From: Bruce Maccabee <firstname.lastname@example.org> Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1999 18:46:52 -0500 Fwd Date: Sun, 03 Jan 1999 13:02:05 -0500 Subject: Re: Cough, Korf, Ahem! >From: Mark Cashman <email@example.com> >Subject: UFO UpDate: Re: Cough, Korf, Ahem! >Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1998 14:47:33 -0500 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <firstname.lastname@example.org> >I think that no case should be investigated by less than two >investigators. And I also think that every important >investigation should be followed up about 1 year and 5 years >later with a reinterview, leaving every possible amount of room >for the witness to explain or disavow the reality of their >report without blame. This is one of the rarely-appearing good ideas in ufology. I have long advocated "long" investigations which make the witness(es) wait. Several of my investigations have been carried out over years (New Zealand - 1979 to 1982 or 1983; McMinnville, 1974 to 1982) or months (Japan Air Lines 1628 jumbo jet case of Nov. 1986 - Jan 1987 to April, 1987) for example. Recently, I spent about 4 months investigating and analyzing the 'peanut' UFO video case.... an investigation that COULD have been accomplished within a week..... but I wanted to give the witnesses plenty of time to give any indication of a hoax before going public. Cashman's suggestion probably will not be taken up except in very exceptional situations in which 'new' investigators pick up on an 'old' case, such as happened with Roswell when Schmidt and Randall began an in-depth re-investigation about 10 years after the initial investigation had started (late 1978).
[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp