Darren New wrote:
> On 10/25/2011 22:43, Saul Luizaga wrote:
>> The point being: there are indications of some things out there that are
>> suspicious, and can't be explained
>
> Good so far...
>
>> but the logical conclusions are this and that... etc.
>
> If they can't be explained, how can you call your conclusions "logical"?

Well all the recollection of testimonials, scientific testing of samples 
taken on sites and ufologist analysis, some ufologists with a background 
of decades and they having normal jobs, so I assume you don't hire crazy 
people so I think they reasoning is sound, they don't do it for a 
living, they are thinking normal people that dedicate their time and 
resources to find out the truth of course they must get money from their 
help but I doubt is big. Ufologists are far more scientific than you 
might think.

Post a reply to this message