists is correct, the point is at
least they were acting like scientists and gathering data and trying
to understand it. Are these people therefore kooks? You are
confusing "unexplained" with "unexplainable". And you are correct it
isn't up to scientists to "prove" anything. But it is for them to
try to understand the world in which we live. To rope off certain
areas with ridicule as "off limits" hardly seems scientific to me.
It's the people who persist in insisting that discredited theories,
unsupported ideas and anecdotal "evidence" are on an equal par with
theories that are well-supported by evidence and experiment. Just
because some farmer comes running in from the north forty claiming
he's seen a UFO run off with one of his cows or some blue-haired
spinster claims to be in contact with aliens from the planet Moomaw
doesn't mean that scientists should just throw up their hands and
say, "Well, damn, I guess that means I need to throw everything I
know out the old window."
As I keep saying, not all theories are equal. Just because someone
comes up with what seems to be a bright idea doesn't automatically
put it on the same par with, say, evolution or the Big Bang. RM

The question of evidence is a somewhat different matter. We have many
people of unquestionable integrity, who have reported UFOs. If they
were in a court of law and testified that they saw person "A" kill
person "unknown", then person "A" would be found guilty. They could
even be put to death. But for that to happen you would need a dead
person "unknown". We do not have a dead person "unknown" and as best
we can tell no one is dead. None the less, an unquestionable person
says they saw it happen. Now you are on the jury - what is the
verdict.
Not really wishing to get involved in a such a discussion, but...if you
have a whole evening free you might like to read up on events at
Rendlesham UK in 1980, a US military base. The MOD were recently forced
by a Lord??(cant remember his name) to release documents concerning the
events which were available at the MOD's web site for downloading a
while ago.
Forgive me if I dont give a specific link or links as there are so many
and it just isnt possible to select a best or better link from them all
at google.
I make no judgements other than to say its a fascinating read.
A probable but fascinating explanation for Rendlesham lies here
http://ds.dial.pipex.com/town/close/kca07/index.htm


Nah, that is NOT what the people there claim to have seen. These
were highly trained military personnel, I think they would be able to
tell the difference. You need to come up with a better and more
plausible explanation than that.

Steve

Martin


Heh. I guess you'd call it a counter conspiracy theory in that the UFO
story was concoted to cause confusion and distract everyone else from the
real but mundane covert operation. That would necessarily include collusion
of the "higly trained military personel" make up claims of extraordinary
sightings and/or pretented to clam up. This whips up the UFO hysteria -
exactly what they intend. I'd be suprised if gov agencies didn't employ UFO
stories for just this sort of purpose. It has a lot going for it.

Martin

In article , "Martin Lewicki"
wrote:


[posted and mailed]
"kevin" wrote in news:bnrsuj$14tmak$1@ID-
75584.news.uni-berlin.de:

In article , "Martin Lewicki"
wrote:

kevin wrote in
news:20031026185134.7c17c3b6.kev145324@sneakemail. com:
On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 08:58:25 -0400
"Steven M. Sherman" wrote:
Ron Miller wrote:
wrote in message
...

In sci.astro Ron Miller wrote:
The old, tired litany of the frustrated pseudoscientist. "If a
scientist refuses to even consider my patently goofy notions,
they must be true."
Just which "patently goofy" notions are you attempting to
attribute to me? I do not recall putting forth any such. (with the
possible exception of my ideas on the Red Shift)
Did I mention your name?

What in the world makes you think that UFOs have *not* been
looked into by

mainstream science? They have, and every single time anything
resembling evidence has been found utterly wanting. It ain't up
to the scientists to

prove anything. You think UFOs are spacecraft piloted by aliens?
Well,
then,

you prove it.
I believe the term "utterly wanting" is a bit of an overstatement.
What was it, something like a third of the Bluebook cases remained
"unexplained"? Sure, the Condon report found evidence "utterly
wanting", but did you read the minority dissent by the portion of
the project staff that strongly disagreed with the findings. The
point is not which group of scientists is correct, the point is at
least they were acting like scientists and gathering data and
trying to understand it. Are these people therefore kooks? You are
confusing "unexplained" with "unexplainable". And you are correct
it isn't up to scientists to "prove" anything. But it is for them
to try to understand the world in which we live. To rope off
certain areas with ridicule as "off limits" hardly seems
scientific to me.
It's the people who persist in insisting that discredited
theories, unsupported ideas and anecdotal "evidence" are on an
equal par with theories that are well-supported by evidence and
experiment. Just because some farmer comes running in from the
north forty claiming he's seen a UFO run off with one of his cows
or some blue-haired spinster claims to be in contact with aliens
from the planet Moomaw doesn't mean that scientists should just
throw up their hands and say, "Well, damn, I guess that means I
need to throw everything I know out the old window."
As I keep saying, not all theories are equal. Just because someone
comes up with what seems to be a bright idea doesn't automatically
put it on the same par with, say, evolution or the Big Bang. RM
The question of evidence is a somewhat different matter. We have
many people of unquestionable integrity, who have reported UFOs. If
they were in a court of law and testified that they saw person "A"
kill person "unknown", then person "A" would be found guilty. They
could even be put to death. But for that to happen you would need a
dead person "unknown". We do not have a dead person "unknown" and as
best we can tell no one is dead. None the less, an unquestionable
person says they saw it happen. Now you are on the jury - what is
the verdict.
Not really wishing to get involved in a such a discussion, but...if
you have a whole evening free you might like to read up on events at
Rendlesham UK in 1980, a US military base. The MOD were recently
forced by a Lord??(cant remember his name) to release documents
concerning the events which were available at the MOD's web site for
downloading a while ago.
Forgive me if I dont give a specific link or links as there are so
many and it just isnt possible to select a best or better link from
them all at google.
I make no judgements other than to say its a fascinating read.
A probable but fascinating explanation for Rendlesham lies here
http://ds.dial.pipex.com/town/close/kca07/index.htm
Nah, that is NOT what the people there claim to have seen. These were
highly trained military personnel, I think they would be able to tell
the difference. You need to come up with a better and more plausible
explanation than that.

Steve

Martin

Heh. I guess you'd call it a counter conspiracy theory in that the UFO
story was concoted to cause confusion and distract everyone else from
the real but mundane covert operation. That would necessarily include
collusion of the "higly trained military personel" make up claims of
extraordinary sightings and/or pretented to clam up. This whips up the
UFO hysteria - exactly what they intend. I'd be suprised if gov agencies
didn't employ UFO stories for just this sort of purpose. It has a lot
going for it. Martin

I knew it was a mistake to post in this thread but here goes...

The satelite explanation fails from the very start for one very simple
reason. The people who were there at the scene claim the events
they witnessed hapened on two seperate days, so for the satelite
explanation to be valid there would have had to be TWO satelites
crash land on TWO seperate days. Or there was only one satelite
that was in two parts that crash landed on the TWO occasions and
in a similar place, what are the chances of that??? And then you
need to explain how the witnessess could have got it so wrong, remembering
they were highly trained military personell in charge of nuclear weapons!.

I'm afraid the satelite explanation is a non starter and a rather poor
explanation i think.

It has also been sugested that Winscale had a nuclear leak, well
Windscale has leaked all of its life I think and I never really
understood that exlanation either as it just didnt fit with what
was observed, so another non starter there.

Next....

"kevin" wrote in message
...
In article , "Martin Lewicki"
wrote:


[posted and mailed]
"kevin" wrote in news:bnrsuj$14tmak$1@ID-
75584.news.uni-berlin.de:

In article , "Martin Lewicki"
wrote:

kevin wrote in
news:20031026185134.7c17c3b6.kev145324@sneakemail. com:
On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 08:58:25 -0400
"Steven M. Sherman" wrote:
Ron Miller wrote:
wrote in message
...

In sci.astro Ron Miller wrote:
The old, tired litany of the frustrated pseudoscientist. "If a
scientist refuses to even consider my patently goofy notions,
they must be true."
Just which "patently goofy" notions are you attempting to
attribute to me? I do not recall putting forth any such. (with the
possible exception of my ideas on the Red Shift)
Did I mention your name?

What in the world makes you think that UFOs have *not* been
looked into by

mainstream science? They have, and every single time anything
resembling evidence has been found utterly wanting. It ain't up
to the scientists to

prove anything. You think UFOs are spacecraft piloted by aliens?
Well,
then,

you prove it.
I believe the term "utterly wanting" is a bit of an overstatement.
What was it, something like a third of the Bluebook cases remained
"unexplained"? Sure, the Condon report found evidence "utterly
wanting", but did you read the minority dissent by the portion of
the project staff that strongly disagreed with the findings. The
point is not which group of scientists is correct, the point is at
least they were acting like scientists and gathering data and
trying to understand it. Are these people therefore kooks? You are
confusing "unexplained" with "unexplainable". And you are correct
it isn't up to scientists to "prove" anything. But it is for them
to try to understand the world in which we live. To rope off
certain areas with ridicule as "off limits" hardly seems
scientific to me.
It's the people who persist in insisting that discredited
theories, unsupported ideas and anecdotal "evidence" are on an
equal par with theories that are well-supported by evidence and
experiment. Just because some farmer comes running in from the
north forty claiming he's seen a UFO run off with one of his cows
or some blue-haired spinster claims to be in contact with aliens
from the planet Moomaw doesn't mean that scientists should just
throw up their hands and say, "Well, damn, I guess that means I
need to throw everything I know out the old window."
As I keep saying, not all theories are equal. Just because someone
comes up with what seems to be a bright idea doesn't automatically
put it on the same par with, say, evolution or the Big Bang. RM
The question of evidence is a somewhat different matter. We have
many people of unquestionable integrity, who have reported UFOs. If
they were in a court of law and testified that they saw person "A"
kill person "unknown", then person "A" would be found guilty. They
could even be put to death. But for that to happen you would need a
dead person "unknown". We do not have a dead person "unknown" and as
best we can tell no one is dead. None the less, an unquestionable
person says they saw it happen. Now you are on the jury - what is
the verdict.
Not really wishing to get involved in a such a discussion, but...if
you have a whole evening free you might like to read up on events at
Rendlesham UK in 1980, a US military base. The MOD were recently
forced by a Lord??(cant remember his name) to release documents
concerning the events which were available at the MOD's web site for
downloading a while ago.
Forgive me if I dont give a specific link or links as there are so
many and it just isnt possible to select a best or better link from
them all at google.
I make no judgements other than to say its a fascinating read.
A probable but fascinating explanation for Rendlesham lies here
http://ds.dial.pipex.com/town/close/kca07/index.htm
Nah, that is NOT what the people there claim to have seen. These were
highly trained military personnel, I think they would be able to tell
the difference. You need to come up with a better and more plausible
explanation than that.

Steve

Martin

Heh. I guess you'd call it a counter conspiracy theory in that the UFO
story was concoted to cause confusion and distract everyone else from
the real but mundane covert operation. That would necessarily include
collusion of the "higly trained military personel" make up claims of
extraordinary sightings and/or pretented to clam up. This whips up the
UFO hysteria - exactly what they intend. I'd be suprised if gov agencies
didn't employ UFO stories for just this sort of purpose. It has a lot
going for it. Martin

I knew it was a mistake to post in this thread but here goes...

The satelite explanation fails from the very start for one very simple
reason. The people who were there at the scene claim the events
they witnessed hapened on two seperate days, so for the satelite
explanation to be valid there would have had to be TWO satelites
crash land on TWO seperate days. Or there was only one satelite
that was in two parts that crash landed on the TWO occasions and
in a similar place, what are the chances of that??? And then you
need to explain how the witnessess could have got it so wrong, remembering
they were highly trained military personell in charge of nuclear weapons!.

Maybe they were suposed to "get it wrong"!


I'm afraid the satelite explanation is a non starter and a rather poor
explanation i think.

Yes the satelite theory is a theory. To add to the confusion there was a
bolide sighting on one night and the suposed UFO on another.

It has also been sugested that Winscale had a nuclear leak, well
Windscale has leaked all of its life I think and I never really
understood that exlanation either as it just didnt fit with what
was observed, so another non starter there.

Next....

Well yeah this is the wrong NG for this discussion. Have you read Peter
Sturrock's UFO Enigma? THe whole incident is repleate with wrongly recorded
dates, confusion, secrecy etc. If you believe in a conspiracy to cover up a
UFO then a conspiracy to cover up mundane covert opertion is just as
plausible (what ever this operation was). While one can never totally
discount an extraterrestrial visit it's just that I'd say that it's the
least likley explanation.

Martin

In article , "Martin Lewicki"
wrote:


"kevin" wrote in message
...
In article , "Martin Lewicki"
wrote:

[posted and mailed]
"kevin" wrote in news:bnrsuj$14tmak$1@ID-
75584.news.uni-berlin.de:

In article , "Martin
Lewicki" wrote:

kevin wrote in
news:20031026185134.7c17c3b6.kev145324@sneakemail. com:
On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 08:58:25 -0400
"Steven M. Sherman" wrote:
Ron Miller wrote:
wrote in message
...

In sci.astro Ron Miller wrote:
The old, tired litany of the frustrated pseudoscientist. "If a
scientist refuses to even consider my patently goofy notions,
they must be true."
Just which "patently goofy" notions are you attempting to
attribute to me? I do not recall putting forth any such. (with
the possible exception of my ideas on the Red Shift)
Did I mention your name?

What in the world makes you think that UFOs have *not* been
looked into by

mainstream science? They have, and every single time anything
resembling evidence has been found utterly wanting. It ain't
up to the scientists to

prove anything. You think UFOs are spacecraft piloted by
aliens? Well,
then,

you prove it.
I believe the term "utterly wanting" is a bit of an
overstatement. What was it, something like a third of the
Bluebook cases remained "unexplained"? Sure, the Condon report
found evidence "utterly wanting", but did you read the minority
dissent by the portion of the project staff that strongly
disagreed with the findings. The point is not which group of
scientists is correct, the point is at least they were acting
like scientists and gathering data and trying to understand it.
Are these people therefore kooks? You are confusing
"unexplained" with "unexplainable". And you are correct it
isn't up to scientists to "prove" anything. But it is for them
to try to understand the world in which we live. To rope off
certain areas with ridicule as "off limits" hardly seems
scientific to me.
It's the people who persist in insisting that discredited
theories, unsupported ideas and anecdotal "evidence" are on an
equal par with theories that are well-supported by evidence and
experiment. Just because some farmer comes running in from the
north forty claiming he's seen a UFO run off with one of his
cows or some blue-haired spinster claims to be in contact with
aliens from the planet Moomaw doesn't mean that scientists
should just throw up their hands and say, "Well, damn, I guess
that means I need to throw everything I know out the old
window." As I keep saying, not all theories are equal. Just
because someone comes up with what seems to be a bright idea
doesn't automatically put it on the same par with, say,
evolution or the Big Bang. RM
The question of evidence is a somewhat different matter. We have
many people of unquestionable integrity, who have reported UFOs.
If they were in a court of law and testified that they saw person
"A" kill person "unknown", then person "A" would be found guilty.
They could even be put to death. But for that to happen you would
need a dead person "unknown". We do not have a dead person
"unknown" and as best we can tell no one is dead. None the less,
an unquestionable person says they saw it happen. Now you are on
the jury - what is the verdict.
Not really wishing to get involved in a such a discussion,
but...if you have a whole evening free you might like to read up
on events at Rendlesham UK in 1980, a US military base. The MOD
were recently forced by a Lord??(cant remember his name) to
release documents concerning the events which were available at
the MOD's web site for downloading a while ago.
Forgive me if I dont give a specific link or links as there are so
many and it just isnt possible to select a best or better link
from them all at google.
I make no judgements other than to say its a fascinating read.
A probable but fascinating explanation for Rendlesham lies here
http://ds.dial.pipex.com/town/close/kca07/index.htm
Nah, that is NOT what the people there claim to have seen. These
were highly trained military personnel, I think they would be able
to tell the difference. You need to come up with a better and more
plausible explanation than that.

Steve

Martin

Heh. I guess you'd call it a counter conspiracy theory in that the
UFO story was concoted to cause confusion and distract everyone else
from the real but mundane covert operation. That would necessarily
include collusion of the "higly trained military personel" make up
claims of extraordinary sightings and/or pretented to clam up. This
whips up the UFO hysteria - exactly what they intend. I'd be suprised
if gov agencies didn't employ UFO stories for just this sort of
purpose. It has a lot going for it. Martin

I knew it was a mistake to post in this thread but here goes...

The satelite explanation fails from the very start for one very simple
reason. The people who were there at the scene claim the events they
witnessed hapened on two seperate days, so for the satelite explanation
to be valid there would have had to be TWO satelites crash land on TWO
seperate days. Or there was only one satelite that was in two parts
that crash landed on the TWO occasions and in a similar place, what are
the chances of that??? And then you need to explain how the witnessess
could have got it so wrong, remembering they were highly trained
military personell in charge of nuclear weapons!.
Maybe they were suposed to "get it wrong"!

I'm afraid the satelite explanation is a non starter and a rather poor
explanation i think.
Yes the satelite theory is a theory. To add to the confusion there was a
bolide sighting on one night and the suposed UFO on another.

It has also been sugested that Winscale had a nuclear leak, well
Windscale has leaked all of its life I think and I never really
understood that exlanation either as it just didnt fit with what was
observed, so another non starter there.

Next....
Well yeah this is the wrong NG for this discussion. Have you read Peter
Sturrock's UFO Enigma? THe whole incident is repleate with wrongly
recorded dates, confusion, secrecy etc. If you believe in a conspiracy
to cover up a UFO then a conspiracy to cover up mundane covert opertion
is just as plausible (what ever this operation was). While one can never
totally discount an extraterrestrial visit it's just that I'd say that
it's the least likley explanation.
Martin

Sure, and I dont beleive in a conspiracy cover up. As for least likely
explanations that is the whole point realy, that no plausible explanation
for the events that were witnessed has come forward.

I go along with Lord Hill-Norton's comments, former Admiral of the fleet
and former Cheif of the defence staff when he says, that you either have
to believe that a lot of military personell were hallucinating over a
period of time, which would be very worrying indeed considering they
were in charge of nuclear weapons, or that they really did see what they
claim to have seen.

That about sums it up for me. I doubt we will ever know what really
happened. I also suspect that Lord Hill-Norton considering his jobs
would more than likely know more than he is able to say, hence
his very interesting comments on the incidents.