Post by anansi on Feb 17, 2012 5:33:37 GMT -5
COMMENTARY | An ex-government consultant, Timothy Good, claims President Dwight Eisenhower had three meetings with extraterrestrials, according to the Huffington Post. This story is not new, but it is gaining attention due to an interview on Frank Skinner's BBC2 program "Opinionated." Even though credence could be added due to the former position of the claimant, it should still be disregarded.
Good sat down with the "Opinionated" crew and gave his side of the story. He admitted he was unable to verify any of the information. He also stated he was not able to give any solid information on the dates or places of the meetings. How is it people can believe a person who cannot provide a shred of evidence to back up his claims?
I heard about this story a year ago and spoke with a few UFO-ologists to see if there was something newsworthy about it. I was greeted with speculation but without any shred of evidence. Granted, there are documents that claim there might have been aliens in America and suggested Eisenhower should meet with them, but I have seen many speculative documents like this that were created over the years. Some were fabricated, while others were actually created by the government through "possible scenario" think tanks.
Personally, I would love to wake up one morning and hear how definitive proof had come forward about the existence of extraterrestrials. The problem with part of the UFO-ologist community is there are too many who will easily fall for any speculative story. The ability to sell books, make TV appearances and tour the UFO lecture circuit is enough to prod anyone to fabricate a story about a chance encounter with an extraterrestrial or a story about how Eisenhower might have had lunch with someone from another planet.
People have come forward in the past with UFO stories and claimed a viable connection to the government but greed and attention have been proven to be the driving force.
Instead of looking at Good's story as fact, we should force him or others to prove it. We should look at any claim like this critically instead of deciding it is time to rewrite the history books. The things we do not know for sure now can only be proven scientifically with hard evidence, not unsupportable statements.
Good sat down with the "Opinionated" crew and gave his side of the story. He admitted he was unable to verify any of the information. He also stated he was not able to give any solid information on the dates or places of the meetings. How is it people can believe a person who cannot provide a shred of evidence to back up his claims?
I heard about this story a year ago and spoke with a few UFO-ologists to see if there was something newsworthy about it. I was greeted with speculation but without any shred of evidence. Granted, there are documents that claim there might have been aliens in America and suggested Eisenhower should meet with them, but I have seen many speculative documents like this that were created over the years. Some were fabricated, while others were actually created by the government through "possible scenario" think tanks.
Personally, I would love to wake up one morning and hear how definitive proof had come forward about the existence of extraterrestrials. The problem with part of the UFO-ologist community is there are too many who will easily fall for any speculative story. The ability to sell books, make TV appearances and tour the UFO lecture circuit is enough to prod anyone to fabricate a story about a chance encounter with an extraterrestrial or a story about how Eisenhower might have had lunch with someone from another planet.
People have come forward in the past with UFO stories and claimed a viable connection to the government but greed and attention have been proven to be the driving force.
Instead of looking at Good's story as fact, we should force him or others to prove it. We should look at any claim like this critically instead of deciding it is time to rewrite the history books. The things we do not know for sure now can only be proven scientifically with hard evidence, not unsupportable statements.