tadchem wrote:
> "AlejandroDelLoco" <alejandrodelloco@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:1118407780.539913.300810@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> <snip>
>
>>Well, wasn't the deal with this dude that he defintely saw
>><i>something</i> there, not necessarily aliens?
>
> The only way an impartial observer can distinguish between a re****t in
which
> someone "definitely saw" something and a re****t in which someone
believes he
> "definitely saw" something is physical evidence.
>
> Vehicles operated by humans invariably leave behind physical traces -
tire
> tracks, exhaust fumes, the occasional droplet of a working fluid (oil,
> coolant, hydraulic fluid, washer fluid), and wear particles from tires.
Even
> occasional discarded/ablated parts may be found - shredded recaps,
mufflers,
> bumpers, fenders, lens crystal fragments, paint flakes, ... you get the
> idea.
>
> Finding *something* analogous for alien vehicles would go a *long* way
> towards strengthening the case.
There have been literally thousands of trace cases filed and
catalogues of them published (impression marks, burns,
etc.). Nothing that proves an extraterrestrial vehicle
caused the traces, of course, but the cases exist. So, back
to the "saw something, not necessarily an alien" problem.
--
Dan Clore
My collected fiction, _The Unspeakable and Others_:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1587154838/thedanclorenecro/
Lord We˙rdgliffe & Necronomicon Page:
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/9879/
News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo
Strange pleasures are known to him who flaunts the
immarcescible purple of poetry before the color-blind.
-- Clark Ashton Smith, "Epigrams and Apothegms"
|
