Witnesses, who've claimed over the years of having observed strange and weird things in the sky, are too often put down by skeptics as being unreliable. But which part is the most unreliable bit for Skeptics, the person telling the story, or is it, the event or sighting that is being called into question? I guess Skeptics would argue it is the Human being that is totally unreliable, not the event per-se, that may of course of happened, but it can be explained in a number of ways without looking for the paranormal answer.
In all cases that have been reported over a vast number of years, surely, and put it to the skeptics, some the witnesses gave an accurate account of, what they'd seen? As others have somewhat suggested the History of the World, is all about stories, so if witness testimony is so unreliable to go by can we trust history at all?
I guess, History of the last hundred or so years, can withstand the scrutiny or unreliability of witness testimony to events, since they're is a backing up of some recent history of yesterday so to speak, with video, film and there is greater access to the printed word today then ever before with (books, magazines, newspapers and the internet.
I can defend the recent history of UFO's reports, and the evidence so far accumulated since the 1950's, and on. Why? The evidence is far more than just words on paper, and you have to Understand 'MacDaddy' something that doesn't exist should never appear on film and on photographs ever, the fact that these Objects have no apparent identification markers, have an odd shape for flight, and the objects seen move at speeds faster, than any plane we know about should be able to, and people all the time are capturing images, and videos of these objects in the sky from around the world, and nobody can explain what it is people are seen, should give an honest- Skeptic pause shouldn't it?
It not that hard to understand "Science" is fairly sure photographs before the age of the computer were almost impossible to mess with, and I fairly sure, ordinary people in mass were not trying to hoax an event to get public attention, so surely some of the videos and photographs are capturing real-life unexplainable objects in the sky!
I would, if I wasn't an "Experiencer" have had a real hard time believing in the subject of UFO'S, but I am open-minded person, so if I had gone and researched some of the cases. I still-believe, I would have found much of the evidence, that there is out there in the public domain compelling. I believe it is wrong for so called Skeptics to believe "Everyone" who saw things in the sky, do not know what there looking at.
While it may be true, a witness is not educated enough to actually know what the object represents, but most-people are able-bodied enough to be able to describe what they saw in the sky, and in the majority of cases, give an honest description to someone who is willing to listen, without all the silly objections and obstructions.
In my world it safe to assume, the more witnesses there is to a UFO sighting, the better that case becomes, and people from all walks of life, should at least, have some wonder about what happened at the place, were people reported the usual sighting. We've had a number of those Cases which are compelling were video was taken (the Hudson Valley flap) is a perfect example of were thousands of people saw objects in the 1980's, never an honest explanation has ever been given to explain those sightings!
Vallée is not out to prove his theory over another, he has publicly stated that the "ETH" is a valid hypothesis, but what he has found, by doing relentless research into medieval tales of fairies, and wee-people, as some people often mention, that some of the actions of what ordinary people claimed in the past, does closely match the actions of the intelligence doing the abductions of recent times, that is a curious whatever peoples pet-theory is about this stuff, if the actions are the same, it could well turn out whatever the people witnessed back then is the exact same thing as what people see now, our vocabulary has changed, language spoken in the past is different to how we speak it today. The English language is a universal language today, so it much easier today for everyone to describe events that happened, and other cultures who speak a different language, to least understand what is being said.
I understand the history of the Island I live on, people might not be aware the Keltics had a language, but it was only spoken orally, nothing if anything was ever written down, so we virtually have no record of what actually took place back then, everything about themselves, was passed from one generation to the next by word of mouth, and by other cultures who came into contact with them like the Romans!
As for the Tuatha Dé Dannann (MacDaddy) fairies and wee-people. There is actual-real life history spanning back centuries way before the Birth of the Roman Empire. Historians in Celtic Countries who know the history, don't object to or discount a people called the Tuatha Dé Dannann existed, and they were often depicted as people, in the many records and books written by Monks in the 11th and 13th century, that are now in public and private ownership across the UK and Ireland. The argument among Historians is the accuracy of the tales that are depicted, especially since the 17th century, not all, but lot of them tales are talking about "Magic" being used.
They'd the ability to change the weather patterns, there is lot of weird stuff in the original tales, to go into now in one post. Here is just one. When the King of the Tuatha "Nuada" lost an Arm in fierce battle with the FIR-BOLG, his surgeon replaced that arm with a working silver one, he almost died from injury but he survived to do battle later!
Battles were often described in accurate detail with names and places and Frankly the vivid descriptions of what just can't be denied.
Some of the original tales that were written by the Monks have been changed to suit a certain point of view. This is one example. It said when Tuatha Dé Dannann arrived in Ireland. It said they arrived in "Dark Clouds" upon the highest mountain in Ireland, and conquered Ireland from the Inhabitants already here, the "Fir-bolg". It later accounts is said the Tuatha arrived in Ships from the sea totally different to the original accounts. The Tuatha later, fought another group called the "Formori",, which is claimed in tales and legends were living in a sea paradise, not above, but under the oceans of the planet. This stuff would be tough reading for many lot of the tales were in Latin, and translated later, but the believe of the Monks who wrote these tales, is there was truth to lot of what was claimed by peoples in Ireland long ago!
There is strong possibility, the Fir bolg and Formori, is from were the wee-people legends originated from, not the Tuatha Dé Dannann. The Tuatha were described as a looking very Human, Blonde hair and pales skin, almost identical to the Nordics that people claim they have seen in contact cases!
Vallée book "Passport to Magonia" I have never read it, but from what I understand.
Vallée, referenced many tales from Ireland, that were hundreds of years ago in the past. The tales and legends as I have discussed are much older then that, we have records from the Roman era that talk about the Tuatha Dé Dannann, and most importantly we have a record to look at that came from the Monks, in the monasteries, lot of the monasteries, were build at locations that were close to towns and villages, were the ordinary folk live. They'd, and probably were of the few who had the ability, to write and document history in medieval times, and they'd done so.
What business would Monks have in creating tales that do go against everything they believe to be true? Vallée probably, his research came from reports that came from the Monks and Priests, and people who had to ability to read and write back then.
I ask MacDaddy, this Photograph have never been debunked or proven to be hoaxed. What would be your view or current understanding on what is show in the Photograph? The Photograph was taken in the 90's during the Belgium flap over twenty years ago. Please enlighten me to what you personally see here!
But, I think most will agree that Streiber has a world view that he filters through. Randi has a world view that he filters through. But, then again we all do don't we? Still, I cringe when anybody be they believer or debunker try to out yell or out authority somebody else. I have seen different people take something like the so called "God" spot and a beleiver will say "See? we are hard wired to the truth" and a debunker will say "See? it's all natural selection" and neither has any real absolute proof. The debate continues. But, I do enjoy the civil exchange of ideas. Believe it or not I have learned some things here from both the so called beleivers and the so called skeptics. Nothing has changed my own world view since it's not quite that fragile. But it does make me think.
