UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2005 > May > May 18

Re: How To Crack Weird Space Cases - Smith

From: James Smith <zeus001002.nul>
Date: Wed, 18 May 2005 10:04:56 -0400 (GMT-04:00)
Fwd Date: Wed, 18 May 2005 14:04:59 -0400
Subject: Re: How To Crack Weird Space Cases - Smith


>From: Lan Fleming <lfleming6.nul>
>To: UFO UpDates <ufoupdates.nul>
>Date: Sun, 15 May 2005 15:26:09 -0500
>Subject: Re: How To Crack Weird Space Cases

>>From: James Smith <zeus001002.nul>
>>To: ufoupdates.nul
>>Date: Sat, 14 May 2005 21:43:17 -0400 (GMT-04:00)
>>Subject: Re: How To Crack Weird Space Cases

>>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.

>The Apollo 16 film didn't really fall through the cracks;
>several messages were posted about it on this List quite some
>...

I was referring to Campeche and UFO balloon fleets. I appreciate
being able to post the Apollo analysis here.

>If you really want to put your findings in the permanent record,
>I'd suggest that you submit a paper to the Journal of Scientific
>Exploration. It published a paper previously arguing that the
>object was a large spacecraft, so I think the editors would feel
>obligated to publish your counter argument, which seems
>conclusive to me.

I sort of can see your point, but is this journal truly a peer
review? If they can publish the orginal "analysis" of the Apollo
UFO, then this implies a low level of merit required for
inclusion. Anyway, that journal is more interested in verifying
phenomena than showing such phenomena is not real. Also, if the
magazines were easier for the public to get their hands on, then
it may be worthwhile. The Internet seems the best was to
disseminate both real UFO case analyses and hype UFO videos and
stories. It would be nice to have a site like Science Frontiers
that keeps track of these anomalie updates. We still have the
standard magazines to try to get an article in (pro and con UFO
oriented, too bad there is no balanced magazine, at least as
viewed by the community).

>As for Oberg (belatedly) picking up the story, this is
>the only kind of UFO article that he and his corporate
>employers will publish for mass consumption: "Big
>UFO Case Debunked."

What gives better ratings: debunked UFO story or non-debunked
UFO story? I think you know the answer. Aren't the
publishers/media more interested in readership and vast piles of
cash and pushing a left wing agenda and political power?

I think that if they would publish "proved" UFO stories if such
existed. Think of the ratings! The media publishes that the
Koran is flushed down the toilet with the flimsiest basis merely
for their desire for ratings and money and power, why not the
same for flimsy UFO cases? And such is the case.

>They do this periodically, apparently because they
>want to impress upon the public the opinion that all
>unexplained UFO cases could be "logically" explained
>if there were sufficient information.

I would hope the public has learned by now that you can't
generalize this way. But really, the number of UFO cases that
are left flapping in the wind which are like "just-so" stories
is a mightly pile! And apparently they have impacted the
opinion of the public (based on poll results). We all know that
they add a line that "astronomers say it was a meteor or Venus".
 But the rest of the article is hype about the case and people
eat it up. It gives readers! They aren't going to emphasize
the explanation or debunking because this is not what the public
cares to read. The editors have done their market research.

>They seldom if ever permit any other opinion to be
>heard.

I have not seen an analysis of all news stories that justifies
this conclusion. They give even the folk who swim with dolphins
to better communicate with ET some (albeit little) coverage.
True, the UFO believers and abductees are not treated favorably
or fairly. But this is part of the media game. They know this is
what the public wants to hear (i.e. making fun of some small
group not approved of by the majority). Actually, it seems that
the UFO believers are being treated a little more favorably in
recent years.

>The art of propaganda isn't about telling lies; it's about telling
>half- truths, and Oberg is a master of that art.

I haven't seen this to be the case. He has alot of experience in
relevent areas. His focus is on space and this expertise cannot
be lightly dismissed. He may be wrong sometimes, we all are. But
he seems more right than wrong.





[ 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