From: James Smith <zeus001002.nul> Date: Sat, 14 May 2005 21:43:17 -0400 (GMT-04:00) Fwd Date: Sun, 15 May 2005 09:40:38 -0400 Subject: Re: How To Crack Weird Space Cases - Smith >From: John Velez <johnvelez.aic.nul> >To: ufoupdates.nul >Date: Sat, 14 May 2005 13:36:37 -0400 >Subject: Re: How To Crack Weird Space Cases >>From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac.nul> >>To: <ufoupdates.nul> >>Date: Sat, 14 May 2005 09:29:35 -0400 >>Subject: Re: How To Crack Weird Space Cases >>If they ever do the experiment I have proposed, they will prove >>it one way or another. >You can't reiterate that often enough for Smith who is oblivious >to any suggestion that the test is even necessary. Wrong. They can do the test. Some people need more "proof" than others. My data/analysis speaks for itself. If it isn't good enough, fine. Wait for a test. >The bloody FLIR needs to be calibrated just to find if there is >any slop in the system and if so, in which direction. Nice to be able to get, but too late by now to get that data, thanks to the Mexican Air Force handling of the affair. >Depending >on the acquisition of that data alone we could find out if, and >by how much, those images were above, on, or below the horizon. I agree the elevation was a problem. But the azimuth was fairly easy to calibrate and the FLIR UFO lights matched the oil rig flare lights to an uncanny degree. I would suggest a mirage but I hate to resort to that, especially when the 3D model shows they were easily visible from the aircraft at altitude. >Smith who does all his research and investigating on the >Internet from his arm-chair does nothing to help 'solve' >anything. I admit I am fairly lazy. I don't stand in fields looking to the heavens for the next UFO. I don't interrogate witnesses whom I can never tell are lying. I would prefer to have the computer+camera scan the heavens for UFOs and use witnesses only as a first level alarm bell for a key area to monitor. >In fact, what these trigger-happy pseudo-religious. >thought-police debunkers end up accomplishing is, further >muddying already murky waters. Hum. Did I force anyone to accept my analysis or data? I think I have provided sufficient writeup for them to duplicate the analysis (the scientific method, something sorely lacking in ufology). >Internet solution to a UFO case? Smith is a funny guy without >trying. Just another case of, "instant this, instant that." Not all UFO sightings can be answered easily using the Internet. Its too bad that MOST UFO sightings have no answer, mainly because no one takes the time to try to do it and secondly because there is simply not enough real data to use to try to do so. >"Problems" such as pesky UFO sightings must be explained and >solved quickly. Lest they leave the impression that they are not so easily explained! Giant UFO sightings that fall through and get shown to be nothing more than prosaic phenomena give ufology a black eye. The longer they fester the more a laughing stock ufology becomes. Lets try to prevent that. >Debunkers are the 'damage control' guys for their brethern who >go through life think it is their job to dictate to the rest of >us what comprises 'acceptable' thinking and view of reality. I ain't forcing you or anyone dude. I just show my data and analysis. >Pompous brown-shirts! So I'm a Nazi? Weird dude! >There is so much important data missing that the test flight you >requested would be just what is needed to provide some answer to >important questions. Answers that are needed _before_ publicly >declaring the case "solved". Smith has huge cohones proclaiming >_any_ case "closed" or "solved." He has an incredible sense of >self- importance and entitlement. To the point of excess. I have every right to think its is solved based on my data and analysis. It is the scientific method for you to provide counter data and analysis to refute point by point by work. I would appreciate such assessment because it will make the analysis better and who knows maybe you can provide some data or analysis that convinces me. It would be nice. >Professional arm-chair debunkers like Smith, who are only >interested in becoming the first debunker on the block to get >their 'solution' published in one of the religious-skeptic's >favorite periodicals, are nothing new. Like Klass and Nickel and >others of their ilk, Smith too will eventually expose himself to >all for what he is; a close minded, other end of the spectrum >version of a religious fanatic. Someone asked me for my analysis. I put it on my website for colleagues. I guess you are just pigeonholing me with the debunker gang. Well, we shall see. What will you say when I find and publish a true UFO case? >>On the other hand, no one has offered a logical explanation for >>the radar target which began the whole 'UFO surveillance' >>flight. >I asked him abut that one in my last post to him. He never >responded to it at all. All the more vocal, visible debunkers on >the List have avoided touching that one with a ten foot pole. >Like it was a plague carrier! I thought I sent such a posting responding to you. Anyway, as I said, when I examined the FLIR video it seemed to be moving such as the oil rig flares did not. It IS as UFO. I don't know what it was, you don't. It seemed like an airplane to me. I have no proof. My data/analysis only explained the UFO fleet, not the individual UFOs that appeared at the beginning or end of the UFO video. I have examined that video closely and have alot of "UFO"s that I found on it but no one has discussed them because they are not moving (on the ground?). Who down in Mexico has gone to those spots? No one. >Here's hoping the Mexicans eventually perform the much needed >test flight! Fine. >It is what it will take to convince the >international community that there is something worthy of >further study, commitment of resources, and investigation. Maybe.
[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp