pigfarmer
tall, thin, irritable
Well, for sure I am really sick of the same old crowd we've been hearing from and that is an incontrovertible fact. Elizondo, Eric Davis and that stupid Wilson memo, Hal Puthoff, George Knapp, Jeremy Corbell and so on. They are not helping anyone other than themselves although admittedly without them and the NY Times AARO probably would not have happened.
When it comes to ufology I am very cautious to assume anything.
Part of the reason I say this is our old girlfriend Patty and the PGF. Bigfoot interest is just as full of sincere witnesses, poor photography, hoaxers, lunatics, attention and profit seekers, etc. We've heard from the guy who 'made the suit' and from the man who wore it and about Patterson's motivations. All the parts and pieces of the story were out there but it wasn't until Bill Munns (in my opinion) saw data others failed to because he has a professional background that lent itself to the task. That is a very interesting story and I've recommended his book here in the forum but the reality of the PGF isn't my point. It's that in all the decades of hububbery the Sasquatch interest has been there have been lots of theories built on assumptions that ultimately proved to be false.
In the Jack the Ripper thread I mentioned another book that did the same thing. Fresh perspective, new data and all the pieces suddenly snap into place. I know being proselytized by a single book on topics like that sounds silly and my response to that is 'go read the books'. In that vein I think the same thing might be said about Amelia Earhart this year or next.
I'm not waiting for a book to explain the truth about UFOs to me, I just don't know what to make of what I've heard recently
When it comes to ufology I am very cautious to assume anything.
Part of the reason I say this is our old girlfriend Patty and the PGF. Bigfoot interest is just as full of sincere witnesses, poor photography, hoaxers, lunatics, attention and profit seekers, etc. We've heard from the guy who 'made the suit' and from the man who wore it and about Patterson's motivations. All the parts and pieces of the story were out there but it wasn't until Bill Munns (in my opinion) saw data others failed to because he has a professional background that lent itself to the task. That is a very interesting story and I've recommended his book here in the forum but the reality of the PGF isn't my point. It's that in all the decades of hububbery the Sasquatch interest has been there have been lots of theories built on assumptions that ultimately proved to be false.
In the Jack the Ripper thread I mentioned another book that did the same thing. Fresh perspective, new data and all the pieces suddenly snap into place. I know being proselytized by a single book on topics like that sounds silly and my response to that is 'go read the books'. In that vein I think the same thing might be said about Amelia Earhart this year or next.
I'm not waiting for a book to explain the truth about UFOs to me, I just don't know what to make of what I've heard recently