Page Content (OCR)
An attitude common, even among primitives, “Lhaven't been there or Seen such a place or a Thing or Person or Happening SO | must SHOW a semblance of Intellec & DOUBT this thing until | see it Myself." (Too Common) Strangely, No Sailor would believe that the World was Round even when SEEING its round- ness Each Day, for It WAS NOT THE PROPER WAY TO THINK THEN. The conflict was long and hot, and towards the end it was bitter, but the observers stood their ground. They insisted that they saw something, and since not one person in the profession could conceive of anything but an intra-Mercurial planet, no common ground was ever found for agreement. The British professionals, and Dr. C.H.F. Peters, in the United States, were especially vehement in their protests. In a long and brilliant analysis, Peters proved conclusively that these objects could not possibly be intra-Mercurial planets, and for good measure proved that none of the other long lists or objects seen near the sun or crossing it could be such planets. In fact he did a credible job of proving that no such planet could exist! After studying his arguments, | most whole-heartedly concur — up to a point. That point is where Dr. Peters tries to prove that since Watson and Swift did not see intra-Mercurial planets, what they did see were erroneously identified stars. But he would not necessarily agree that they had seen anything at all. Peters was bitterly sarcastic and felt rather too secure in his superb analytical ability. IN THE ABOVE EXAMPLED CONFLICT IT WAS NOT WHO WAS RIGHT OR WRONG BUT "WHO BUT MYSELF IS_THE BEST OBSERVER: I.E. MY PRIDE & MY EXPIERENCE OR EGO. WHEN EGO SLIGHTS EGO, BOTH BECOME NARROW AND QUITE SMALL. Dr. C.H.F. Peters, arch master of astronomical and mathematical analysis, set_up the best scientific case for UFO's which has ever been stated — unless one denies the observations, together with the sanity and honesty of Watson and Swift and about thirty other honest observers. | would be willing to rest the entire case for UFO's on Peters' analysis, if the observations be granted as presented by those practiced observers. It boils down to this: Watson and Swift did see two disclike objects. C.H.F. Peters proved that they were not planets and not very far from the earth. So did 30 others. To make a long story much too short, here is what happened. First, everybody was wrong to some degree, as often happens in bitter controversies; and everybody was partly right. Watson and Swift did see what they said they saw — but they were wrong in thinking that they saw planets. Peters was eminently right in his analysis that they could not have been planets — but he was wrong, most blindly and unjustly, in saying that they did not see anything. Watson saw two discs several degrees apart. Swift saw them close together and near the locations of Watson's first one. Watson and Swift observed from sites about one hundred and eight-five miles apart. Parallax caused the difference in the locations of the objects. On the basis of the measured positions and sizes, it is possible for us who ae not blinded by inhibition and preconception, as were Watson, Swift, and Peters, to see that these two objects were UFO's not far away, but far enough to be surely in space. One was nearer than the other. The nearest one was displaced by parallax in Swift's observations due to the one-hundred-and-eight-five-mile base line. It is as simple as that. 144 But Peters performed a wonderful service for us!