UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 1998 > Jun > Jun 6

Re: Area 51 Still Operational

From: John Rimmer <johnr@magonia.demon.co.uk>
Date: Sat, 6 Jun 1998 22:58:08 +0100
Fwd Date: Sat, 06 Jun 1998 21:38:10 -0400
Subject: Re: Area 51 Still Operational


>Subject: UFO UpDate: Re: Area 51 Still Operational
>From: Mark Cashman <mcashman@ix.netcom.com>
>Date: Sat, 6 Jun 1998 11:03:17 -0400
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>

>>Date: Thu, 4 Jun 1998 21:12:59 +0100
>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>>From: John Rimmer <johnr@magonia.demon.co.uk>
>>Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: Skywatch: Area 51 Still Operational

>>>The UFO phenomenon is not supported by Lazar, or crop circles, or
>>>any of the promiscuously promised "great revelations" that are
>>>"just around the corner". It is supported by over 50 years of
>>>well documented sightings and trace evidence.

>>Here we go again, more armwaving. Where are these cases? Where is the
>>documentation other than in a stream of unreferenced pot-boilers?

>Gee, John, how about Soccorro, Levelland, Exeter, Delphos...

These are all, in ufological terms, "good" cases and there are
puzzling factors about each of them. I think you will also find
that each case has been "explained" by one researcher or another
-- and I'm not talking about your usual-suspect skeptics here,
but bona fide ufologists -- so that no one case can be quoted as
the smoking gun. This has meant that ETH proponents have always
had to rely on what they see as the weight of evidence - "over
50 years of well documented sightings..." but 50 years' worth of
disputed and inconclusive investigations is no more convincing
that one disputes and inconclusive investigation.

>Not to mention strong military radar/visual cases, such as that
>recently documented by Brad Sparks in his excellent piece for
>Jerry's book.

Yes, a case over 40 years old - has there been nothing better
since? Or has radar got a bit too sophisticated since then?

>I mean, really, you expect someone to reproduce all of the cases
>of the last 50 years that have stood the test of time on an
>Internet mailing list?

No, just one...

> Why don't you read the literature and
>save us some time?

I've been reading the literature for well over half of those
fifty years, and I ain't seen nothing yet!

>>>How many good distance estimates have slipped through the cracks,
>>>to take just one key measurement? With good distance
>>>measurements, we can do altitude, speed, luminous energy output.
>>>Yet few investigators make an effort to obtain triangulation,
>>>they simply rely on wild guesses by witnesses.

>>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?

>Gee, John, you get them by having multiple witnesses or by using
>witnesses who are in a car. Or you use cases where the object
>clearly passed in front of a background object. Or you use
>radar. Take your pick.

>I've done one case with triangulations and I'm working on
>another. It is definitely possible to get distances and sizes.

Well, I have my doubts, and I've expressed them on another
posting, about the accuracy of triangulations based on memories
and guestimates, but the real point is distances and sizes of
*what* exactly? I'm sure you're not implying that because two
people saw something roughly the same size in roughly the same
place it's got to be an extraterrestrial spacecraft.

>>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!

>Really, Ubatuba demolished? By who? Sure, there are problems
>with some of the work done, and it is a sad thing that the
>primary piece was completely destroyed during the original
>analyses, but without funding and participation by mainstream
>labs, what was done was at least a contribution.

Well, Jerry Clark seems to think its dead as well, so sort that
one out with him.

>Jerry will have to respond to your comments on his reaction to
>whatever so-called "demolition" of Trans-en-Provence has
>occurred. However, I have yet to see such a refutation.

Probably the most accessible source is the chapter
"Trans-en-Provence: when science and belief go hand in hand" in
the Fortean Tomes book "UFO 1947 - 1997. I think it came out in
an American edition. Jerry's not impressed by it, but the French
investigators on the spot were.

>And lets try the medical effects experienced by Flynn and by
>Webb. Let's take the pressure measurements of Quarouble and
>Camrose.

>>>Science on UFOs is moved forward by incremental basic work,
>>>founded on good field investigation, not by revelation. And if
>>>half the effort spent on the tricksters was spent on real science
>>>done on real cases, we'd be getting somewhere.

>>I agree. If people were doing REAL research we wouldn't be
>>wasting our time on the dear dead extraterrestrial hypothesis.

>Yes, yes, it's dead (sigh). I hear this wishful thinking all the
>time. Exactly what killed it? I'm not an ETH proponent, but it
>sure has less problematic aspects than MHH, PNH, CSH, or the
>ELH.

Let's get one thing straight. I'm not saying that every UFO
report has been neatly explained and tied up in red ribbons by
Phil Klass et. al. There is plenty of puzzling stuff around -
you want an example, try Travis Walton, check out John Harney's
criticism of Klass's explanation on the Magonia website:
<www.magonia.demon.co.uk/ethbull/ethbull2> and ethbull3>. What I
am saying is that there is no objective evidence, no actual
physical evidence that points us consistently towards the ETH.

>Now, tell us John, how many field investigations you've been on,
>how many old cases you've examined, and how much of the
>literature you've actually read. Then maybe we will know how
>much weight to give to your unsubstantiated rant.

I can assure you that over the past 30-odd years I've served my
time on investigations and read a heck of a lot more than most
(in more than three decades I've seen most of the arguments (and
evidence) come round at least three times). It's because we want
to re-examine some of the old cases that I'm desperately trying
to find some material that will stand up.

Listen, after 30 years in this game you'd be ranting too!


--
John Rimmer
Magonia Online
www.magonia.demon.co.uk
A P.L.A.Driftwood Enterprises publication,
with added material by Dot Weighbridge


[ 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