I read and reread the steps more significant Stephen Breck's book "ground contact" and more apparent to me that the breaking point with respect to the volume is historical ufology, that to be clear, that begins with the first sightings of the 40-century America scorso.Ho already written several times and repeat to the risk of sounding boring that I am convinced of the existence of UFO because I saw them along with thousands of other young people when they (the Festival of St. Cetteo 1959) witnessed the passage of a UFO in my city and also to have followed very closely the events of sightings and close encounters with unidentified objects instead of people above all suspicion during the wave UFO events in the Adriatic 1978/79.Perché the years I think the book Breccia is a break with the history of the phenomenon studied with scientific method? Without wasting words of rivers like the real experts (or those still held by many that the think like me in spite of their recent behavior incomprehensible) s
try to bend in a linear fashion to make myself understood by all .------------------------ ----------- Before the book in question was published there was a clear division between those, serious UFO enthusiasts, who considered unlikely that you contact the episodes were on duty to tell on TV for the sole purpose to show off and collect some money (individuals that the Center National UFO rightly regarded, more or less unreliable witnesses) and a large mass of "gullible" no ifs, ands or buts, to which you could tell and make believe everything you wanted about extraterrestrials. Now, through his book Stefano Breccia, with the blessing of CUN's Roberto Pinotti, and, in 421 pages puts together a jumble of ridiculous episodes with historical events and irrefutable documented by authoritative sources. What is the result? Forget, for charity, and the poor SYNDROME CONTACT Bruno Sammaciccia now passed away, the core of the problem and the crux of the whole affair is in the hands of those who wrote and published a book that essentially ground contact reverses the position of the CUN against those persons determined to be only a short time and not credible individuals discreditanti for those who study and study the UFO subject seriously and intellectual honesty. Many have wondered at this point, and many others are wondering if they will ask in the future because Breccia with a preface by Pinotti, published the volume? Wanting to make the conspiracy cheap many reasons could be envisaged. All, however, it seems clear that the determination of whether Pinotti reflects on a passage from his preface to the book when it reveals (24-page preface) who in 1976 met with a possible ambassador (or spokesman) of the Aliens, a beautiful young woman "... coming find me to send me a direct message to deliberately Visitors who used it as a medium. The woman warned me to get back on my deepest decision (for a decade after its creation) to be my part in the CUN family and professional reasons for saying that instead, "I could not assume my responsibility," and that my contribution to the "UFO Case" ... .. and pointed out that in spite of difficulties of various types was still necessary to move forward on the basis of a peaceful program was explained to me: it happens, entirely consistent with the framework outlined by Perez in relation to ' "Friendship". What that basically the writer has done and is then in practice still doing it, regardless of this incident and its implications. I will not talk about coincidences ... "I never expected that I would not have the same Pinotti was a approached by a beautiful young aliens as many other contactees mistreated by the President of CUN This book shows that the ground contact situation and the actual flap creates the break I mentioned earlier this nota.Ci would still be much to say about this publication and I think I have every right to comment in respect of others' opinions and not take the form of "expert" and insider . There are many fans of UFO SERIES to which I turn and from which I receive my humble appreciation for the "campaign" in favor of the reality of the phenomenon of "flying saucers." Let me conclude by addressing this chat to friends who are shocked (there are also those among my few readers) that I write these notes of dissent on the publication of the breach, I would be discrediting the CUN and in so doing, I'm throwing away "the baby with the bathwater." I realize that to some friends criticize Stefano Breccia and Roberto Pinotti may amount to a "crime of lese majesty," but those who know me also know that I always tried to be consistent and that in no case have demonized those who think like me. This should remember and I can testify (not I doubt it), especially the "boys" with whom I founded UFOBSERVER.
