UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2008 > Oct > Oct 14

Re: Kumburgaz Turkey UFO Videos

From: Dick Hall <dh12.nul>
Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2008 12:30:44 -0400
Archived: Tue, 14 Oct 2008 18:17:20 -0400
Subject: Re: Kumburgaz Turkey UFO Videos

>From: Michael Tarbell <mtarbell.nul>
>To: ufoupdates.nul
>Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2008 09:15:22 -0600
>Subject: Re: Kumburgaz Turkey UFO Videos

>>From: Ray Dickenson <r.dickenson.nul>
>>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>>Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2008 14:08:44 +0100
>>Subject: Re: Kumburgaz Turkey UFO Videos

>>>From: Dick Hall <dh12.nul>
>>>To: ufoupdates.nul
>>>Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2008 16:10:18 -0400
>>>Subject: Re: Kumburgaz Turkey UFO Videos

>>>Unless and until credible photographers of known repute
>>>come forth and supply complete information that would
>>>allow scientific study, it is an utter waste of time to pay
>>>attention to these things at all.

>>Can't help being reminded of that last thread - "... the rest
>>merely trying to lay down the law - usually with the intention
>>of excluding all or most evidence".

Ray seems to imply that anything at all put forth on the internet
is "evidence" that must be taken seriously.

All I do is state the obvious: Before wasting time endlessly on
all these images - many of which clearly come from charlatans,
the claimants should be of known repute and should be required
to supply certain basic information.

The only "law" alluded to is fundamental scientific method,
i.e., careful sifting and validation of data before accepting it
as valid. If that be heresy, count me as a heretic.


>I don't presume to speak for Dick Hall, but I think his point is
>that this material does not constitute evidence at all. I would
>add further that this holds true for virtually the entire body
>of digital imagery, notwithstanding that some of it may record
>genuine anomalies. It is simply too easily fabricated to be
>compelling on its own.


Mike has it right, except I wouldn't go quite that far. As I
have stated for 40 years or more, photographs are approximately
as valid as the credibility/reputation of the photographer who
took them.

If - just as an off-the-wall example - Walter Cronkite presented
a digital photo of an object that he personally witnessed, that
would constitute legitimate evidence.

Or, to avoid charges of elitism, if a prominent or credible
citizen of any kind who was well-known and respected by his
peers as an honest person came forth, then his photo should be
taken seriously.

I am astounded that Ray and others on this List, seem to be
incapable of understanding this very simple principle, instead
trying to make me out to be some kind of ogre who wants to
censor data. My rather large body of work in this field, if they
bothered to look at it, should make it plain that they are
really off-base with this ad hominem nonsense.


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



[ 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