Ok, I gotta admit, I was hasty in writing about Shermer in my previous post. I did that when I used video seeking as I was in my office then, and just happened to hear his comments over the others. But I saw the video in its entirety last nite, and I must say he was right to a certain extent. He did admit that there is something to it, but it is not wise to reach a far reaching conclusion like they are alien spacecrafts etc. George Noory was plain awful in simply saying that the crash was true because of Haut’s testimony. And he even recounted a meeting with a certain witness who claimed that Von Braun told him that he had seen the wreckage himself and that it should be taken seriously.
This is always the problem in UFOlogy today. He said, she said and they said, so it is true! Shermer is abs rite in telling that it won’t work that way. He was arrogant alrite, but the panel didn’t respond to his criticism properly. When he asked where was the evidence, I heard Stan say the word physical evidence just once. There are a lot of cases where there are ample physical evidence, which have been investigated by Vallee, Peter Sturrock and so on. Why couldn’t they talk about those cases. Instead all we got to hear was that witness testimony is the hard evidence! I personally have witnessed a UFO, but if people ask me as to what it was that i saw, I can’t give a clear answer. I would have to simply say it was unknown as far as I am concerned! That’s the point, people should focus on such cases with physical trace evidence, rather than still stickin to the whole weak Roswell Episode!