UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2005 > May > May 11

Re: More UFO Fleets Over Mexico - Lehmberg

From: Alfred Lehmberg <alienview.nul>
Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 12:03:38 -0500
Fwd Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 13:34:07 -0400
Subject: Re: More UFO Fleets Over Mexico - Lehmberg


>From: James Smith <zeus001002.nul>
>To: ufoupdates.nul
>Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 10:20:07 -0400 (GMT-04:00)
>Subject: Re: More UFO Fleets Over Mexico

>>From: John Velez <johnvelez.aic.nul>
>>To: ufoupdates.nul
>>Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 16:19:59 -0400
>>Subject: Re: More UFO Fleets Over Mexico

>>>From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj.nul>
>>>To: ufoupdates.nul
>>>Date: Mon, 09 May 2005 18:20:25 -0700
>>>Subject: Re: More UFO Fleets Over Mexico

>>Oh how you waste your time my friend. James Smith for all his
>>feigned pretension of honest skepticism, is quite the opposite.
>>If Smith is able to accept the sloppy 'proof' that Mr. Franz
>>presented recently while demanding precision and strict
>>adherence to empirical procedure from the Mexican research
>>community, contrary to what his mouth says, what he actually
>>does is to prematurely arrive at conclusions and apply a double
>>standard to everyone else.

>Ha-ha-ha! You really know how to give someone a good laugh!

Au contraire mon ami! It's always the one holding fastest to a
crumbling world view provides the most mirth. You've got _me_
rolling on the floor.

>When
>did I ever give a of Captain Franz' latest video data?

Your blithe acceptance of Franz provides an abundantly
accommodating critique _enough_, Mr. Smith. As to that, its the
voluminous squawking of the piqued ideologue that is at issue
here. You see, one won't have to wait with one of your
philosophy. Merely seeing your name in the subject line is to
know where you come down on an issue, any issue. Try that with
me or Velez, by way of example, and your heads comes up tails to
often to be profitable for you.

>Pulling data out of the air again I see.

He won't be pulling his from a discredited past of outdated
conventional wisdoms, you can be sure.

>Sort of like balloons.
>The fact is that Captain Franz has gotten off his ass, unlike
>many members of the UFO community, and actually gone out there
>to try to gather data to verify (or not) his theory.

Yeah, yeah... this is forgetting that the axe he obviously
grinds would smell as sweet. Moreover, I suspect that if the
"(or not)" clearly presented itself we wouldn't hear a peep out
of him, or you.

>The passive
>UFOlogists instead like to sit back and wait for some day to
>arrive when the vaunted Mexican military will refly the path. I
>am pleased that Captain Franz is still working on the case,

I suspect you are! But I don't mean that in a good way. An
embezzler _would_ want a compatriot in to check his cooked
books. Birds of a feather fly together, and all that, and you
pelicanists support each other like United States Senate
Repugnicans.

>although I hardly see it as necessary. I have done my share of
>footwork on this case unlike you Mr. Velez.

Right.

>>The only thing Mr. Franz duplicated in his 'experiment to prove
>>his oil-well burn off theory' was that he was 'in' an airplane.
>>Other than that, he's the first one to tell you that in his
>>alleged recreation of the flight he did not follow the same
>>course, (in fact, he was nowhere near to where the original
>>recording was made) nor did he fly at the same heading, altitude
>>or speed as the original flight. (Reread the preceding sentence
>>until it sinks in.)

>He was gathering data, unlike you Mr.Velez who prefers to wait
>until the military doles out their latest "footage" or balloon
>experts film their latest release.

Nonsense - I suspect he worked an artful conjecture to prosecute
an agenda of fatuous denial.

>>Yet he insists that the photos he took of Oil-well fires
>>corresponds -exactly- to the ones recorded by the military FLIR
>>equipment. And... that abortive effort by Franz which proves
>>absolutely nothing, is good enough for Smith to champion the
>>theory in public while looking down his nose at anyone who may
>>disagree.
>
>Sorry, I have not reviewed his latest video yet. I do not see
>the need.

Right. Your mind is made up! Why complicate your stolid
intransigence looking for additional facts? Seriously, your last
sentence erodes the need to continue any more discussion with
you... but I shall. <g>

>I am done with the case. It is proven to be oil rig
>burn off flares.

Ah! Proven! Dodgy evidence you 'choose' to accept.

>Franz' dedictation does him credit.

Franz' dedication illustrates only his enfeebled complacency.

>I have
>convinced MYSELF using satellite data. That is enough for me.

Any data supporting your 19th Century contention would be enough
for you.

>If
>you wish to continue to believe your fantasies, that is your
>perogative. Believers will believe no matter what.

How right you are, Sir! The irony is that you would be the best
example of that. You pelicanist 'believers' will hold fast to
your flock's beliefs... "no matter what"!

>I championed Franz' theory only after I could CONFIRM that he
>was RIGHT using satellite Landsat images to get the needed data
>to find the exact locations of each burnoff flare and match it
>with the FLIR images (thanks to the azimuth and aircraft
>position being imprinted on the video, unlike the balloon
>videos).

No, you reasoned with all the other pelicanists that this was a
likely looking _enough_ "round peg" that might be hammered into
an offending "square hole." You guys do this over and over. A
smart man would try a different approach. Yours will work less
and less each additional time it is attempted.

>I don't look down my nose at you stubborn anti-factualists.
>I smirk.

Call it what you want. It comes across to me like the petulance
of a crossed juvenile.

>>It's ordinary pre-judging, plain and simple.

>Oh-so-funny!

It would be I suppose, except you expect to be lauded for it.

>>Bruce Maccabee met with Jaime Maussan at the Conference that
>>was held recently in Washington. They discussed (yet again) the
>>possibility of getting the Mexican AF to recreate the original
>>flight, using the same plane, equipment, speed, course and
>>altitude.

>Yes, a good idea whose time may never come, but I do recommend
>holding your breath until it does.

The only thing keeping us from breathing free, in the aggregate,
is you and yours, Mr. Smith.

>>Pay close attention here Mr. Smith: You can't seem to squeeze
>>this one into your melon for some reason.....

>>Then, and only then, after the recreation/test flight, is
>>performed, (if) there is any _direct_ correlation between oil
>>well burn-off fires and the original FLIR recording, will you or
>>anybody else be able to dismiss the FLIR recording as mere heat
>>signatures recorded from oil well burn-off.

>Foolish man! Ignore all the satellite image correlations and
>platform locations and ancillary Franz videos and sure you can
>say there is no direct correlation. Continue to ignore the
>evidence, sir. It becomes you not.

While you are a foolish man in turn for clinging to your gassy
fiction regarding an essential (for you) dearth of other
intelligences in a vast universe... even bigger than _your_
pathetic hubris, Sir. Even if you _are_ obtuse, you're not
stupid, and the implications and potentials of unending space,
un-bracketed time, and infinite surface area are not lost on, I
suspect, even you.....

>>Not before.
>>Whether you like it or not.
>>Period.

>Yawn.

Wow! What a gaper! ...Brits _do_ have bad teeth! <g>

>>I don't know how many times this point needs to be made before
>>skepti-bunkers in sheep's clothing (with itchy trigger-fingers)
>>finally chill out and wait for the Mexican military to do the
>>right thing.

>Yes, they are certainly going to make this top priority, showing
>that they are incompetent. Yes, I will follow these developments
>closely.

Only if they feather your nest, Mr. Smith... only if they
feather your nest. Otherwise, you'd work just as passionately to
discredit it, I suspect.

>>Until then, people who egotistically declare cases closed/solved
>>without being able to actually prove or document it, really are
>>better off lurking.

>Ignore the Landsat satellite data and all the FLIR directional
>data and you would be right, the case would NOT be closed. Maybe
>you don't understand what satellites are or something. Yes,
>thats mind boggling, but how else can I explain your fundamental
>inability to process the data I have presented in tedious detail
>to date (I even generated VRML models of the 3D data... oh yes,
>sorry, Mr. Deardorff prefers reality).

You must be driven by the data, Mr. Smith, not driving the data.
The latter_is_ woo-woo, and the former is not the pelicanist's
style.

>>The only thing I'm surprised at is; why this test flight has not
>>been performed to date. It's _the_ real sticking point. They can
>>calibrate the FLIR and a fresh recording can settle once and
>>for all the question of oil well fires.

>As I said, the military doesn't what to advertise its stupidity.


This fairly drips with bigotry, Mr. Smith... which serves _you_
not. Why _are_ they a stupid military?

>>Then maybe these alleged "honest" skeptics, cough, cough,
>>ahem... can put their heads together and try to explain the
>>radar target UFO that did all kinds of tricks in the air, ie;
>>dramatically speeding up and slowing down, as it wended its way
>>toward the city of Carmen.

>Have I ever stated that the target that Bruce Maccabee
>identified was explained by oil flare platforms? No. I tried.

You deny that you would suggest or intimate a 'discounting by
association' with what you believe could be conveniently
discredited as a result of Franz' bloated activity? Sir, it's
what you lot are _famous_ for.

>Its ONE light on the FLIR. Hardly the Earth shattering "fleet"
>of UFOs pursuing a poor Mexican military plane.

I suspect you just can't perceive your own prejudice, pendaho. <g>

>If you want to
>call the ONE light a UFO, then by all means do so.

That's not his problem. Velez wants to live in a real world and
not the conveniently crafted environs of the reflex denialist
like yourself.

>It is one
>because I do not have any data to call it an airplane (which I
>suspect but cannot prove it is).

More avian dropsmanship, Mr. Smith. Your mind is already made
up. To you, they're _all_ airplanes... or birds, bolides, and
boosters, and people who think otherwise are misrepresenting,
misrepresented, or mentally ill. Yours is a mere fraction of the
reality we try to perceive with five or six very imperfect
senses. ...More to Earth and heaven, Mr. Smith, to paraphrase
our bard...

>As for the "tricks in the air",
>that does not show up on the video, it just moves like an
>airplane.

Are you a professional aviator in addition to all your other
talents, skills, and professional appellations, Sir? I was, you
see. I was a Standardization Instructor Pilot, Instrument
Flight Examiner, and a Master Aviator. The movement alluded to
is not _entirely_ like an airplane, Mr. Smith.

>I am skeptical of the radar after seeing the quality
>of the data (no data stream). Heh, what about later on in the
>FLIR video (after the "fleet"), there are some other lights
>which I can't identify. GO ahead and call them UFOs because I
>will not take more time to identify them (I tried and at least
>they aren't oil rigs or known heat sources on the mainland).

It remains that nothing like this was seen before or after this
event, Sir. That assiduously avoided aspect does not fit well
with your ardent desire for a prosaic conclusion or easy
explanation.

>So you got some UFOs on the video! Are you happy? Do I care? A
>nocturnal light on FLIR will not fill me with the truth that we
>are being visited, but we all have different needs. Maybe one
>light is enough for you. Enjoy!

We'll forget that there is a lot more going on than one lonely
nocturnal light. There's 5000 years of _that_ and more. Maybe
that's just too _much_ for you?

>>Case closed? I don't think so.

>Whatever!

Withdraw then!

>>Let em all talk, Jim. Until the military makes the test flight,
>>the jury will still be out in on this one. In spite of all the
>>bleating coming from certain quarters. Let em squirm, protest,
>>demand and prejudge all they want. In the end, the truth will
>>out.

>Yeah baby!

Your smirk begins to sag, Mr. Smith.

>>My warmest regards to you Mr. Deardorff, stay well. Keep in
>>there swinging! ;)

>Yes, support your local balloon releaser.

That only got nervous twitters from your side, Sir. No laughter
here, or where _you_ are, I suspect.

alienview.nul -:|:-
 www.AlienView.net





[ 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