Hi Donald.

You seem like a intelligent and reasonable type of a person but I do not fully understand your "reasoning" in the areas of UFO's or ET's.

Would you please correct my understanding of your view point.

You wrote:
Edgar Mitchell is a fine gentleman, but he speaks only his opinion while, at the same time, admitting he doesn't have proof for what he believes. I like the guy, but unless he can offer something more substantive than other people's unverifiable claims, there is no reason to think he's got any better claim on "The Truth" than the rest of us.

Are you saying that his own experiences do not count as "better claim" than some other people's that have not had such experience. He claims of being cured of cancer, can that not be "proven".

You wrote:
What's missing in all of this is any real and independently verifiable physical evidence that unequivocally affirms exterrestrial beings have dropped in for a visit here. In fact, not a single claim asserting E.T. is here, has ever been independently verified and found to be true.

What do you mean by "independently verifiable physical evidence", would an ET's space craft be sufficient or ET's body. Would you believe the people that examined the "evidence".

You wrote:
Yes, people do, indeed, observe UFO's. But UFO's, by definition, are "unidentified." In otherwords, those observing them can never actually state what it actually was they observed.

Yes that is true but then it is also agreed that they did observe (and sometimes photographed) "something" that was "not usual" in every day observations. The question that still remains is; what did these people see or photograph?

You wrote:
In my view, claiming that the reason we don't have good evidence that actually "indentifies" what UFO's are is because the government is hiding it from us, doesn't hold water. Its an excuse for why those making such claims can't ptove what they claim

Would it not make sense to "hide" superior technology from the rest of the world, especially since we would not thoroughly understand it ourselves and besides that, there may be "enemies" out there that might get to a better understanding of the devices than we have, and that might give them an "advantage" in a conflict situation.

You wrote:
I remain open to the possibility that E.T. is here, but I require something more substantive than Mr. Mitchell does in order to draw any firm conclusions.

What would that "more substantive" be?
If we were able to construct "air craft" that were able to perform similar feats to those of the purported "UFO's, would that convince you that E.T. is here?

Cheers
Johannes