posted on Jan, 31 2008 @ 06:05 PM
I don't consider myself a real expert, but I wasn't quite sure what the deal was with the examination of the Maury Island case. It seems to me that
a lot of the obvious research was missing -- such as trying to track down the local doctor or hospital's report of the son's broken arm, any
remnants of the boat, or maybe where the dog was buried. I was also not quite sure what all the "surprise" was about Kenneth Arnold's involvement.
He was all over the place, and anybody with even a passing familiarity with the case knows that.
It seems to me like they spent an awful lot of time tromping around in the woods for no good reason (since they weren't allowed to actually dig
anything up, and the ground penetrating radar was a complete bust), and pointlessly trying to get samples from an underwater site decades old (yeah,
like the sea floor never changes over time).
There was also this tendency to downplay the really weird stuff associated with the case. And this case raised the bar when it came to weirdness. It
was one of the first cases, for instance, where freaky MIBs showed up and bothered/ threatened the witness. No mention of it.
So it was another one of these cases where the investigators attempt to force it into the standard "ET nuts and bolts atomic powered spaceship" box,
by trimming off the odd edges that don't quite fit. I understand that people generally want nuts and bolts, but I think it diminishes the scope of
the case, and leaves out a lot of possible avenues for investigation, including those that might reveal it to be a big load of horsecrap and a total
If they can't come up with good, new evidence, then at least give us the whole story, no matter how wacky it may be, so we can judge it for
[edit on 31-1-2008 by Nohup]