UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2003 > Dec > Dec 4

Re: Trindade Photos A Fake? - Gevaerd

From: A. J. Gevaerd - Revista UFO <gevaerd@ufo.com.br>
Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 07:25:18 -0200
Fwd Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2003 19:00:40 -0500
Subject: Re: Trindade Photos A Fake? - Gevaerd

>From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
>Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 22:25:03 -0500
>Subject: Re: Trindade Photos A Fake?

>>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
>>Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2003 10:50:41 -0600
>>Subject: Re: Trindade Photos A Fake?

>>>From: Kentaro Mori <airdown@ig.com.br>
>>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
>>>Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2003 10:52:18 -0300
>>>Subject: Re: Trindade Photos A Fake?


>I feel I must lend support to Jerry's discussion about Klass and
>the "Klassical technique" of "solving" the UFO problem.

>I, too, have exchanged many letters with PJK, mostly between
>1974 and 1985. the great bulk of these related to McMinnville
>(photos, Trent, 1950) and New Zealand (Dec. 31, 1978). IN the
>New Zealand discussion we exchanged, not a few hundred, but
>perhaps as many as several_thousand_ single spaced pages over
>about a 5 year period. I dare say it was the largest letter
>exchange over any one case in history.

>And the bottom line was that, in his 1983 book, "UFOs, the
>Public Deceived," PJK deceived the public by claiming to have
>explained the NZ sightings.H is explanation was, however,
>completely erroneous, as I had pointed out to him in many
>letters previous to the writing of his book.

>My 'professional opinion' of the way PJK treated the UFO subject
>is expressed at the following location:


>which is a paper I wrote several years ago (at the behest of
>Eugene Mallove, Editor of Infinite Energy Magazine). In that
>paper you will see several cases for which PJK provided "prosaic
>explanations", including the Val Johnson case mentioned
>previously by Jerry.

>One good thing I could say about PJK was that he seemed to be
>the only skeptic who really took the subject seriously enough to
>spend a lot of time studying the cases. Also, he "trained" me in
>how to approach a sighting as might a lawyer, looking for weak
>points in the case. Unfortunatly, he was not competent to argue
>all the different types of physics one encounters in UFO cases
>(few people are) but this didn't stop him. He invented and then
>published explanations even when they were unphysical,
>explanations that would not have gone unchallenged by
>conventional physicists had they been published in conventional
>refereed journals. But explanations published in papers an books
>can establish an impression that "the case(s) has (have) been
>explained" and then any refutation that might come later doesn't
>get the same level of recognition or publicity. The case(s)
>remain ":explained" in the minds of the scientists and general
>public. Examples of this are in the paper at the above cited web

>Many years ago I was told (by William Hartmann of the Condon
>study) with regard to the McMinnville photo case, "You don't
>need a better, you need a better case." I will paraphrase that
>remark and apply it to the present situation: "We don't need
>better cases; we need better skeptics."

Just a note:

This is the difference between tendencies in North America and
South America. In USA and Canada UFO researchers have the
patience to deal with debunkers and skeptics for decades. Here
in Brazil and most parts of South America, we definitely don't
waste any time with them.

As a matter of fact, the biggest UFO debunker we ever had,
foremost astronomer Ronaldo Rogerio de Freitas Mourao, is
nowadays kind of a supporter of the subject. He was a strong
critic of the UFO Phenomena in the past and eventualy gave up
and decided to have a more flexible approach towards the

Good for him,

A. J.