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 - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp