From: Steven Kaeser <firstname.lastname@example.org> Date: Fri, 05 Jun 1998 12:50:40 -0400 Fwd Date: Fri, 05 Jun 1998 13:29:41 -0400 Subject: Re: Area 51 Still Operational >Date: Thu, 4 Jun 1998 21:12:59 +0100 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <email@example.com> >From: John Rimmer <firstname.lastname@example.org> >Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: Skywatch: Area 51 Still Operational >How can you get good distance measurements without first >*knowing* the altitude, size, etc? How can you get triangulations >if there's just one witness location? Where are the cases with >witnesses clearly seeing the same object from distant locations? >Documentation please! There are some cases, where there are two witnesses, and triangulation is possible. There are also a few cases where shadows as seen on the ground in the photographs, so (again) distance and size can be triangulated. The problem you will then point out is the veracity of the witnesses or the photographs, so providing documentation isn't really a good answer here, if absolute proof is your goal here. BTW, general distances sometimes be determined by an analysis of the haze in front of an object, compared to objects that are a know distance from the camera. But, of course, that could be faked, so again this isn't "absolute" proof. >Again, where are these trace cases? Jerome Clark was making great >deal of noise a while ago about Trans-en-Provence (France) but >he's gone all quiet about that now that it's been demolished by >French researchers who were actually on the spot. Now I see >someone on the Update is trying to resurrect Ubatuba which was >buried 30 years ago. Do me a favour! I recall a case in France where the police placed trace evidence (or photographs of it) into an investigation file. The US Air Force has a great deal of interesting physical evidence that they haven't been able to explain, some of which is now available through the FOIA process. If Karl Phlock wants to chime in here, he can provide some interesting details regarding the "Scoutmaster Case" in Florida in the '60s, which the Air Force investigated and couldn't explain. >I agree. If people were doing REAL research we wouldn't be >wasting our time on the dear dead extraterrestrial hypothesis. There's some real research being done, and much of it has found that many of the unexplainables are indeed explainable. This was the result of good research, not bad research. There are also cases where no conclusive answers can be found, and therein lies the problem. The extraterrestrial hypothesis is alive and well, which means that it is really little more than a best guess or conjecture, based on the "evidence" at hand. However, I'd be the first to state that it certainly hasn't been proved as a fact. >>So don't lose hope, but shift focus to where the real work can be >>done. And remember: If it sounds like a con, it probably is a >>con. Don't waste time on tricks. >Here, here. And most of what I read sounds like a con to me. I would add that most of those doing what I would consider to be "real research" aren't writing books or performing on the talk show circuit. We need to be skeptical of extraordinary claims, but IMHO it's a mistake to paint all researchers with the same brush.
[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp