tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7040353126484409527.post5084960665690991038..comments2024-03-21T08:16:46.130+10:30Comments on Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena - scientific research: New book alert - DonderiKeith Basterfieldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05367372091711887711noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7040353126484409527.post-28771685953639311412013-11-06T12:08:52.425+10:302013-11-06T12:08:52.425+10:30> "No open-minded and reasonable person wh...> "No open-minded and reasonable person who has read and understood the evidence should now doubt..."<br /><br />I own this book and have read the section on the Hill case. I do doubt that Donderi has "read and understood the evidence." Here is the comment I left at Magonia:<br /><br />Donderi also has an uncritical take on the Hill case, repeating the highly polished version of the story, never referring to the early documents. For instance, Donderi repeats the same old guff about the spots on the trunk of the car being physical evidence of the event. However, while all the early Hill documents mention the beeps hitting the trunk, none describe spots on the truck -- or damage to the car of any kind.<br /><br />Betty's September 26 1961 letter to Donald Keyhoe: "There does not appear to be any damage to our car from the beeping sounds."<br />Walter Webb's 1961 report to NICAP has no mention of spots, saying only, "...there were no electromagnetic disturbances..."<br />The Air Force report doesn't mention spots or car damage.<br />Betty's notes about her dreams have nothing about spots or car damage.<br />NICAP's Hill article in the UFO Investigator, Jan-Feb 1962, doesn't have spots or car damage.<br />The APRO Bulletin report, March 1963, has no spots or car damage.<br /><br />All these reports are from unique communications with the Hills: they are not a copying or recycling of earlier reports. Six chances to mention physical effects, six chances to cite corroboration for the beeps that rattled the trunk, but not once do we hear about the spots.<br /><br />Donderi says the spots were seen "by many witnesses" but can only name one, Kathleen Marden. There are two problems here. Fuller and Webb didn't name or quote any witnesses to the spots, they merely printed Betty's assertion that there had been witnesses. Conversely, of the early investigators, friends and relatives of the Hills who are named by Fuller and Webb, not a single one reports seeing the spots! Finally, Marden is not named as a witness to the spots by Fuller or Webb or anyone until the year 2000 (that is the earliest record I can find so far).<br /><br />(I could go on and on.)<br /><br />Donderi may be a scientist but he did not look at the evidence, he merely repeated the myth.<br />Terry the Censorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13361088223337740598noreply@blogger.com