UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 1998 > Jul > Jul 5

Re: Lindemann & Rense Tidy Up

From: "Serge Salvaille" <sergesa@connectmmic.net>
Date: Sat, 04 Jul 1998 23:21:40 -0400
Fwd Date: Sun, 05 Jul 1998 08:32:24 -0400
Subject: Re: Lindemann & Rense Tidy Up


>Date: Sat, 4 Jul 1998 10:47:41 -0400
>From: bruce maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
>Subject: UFO UpDate: Lindemann & Rense Tidy Up
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>

>>To: updates@globalserve.net
>>From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>>Subject: UFO UpDate: Lindemann & Rense Tidy Up

>>While listening to Wednesday night's 'Sightings', hosted by Jeff
>>Rense, this evening (thanks Bill) I caught the erudite Michael
>>Lindemann dropping a gem.>

>>It seems that he ran into Jeff Sainio at the MUFON Symposium in
>>Colorado this past weekend. The reclusive Mr Sainio called up the
>>Mexico City footage of the 'Craft' going behind a large building,
>>on his computer and told Michael that he was absolutely in no
>>doubt that the footage was a hoax.

>It is true. Upon careful analysis we have determined that when
>the background building images are smeared by camera motion the
>UFO image does NOT appear to be similarly smeared. Very
>difficult (impossible?) to explain this situation if the UFO were
>a real object out there. This result has been known to the
>investgators (myself, Sainio, and Chip Pedersen) for over a
>month and I mentioned it at the Mid Atlantic MUFON SYmposium in
>early May. Furthermore, Sainio sent a letter stating his opinion
>to Walt Andrus about a month ago.

>However, we have held off publication pending analysis of a
>guaranteed fake for comparison. The fake has been created for
>use in Robert Kiviat's next TV show (he did the alien autopsy
>and last summer's "best video evidence") in a couple of weeks.
>(Kiviat would not release to us a copy of the fake video until
>just before his show airs).


Bruce,

Not my intention to be in anyway offending, but I find hard to
swallow the fact that yourself and a couple of experts have been
in the knowing of some decisive new data on the Mexico video and
that the facts become public in such an indirect (and perhaps
lucky) manner.

Especially when you said yourself in concluding your November
1997 analysis of the Mexico video:

>TO BE REVISED AS INFORMATION BECOMES AVAILABLE

I can't understand why nobody triggered a red flag at the time
(more than a month ago!?).

How can this be possible since this looks like definitive
evidence  And can this...

> pending analysis of a
>guaranteed fake for comparison

justify holding off on the evidence. If you can't reproduce a
fake then it's not a fake

My mind is a blank.

Serge Salvaille