UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 1998 > Feb > Feb 11

Re: 'UFO Sphere/Orb' over Brooklyn, NY

From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@proaxis.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 00:14:24 -0800 (PST)
Fwd Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 07:22:56 -0500
Subject: Re: 'UFO Sphere/Orb' over Brooklyn, NY

>From: "Tom Burnett" <burnettc@gte.net>
>To: "UFO UpDates - Toronto" <updates@globalserve.net>
>Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: 'UFO Sphere/Orb' over Brooklyn, NY
>Date: Mon, 9 Feb 1998 17:23:31 -1000

>> Date: Mon, 9 Feb 1998 08:25:28 -0800 (PST)
>> To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>> From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@proaxis.com>
>> Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: 'UFO Sphere/Orb' over Brooklyn, NY

>> >From: "Tom Burnett" <burnettc@gte.net>
>> >To: "UFO UpDates - Toronto" <updates@globalserve.net>
>> >Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: 'UFO Sphere/Orb' over Brooklyn, NY
>> >Date: Sun, 8 Feb 1998 19:39:24 -1000


>> >> Date: Sun, 8 Feb 1998 19:13:54 -0800 (PST)
>> >> To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>> >> From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@proaxis.com>
>> >> Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: 'UFO Sphere/Orb' over Brooklyn, NY

><snip>

>> As you should know, one doesn't divorce a photograph from the
>> testimony of the eye-witness to the event who took the
>> photograph.

>Very well, Jim.  The photographer says that he cannot identify
>the object as terrestrial or extraterrestrial. Or anything about
>it.  It might be a lens flare, a wayward monopole, the
>manifestation of a portion of the dark matter in the universe,
>or nothing at all.

OK, Tom, you win!  It was an Unidentified Flitting-around Object.
(But check those capitalized initials.)

>> >>and (2) it says something about their strategy
>> >>or level of ethics in dealing with us, in that they provide a
>> >>certain measure of deniability to persons who can't accept its
>> >>reality and who don't mind ignoring certain aspects about the
>> >>object's description or reported behavior when latching onto that
>> >>deniability factor.

>Your logic is starting to wear thin, Jim.  What you are saying,
>in effect, is that if a skeptic sees a ET craft it will appear to
>him as an unidentifiable anomaly.  If a non-skeptic is standing
>next to him and sees the same thing, he will see an ET craft.
>{...}

The context was that only one person saw (and photographed) it.
So if you don't change the context, it goes like this:  The
witness sees it, and he finds it to be unidentified and very
impressive, and his photograph supports him (although it may
resemble a lens flare or a meteor or whatever).  Then the skeptic
learns of it and keeps open the likelihood that it is still
unidentified, since the object's behavior does not accord with
what its photograph resembles, and since the witness has
credibility.  Also, a negative skeptic learns of it, and
concludes either that the unidentified object is not a "genuine"
UFO, or that it is the same thing which the photo resembles, even
though that conflicts with the witness's report on its behavior.

Jim Deardorff



Search for other documents from or mentioning: deardorj | burnettc

[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |

UFO UpDates Main Index

UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp


Archive programming by Glenn Campbell at Glenn-Campbell.com