Hi all,
A new book, which I have been looking forward to reading, by Don Donderi, has reached the top of my reading pile. The book is "UFOs, ETs and Alien Abductions: A Scientific Look at the Evidence," published this year by Hampton Roads, Charlottesville, VA. ISBN 978-1-57174-695-5.
Who is Donderi?
The back of the book tells us that Don Donderi is a joint Canadian/US citizen. He holds a BA, a BSc and a PhD. "He served as Associate Dean of the Faculty of Graduate Studies and Research, at the McCall University." His area of speciality knowledge is human visual perception and memory.
UAP background:
Donderi "Started to read about UFOs when I was ten years old." (p.xi.) He investigated various reports, which included photographic cases; close encounters; occupant cases and abduction cases, in Canada. Of the individual witnesses which he met, he says "Nothing in the behaviour or personal history of any of them leads me to think that they are mentally disturbed or that they told fabulous stories for personal or psychological gain." (pp xix-xx.)
The book:
The work is divided into three sections, "UFOs," "Extraterrestrials," and "Us." Part one is the area where Donderi reviews the subject from the 1947 Kenneth Arnold sighting; the 1957 RB-47 event; the 1973 Coyne helicopter case; contactees; Project Blue Book, amongst others.
There is a quick review of researchers Hynek; Keyhoe; and Menzel, plus UFO groups APRO, NICAP, FUFOR, MUFON and CUFOS.
Part two sees Donderi take a look at such cases as the 1967 Ririe, Idaho CE; the 1966 Hill event; the 1968 Buff Edge, Vermont case; the 1976 Allagash abduction; and the 1989 Goodland, Kansas incident, amongst others.
Perhaps the most important section, to me, is part three, where he examines how science has treated the subject.
"The scientists who dismisses UFO evidence because it is "folklore" is putting facts into the wrong pigeonhole." (p.170.)
"When a UFO case attracts enough public attention, a scientific spokesman often advances a specious conventional explanation. If a specious conventional explanation cannot be advanced, some scientific person is likely to remark that we don't have enough information to explain the anomaly but if we did, the anomaly would disappear." (p.171.)
Conclusions:
After all his investigations, research and personal analysis, what does Donderi conclude about the phenomenon?
"On the basis of that training and my knowledge o the evidence, I think that some of what people report as UFOs are extraterrestrial vehicles." (p.x.)
"No open-minded and reasonable person who has read and understood the evidence should now doubt that we have seen and tracked machines in our skies that we do not know how to make." (p.71.)
After reviewing abduction cases, "I think that the six cases described earlier, as well as many others, show that extraterrestrial occupants have abducted people into UFOs, examined them, interacted with them in other ways and then, after one to two hours returned them to earth." (p.144.)
"Established scientists do not have the resilience to acknowledge that some reliable instrumental records and human observations are caused by extraterrestrial vehicles and by extraterrestrials." (p.171.)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Senator Whish-Wilson asks another UAP related question of the Australian Department of Defence
Questions For several years now, Australian Parliamentary Senator Peter Whish-Wilson has been asking UAP related questions in the setting ...
-
Conference The 2024 conference of the U.S. based American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA) AVIATION Forum and 2024 ASCEND ... -
Introduction On a recent episode of the "WEAPONIZED" podcast , titled " The UFO Hearing-What Happened? What's Next, ... -
The purpose of this article is to provide background information about the Canadian government's interest in, or lack of interest in the...
> "No open-minded and reasonable person who has read and understood the evidence should now doubt..."
ReplyDeleteI 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:
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.
Betty's September 26 1961 letter to Donald Keyhoe: "There does not appear to be any damage to our car from the beeping sounds."
Walter Webb's 1961 report to NICAP has no mention of spots, saying only, "...there were no electromagnetic disturbances..."
The Air Force report doesn't mention spots or car damage.
Betty's notes about her dreams have nothing about spots or car damage.
NICAP's Hill article in the UFO Investigator, Jan-Feb 1962, doesn't have spots or car damage.
The APRO Bulletin report, March 1963, has no spots or car damage.
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.
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).
(I could go on and on.)
Donderi may be a scientist but he did not look at the evidence, he merely repeated the myth.