From: bruce maccabee <email@example.com> Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 00:30:42 -0500 Fwd Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 10:00:29 -0500 Subject: Re: Kenneth Arnold's testimony >From: DRudiak@aol.com [David Rudiak] >Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 03:10:06 -0500 (EST) >To: firstname.lastname@example.org >Subject: Kenneth Arnold's testimony >>From: James Easton <email@example.com >>Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 19:49:02 -0500 >>Fwd Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 17:40:56 -0500 >>Subject: Re: Kenneth Arnold's testimony >>There seems to be compelling evidence that the unidentified >>objects reported by Kenneth Arnold, may have been a flock of >>American White Pelicans. >"Compelling?" Hardly. All these bird explanations for the Arnold >sighting are strictly for the birds unless they can substantially >explain ALL major features of the report, not a few carefully selected ones. I'm happy to see I'm not the only one around here whose thinking is not for the birds! I complement Mr. Rudiak for not being swayed by those who would grasp at straws...or in this case...pelicans. Note that Maccabee's FIRST RULE OF DEBUNKING is "Any explanation is better than none." OK, so we have had more than half a dozen explanations over the years PRECEEDING the relatively recent ornithological explanations. Since these new explanations have been offered one may logically conclude that the previous explanations were, in fact, no good. (else why a new one)/ Maccabee's SECOND RULE OF DEBUNKING: "If the first explanation seems unconvincing or is not generally accepted, try another." And this leads to Maccabee's FIRST COROLLARY OF DEBUNKING: If the second seems no more convincing than the first, try a third, etc., ad infinitum. Incidently, I a, surprised to see no "intelligent" discussion of the NEWEST class of Arnold explanations. This goose explanation has been around for several years. The pelican modification is of course the most recent version. The newest class of explanations is the METEOR EXPLANATION offered by the master of disguised ufology, Philip J. Klass, and published in the San Francisco Examiner by Keay Davidson last June. Davidson/Klass offered "lots of good reasons" why the meteor explanation should be accepted.....well, at least they thought there were good reasons. So, perhaps we should combine these explanations. Pelicans and geese are too slow. Meteors are too fast. BUT...a pelican that catches a passing (low altitude) meteor in its beak would be speeded up while the meteor would be slowed down (conservation of momentum) ...and they would meet in the middle at somewhat over 100 mph. Hmmm? How about it, guys? Have at it!
[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp