UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 1999 > Jan > Jan 14

Re: Fox TV Special

From: Greg Sandow <gsandow@prodigy.net>
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 01:45:47 -0500
Fwd Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 09:57:08 -0500
Subject: Re: Fox TV Special


>Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 21:37:13 -0600
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>From: Michael Christol <mchristo@mindspring.com>
>Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: Fox TV Special

>Greg...This was a total waste of post....

>You apparently, based on what I just read, have never even heard
>the sounds you commented on....

Michael, if I'd really commented on the sounds without hearing
them, you'd have every right to be upset.

But I didn't comment on the sounds. I commented on the analysis
of the sounds, which is a very different thing. The sounds, for
all I know, might be the sounds of a UFO. They might be
something else. But the analysis you quoted is, in my opinion,
unclear, credulous, and unprofessional.

I also want to repeat what I said at the end of my post -- I'm
not sure it's possible to analyze a sound and conclude that it
couldn't have been created by any known means. You can analyze
chemical compounds or metallic alloys, and say whether or not
they're familiar. That's because there are long lists of known
compounds and alloys.

But there's no such list of possible sounds, as there is of
known chemical compounds or metallic alloys. I don't think
anyone has ever listed all the properties of known sounds, and I
don't see how anyone could.

I may be wrong about this, of course, since my field is music,
not audio engineering. But I do know that it's readily possible
create new sounds with a variety of hardware and software, or
simply by taking a recording of a known sound and altering it.
Anyone curious about this should take a look at some of the
audio editing software that's around these days. You can
actually take a computer "pencil" and draw details of a
soundwave, creating something that never existed in nature.
Professionals, designing the latest synthesizers, create sounds
directly from mathematical models. I'm not going to say it's
easy to create a sound nobody has ever heard before, but it's
not terribly difficult, either. A junior high school kid with
some standard software could do it.

>I know that you have virtually no respect for the material in
>question...It is quite evident by the message you posted. Please
>don't think that I am attacking you... I am not. I just want you
>to listen to the information, then we will have something to
>comment on.

I have to admit I have little respect for the analysis you
quoted, Michael, for all the reasons I stated. My opinion of
Meier has nothing to do with that. I hope I'm an objective
student of ufology, but I can't throw away all my professional
knowledge of sound and music just to give the Meier case (or any
other one) a chance.

>I know there are those which have been classified as: "Noisey
>Negativists," on this list. They despise the Meier case and have
>openly attacked it from the beginning. These attacks can relate
>directly back to William E. (Bill) Moore and Kal Korff... Please
>don't be sucked into a conclusion until you have taken the time
>to actually check out the available information which has been
>compiled on the case.

Nattering nabobs of negativism? Is that what Spiro Agnew called
us? <laughing>Seriously, Michael, I've never studied the Meier
case. I was only reacting to the analysis you yourself quoted,
because -- taken purely on its own terms -- it didn't make much
sense. >>Thanks for you patience with me Greg...

We're all students of life, Michael...

Greg Sandow


[ 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