UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2007 > Nov > Nov 21

Re: Pilots & UAP

From: Don Ledger <dledger.nul>
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 12:07:37 -0400
Archived: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 16:02:33 -0500
Subject: Re: Pilots & UAP


>From: Joe McGonagle <joe.mcgonagle.nul>
>To: ufoupdates.nul
>Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2007 21:22:51 +0000
>Subject: Re: Pilots & UAP

>Hello Don,

>>From: Don Ledger <dledger.nul>
>>To: ufoupdates.nul
>>Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2007 12:38:14 -0400
>>Subject: Re: Pilots & UAP

>>>From: Joe McGonagle <joe.mcgonagle.nul>
>>>To: ufoupdates.nul
>>>Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2007 13:22:39 +0000
>>>Subject: Re: Pilots & UAP

>>>>From: Don Ledger <dledger.nul>
>>>>To: ufoupdates.nul
>>>>Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2007 21:17:43 -0400
>>>>Subject: Re: Pilots & UAP

>><snip>

>>>Just to respond to your earlier post first where you wrote:

>>>"Same as what?"

>>>My point was that altitude, speed, and attitude are not quite
>>>the same as angular size, relative elevation/depression, and
>>>vertical motion.

>>I don't think you know what you are talking about here, Joe. You
>>are discarding info out-of-hand because of some misperception on
>>your part.

>>Best thing to do is spend 5,000 pounds getting your license then
>>spend thousands more acquiring an aircraft then thousands more
>>on top of that getting a couple of thousand hours in the air,
>>then you can offer an opinion; otherwise you are just
>>spouting-off about something you know nothing about.

>If as appears to be the case, you are suggesting that altitude,
>speed, and attitude are the same as angular size, relative
>elevation/depression, and vertical motion, then I suggest that
>you have wasted any money that you have spent on training to be
>a pilot.

This is absurd. And you are spliting hairs. I didn't train to be
a pilot so that I could better report some errant UFO. I love
flying, that's why I trained. You astound me. What a silly thing
to say.

I'm suggesting that because of my expereience that I have a
better shot at relaying a report of said UFO because of years of
built up experience, of identifying other craft in the sky with
me. I can quickly eliminate hundreds of possibilities due to my
knowledge of what flies. This is the same with all high time
pilots.

Also, I have a much better chance to measure some object's speed
or size while in the air. What difference does it's anguler size
make? You hang on that as if it's the definitive make or break
for UFO ID.

Both good experiences I had of seeing a UFO were while I was
ground bound - never saw one while flying. But I have seen 6 or
7 weather balloons, many hot air balloons, birds, clouds,
airliners, airforce aircraft, blimps, planets and stars etc.
during my time in the air.

<snip>

>>Let's face it Bowyers has a much better handle on what does and
>>doesn't fly in our skies and has earned the right to report
>>without fear of ridicule about what he saw in the sky.

>No dispute there.

>>The fact that he was happy to get on the ground after seeing
>>these things should tell you something.

>Yep - it tells me he doesn't like sharing airspace with something
>he can't identify. Does it tell you something different?

>>The second pilot steadfastly refuses to talk further about it -
>>probably because of the nonsense that comes from the press and
>>their inexperienced debunking supporters; or it struck him on a
>>level he would rather not go to.

>Or probably because he doesn't want to take the risk of being
>associated with "UFO cranks" who perceive anything unusual in the
>air as a "craft".

Now there it is, the "UFO cranks". That's what this is all about.
You are as guilty as the mainstream press who know less about it
than you do whom however make snap judgements about what people
see without actually disproving it on their [or your] own.

>>Bowyers report suggests a craft to me - an unknown craft, or UFO.

>Why? There's no apparent structure, it wasn't moving in any
>obviously controlled manner. What convinces you that it was a
>craft?

Who said there was no apparent structure?

>>Otherwise you are trying to make this out as some unknown
>>natural phenomenon. That I think is baloney.

>I'm not trying to make it into anything - it's you that's making
>into a craft.

What else would it be? Surely you are not suggesting swamp gas or
a cloud or some other silly explanation. Why would you err on the
side of some unknown, unheard off phenomenon related to weather
perhaps - [the latter doesn't lend itself to the location and
weather conditions anyway - or the other most common attempt to
shoehorn in ball lighting or some electrical phenomenon that has
no basis in fact or unsupportable.

More and more Joe it appears to me that you are in the business
of debunking rather than solving. I think Martin and others are
on top of the Channel Islands case.

Note for Martin - if these things were at their altitude then
they would have been on their respective horizons or perhaps
below it.

Bowyers and the other pilot had eyes in the sky and experience on
their side, what have you got that you are bringing to the table
other than some vague attempts at descrediting the witnesses.

I note of late that there is a concerted attempt to discredit
pilot reports and the pilots themselves by James Oberg and a few
others who simply parrot Hynek's uninformed gaff. And there is
good reason for this. He and others recognize the value of pilot
reports most likely because they report them in terms they are
most familiar with as if it was another aircraft.

While we are at it I note Canadian pilots have gotten around the
stigma they wish to distance themselves from while still
alerting other pilots in their airspace of reports of something
unusual by reporting a 'balloon'.

These 'balloons' do not in the larger percentage of cases make
any sense. Thay are too big, are tracking the aircraft, often
are displaying behavior uncharacteristic of a balloon such as,
in one case, hovering in the same spot for 26 hours, are not
scientific balloons because they are not NOTAMed, are at
altitudes uncharacteristic of weather balloons.

Weather balloons by the way are being used less and less for
weather ops particularly around large airports. I suspect that
within the next ten years or so they will be things of the past.
But the ploy works because it serves its purpose to alert other
pilots while making a report to ATC.

You and I will not agree Joe because we come from different
camps.

Don Ledger



Listen to 'Strange Days... Indeed' - The PodCast

See:

http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/sdi/program/subscribers/


[ 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