Follow Through? Evidently Not.

Greetings. One aspect of the unknown, of should I say, of the attempt to explore the unknown that I find interesting is how often people claim that physical evidence was at the sites of alleged anomalous events, yet that alleged physical evidence never comes to light. Why is that?

Mr. Christopher O'Brien recently commented on a blog posting I shared on a Facebook group. His comment reads, and I quote: "Stan Gordon had a fascinating '70s case in PA that IMO is highly credible featuring large hairy beings and a landed craft leaving glowing physical evidence behind after it took off. A PA State Patrolman was one of the witnesses and Gordon was on site the same night as the alleged event occured. The well investigated, documented account is in his excellent book Silent Invasion." 

I responded to Mr. O'Brien's comments as follows: "Was any physical evidence that was determined to be anomalous collected at the site?"

As of this writing, Mr. O'Brien has not responded to my inquiry. The blog posting appeared on November 21st, and with the buzz of the Thanksgiving holiday, it is reasonable to assume that a response might come to pass at a later, quieter date. Then again, perhaps not. When I read Mr. O'Brien's response, I immediately took note of a few details, which of course demands a list. Here goes....

1. Mr. O'Brien stated that there was 'glowing physical evidence' at the site of the event in question. 

2. Mr. O'Brien stated that a Pennsylvania state trooper was a witness of the alleged event. 

3. Mr. O'Brien stated that there were multiple witnesses of the event in question, not just a single person, not just a single pair of eyes. 

4. Mr. O'Brien stated that Mr. Stan Gordon was at the site on the very same night as the event in question. 

Let's ask some reasonable questions: If there was 'glowing physical evidence' at the site of the alleged event, where exactly is that evidence? Law enforcement officials, including state troopers, are trained to collect evidence at the scenes of crimes and occurrences. The Pennsylvania state trooper that was a witness to the alleged event would have therefore collected samples of the 'glowing physical evidence.' Those same samples would have been documented and stored away until an examination could be undertaken, which means that a chain of custody could be established. Where exactly is that evidence? If there were multiple witnesses to the alleged event, which is a possibility, does it make logical sense to think that nobody bothered to pick up any of the 'glowing physical evidence' at the scene? People are curious creatures, it's human nature to want to pick up stuff, especially if that stuff is bizarre and out of the ordinary. If Mr. Stan Gordon, an experienced researcher, was on the scene the very same night, then he certainly would have collected some of the 'glowing physical evidence.' Where exactly is that evidence?

Here again, we have claims, but nothing concrete, talk, but nothing of any real substance. C'mon! Talk is cheap, where is the evidence?

Thank you for your time and consideration.