>>> Part 2 of 3...
 
 RT> can touch, smell, taste, observe, or listen to except their personal
 RT> accounts.  The "evidence" has vanished. Actually, it wasn't even
 RT> considered important until some 40 years after the event. No wonder its
 RT> not still around. 
 
If it ever existed as described, it is buried in a well-guarded warehouse
somewhere.  And, (if it exists), it has been anyalized chemically,
spectrographically, optically, X-rayed, manipulated, and inspected in
every concievable way, and the results of all these tests and inspections
are likewise locked in a secure vault somewhere, possibly in the Pentigon.
(Like I said, _IF_ it exists!)
 
 RT> To further dilute the veracity of the accounts, most of them are third
 RT> party... as written by authors who have one common denominator...
 RT> profit.
 
How about the thousands of witnesses/abductees who do NOT try ot make a
profit from their experiences - in fact, do not talk about the experiences
with strangers for fear of being branded as "crazy"?  How do you explain
these people... the ones that AREN'T written up in books and elsewhere?
 
 RT> That alone should be a red flag to anyone sincerely looking
 RT> for the truth. I'm sorry, to me this level of "evidence" is little more
 RT> than interesting reading. The same is true for the tabloids and
 RT> sensationalistic television hype.
 
Tabloids are about as reliable as "Alice In Wonderland" and other
children's stories for getting facts!
 
 RT> The question has been posed, "What evidence would you accept?".  One
 RT> person, Jack Sargeant I think (forgive me if my memory fails, Jack),
 RT> questioned my rationale in not believing sane, rational people who
 RT> claimed to have witnessed alien events.  He queried, "Would you
 RT> disbelieve your own mother?".
 
 RT> No Jack, I would not disbelieve my mom.  If she told me that she saw
 RT> something very strange over in our cornfield, I'd believe her
 RT> unequivocally.  However, if she said to me, "I saw an alien last
 RT> night", I would most certainly question her conclusion and inquire
 RT> further... much further, as to why she believed what she did... yes,
 RT> I'd seriously doubt her until she provided substantial _tangible_
 RT> evidence of her reasoning. Without convincing proof, I'd feel obligated
 RT> to try and show her why I felt that she had been deluded.
 
In other words, you would suspect that she had been drinking, sniffing,
shooting up, dreaming or hallucinating if she told you that she had seen
one or more non-human humanoids, and gave the classic description of a
Gray, right?  Oh dear, mommy dear, what were YOU into last night?   ;-}
 
 RT> The above would also apply to my late dad who is to a great extent, my
 RT> life's role model and the most rational man I've ever known even
 RT> though he only finished the sixth grade. And to my three brothers, one
 RT> who holds several college degrees including a PhD, and the other two
 RT> who are electrical engineers working in the communications field. I'd
 RT> require substantiation from them.
 RT> What would I accept?  Since my only expertise is (from a very long
 RT> time ago) a policeman, and then for the last 27 years, a computer
 RT> software analyst, I wouldn't know "alien" from Tobasco sauce.
 
As an ex-policeman, you were trained to look for - and accept - only
factual evidence.  You want concrete evidence when possible, (as you
are asking for for UFO's/ET's), but sometimes concrete evidence is not
available, and you have to accept circumstancial evidence.  How many
people have been convicted - rightly or wrongly - on nothing more than
circumstancial evidence?  Smetimes the evidence points at the true
criminal and sometimes it doesn't.  Even concrete evidence can be made to
point at the wrong person - the frame-up.  Just as UFO photographs can be
easily faked, even more easily nowadays with powerful computer programs
which can superimpose images, such as the one of a bigfoot near the
Mars lander which circulated on the WWW a few months ago, and another of
Dr. Who's Tardis, and another of a bottle cap... and how many pictures
and even movies have been taken and circulated of hubcaps, frisbees,
model UFO's hanging from wires, and similar objects with claims that,
"This is what I saw."?  A LOT!  But just because such evidence CAN be
faked, and in fact HAS been faked many times, is that any reason to brand
_ALL_ such pictures as hoaxes?  Au contrare!  Look at them with suspicion,
but do not catagorically put the [FAKE] stamp on them!  If you cannot
PROVE that they are faked, then you must consider that they COULD be
genuine.
 
 RT> If you presented me with the proverbial alien ashtray, I'd still
 RT> doubt because within my own powers to perceive, I couldn't determine
 RT> its origin.  I cannot speculate on what physical evidence I would
 RT> personally accept as proof positive.
 
AMEN!  And WHY couldn't you determine it's origin?  Because, regardless
of it's shape or composition, it would probably still be made from the
same 90-odd known elements found on Earth!
 
 RT> I _would_ accept as fact, and believe in aliens if an announcement
 RT> came forth, proclaiming the existence of extraterrestrials, from any
 RT> U.S. Governmental agency, the U.S. military, or any body of creditable
 RT> scientist, or university.  I'd believe as truth, said proclamation,
 RT> when broadcast as any major television or radio network news item,
 RT> newspaper, or any other public access medium. They wouldn't
 RT> necessarily have to show clips of the UFO on the White House lawn...
 RT> just tell me its true.
 
OH, so you would accept ANY statement from a Govt. which has been proven
to lie through their teeth about such things?  Lessee here, what DID
happen at Roswell in 1947?  First it was a weather baloon.  Then it was
a super-secret atom-bomb detecting baloon.  Another story was that it was
a rocket carrying monkeys, (when the records showed that such a launch
which was lost did not take place, and another was that it was a test with
dummies, testing high-altitude parachute jumps or some such... and every
single one of these stories was supposedly "The REAL FACTS" of what
happened!  Come on, they can't ALL be true for cripes sake!  And if the
Govt. is being so damn honest about it, why is it so hard to get any
FOIA informatiuon, and when someone does manage to get something, so
much is blacked out that they could be talking about raising strawberries
as easily as about UFO's?  Gimme a break, fellas!
 
 RT> When it concerns the basic tenets of events of such magnitude, I
 RT> believe the media. I believe the Hindenburg crashed.  I believe that
 RT> the United States was involved in two major world conflicts in this
 RT> century.  I believe that Americans walked on the moon.  I believe that
 
 >>> Continued to next message...
 
___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.20 [NR]
--- TriToss (tm) 1.03 - (Unregistered)
---------------