UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2012 > Dec > Dec 21

Re: UFO Photographs And Film

From: Robert Powell <rpowell.nul>
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2012 11:03:44 -0600
Archived: Fri, 21 Dec 2012 06:27:12 -0500
Subject: Re: UFO Photographs And Film


>From: John Donaldson <John.Donaldson.nul>
>To: post.nul
>Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2012 05:44:04 +0000
>Subject: Re: UFO Photographs And Film

>Hi Robert,

>I think the burden of argument issue is an important one, but I
>also think it's very hard to compute the precise extent of that
>burden. My primary point, though, was simply that radar-visual
>cases look more likely to support the ETH than photographic-
>visual cases. Hardly Earth-shattering, for sure, but I hoped to
>show with a reasonable degree of rigour precisely why the latter
>were to be preferred to the former.

I would agree. Radar-visual cases are stronger unless you're so
close to an object that your photo is good enough to remove any
doubt as to the identify of an object. So you need an emblem
that says something like, "Tau Ceti spaceship," not made in the
U.S.A.  :-)

>I agree that investigation of the UFO phenomenon is worthwhile,
>but it seems a reasonable question to ask "where are such
>investigative efforts best directed?" People seem to agree that
>unambigious photographic evidence has not, and seems unlikely to
>be forthcoming. Given that, I argued, you will struggle to
>produce arguments for the ETH which should persuade a neutral
>observer; and struggle to such an extent that it calls into to
>question the fruitfulness of such efforts - absent the
>unambigious photograph. Moreover, merely adding further such
>uncertain cases doesn't seem to help either (although they may
>motivate efforts towards further investigation, if such further
>motivation is required).

>Therefore, given that radar-visual cases do not seem as
>problematic, investigative efforts that hope to result in
>evidence that will persuade the neutral seem best directed
>there.

NORAD should have the evidence that says "nay" or "yea." The
question is either, "will they provide that evidence," or "have
they even looked for that evidence." I know the latter statement
sounds a little far-fetched, but I don't think it is. I can
imagine a scenario where NORAD tracks space debris, potential
ICBMs, air traffic,etc., but they ignore oddities that have
speed/vector tracks that don't match up with the items with
which they are interested. (For anyone who has analyzed radar
data, they can appreciate the reason for this statement.)
Unfortunately, NORAD is not going to provide information to
answer either scenario.




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

At:

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

These contents above are copyright of the author and
UFO UpDates - Toronto. They may not be reproduced
without the express permission of both parties and
are intended for educational use only.

[ Next 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