From: Lan Fleming <lfleming6.nul> Date: Wed, 18 May 2005 19:11:27 -0500 Fwd Date: Thu, 19 May 2005 09:27:21 -0400 Subject: Re: How To Crack Weird Space Cases - Fleming >From: James Smith <zeus001002.nul> >To: ufoupdates.nul >Date: Wed, 18 May 2005 10:04:56 -0400 (GMT-04:00) >Subject: Re: How To Crack Weird Space Cases >>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). JSE doesn't restrict itself to "pro-anomaly" papers. It published a rebuttal by JPL scientists to a paper by Mark Carlotto about Cydonia. >>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? There is a near-total lack of coverage of interesting UFO cases and coverage of good UFO investigators. If "non-debunked" UFO stories are good for ratings, then obviously ratings for for such stories are not the prime motivation in deciding what to print and what not to print. I assume you're kidding about the left wing agenda. The corporate news media that seldom gives serious coverage to any non-debunking UFO story is the same corporate news media that touted the Bush administration's "evidence" for Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, which turned out not to exist. If the news media have a left-wing agenda, they hide it very well. >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. I have seen very few major news media stories that cover anything _but_ the antics of the eccentrics attracted to the subject of UFOs or stories intended to portray serious researchers as eccentrics. The Peter Jennings program was a rare exception to that (the first half, at least). >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. It's more what he leaves out than what he says that's wrong. But he also gets some important things wrong sometimes as, for instance, the source of the time stamps on the STS-48 video, which he won't admit were not data from the telemetry stream, contrary to what he asserted.
[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp