UFO UpDates Mailing List
From: John Rimmer <j_rimmer@library.croydon.gov.uk> Date: Thu, 06 Aug 1998 13:29:22 +0100 Fwd Date: Thu, 06 Aug 1998 09:29:51 -0400 Subject: Re: Why Migrains Don't Explain UFOs > From: Gre St. Pierre <StrmNut@aol.com> > Mon, 3 Aug 1998 02:39:12 > Subject: Re: Why Migraines Don't Explain UFOs > Personally, I'd love to see you try and tell my dad that he didn't > see precisely what he says he saw. That might even be worth > videotaping. Greg, you're father's sighting sound fascinating, and I'm certainly not, from several thousand miles away (?) and four years afterwards, try to offer any sort of explanation. But I'm struck by the same things your dad found curious: the object did not reflect the sunlight, and nobody else seemed to see it. This sounds like something other than a large, solid constructed object, but at this distance I have no idea what - should I? Jerome Clark asks what is my evidence for saying that witnesses start "adding little extras" like "I could see the windows", etc. Well for one, standing around on cold hillside on skywatches at Warminster, for instance where I have heard just such remarks, and from reading and hearing dozens of people who have see re-entering space debris or meteorites describing them as cylindrical objects with lights along them. Let's also be glad that Jerry Clark didn't go into police work. No doubt he would be prepared to accept the testimony of "individuals with high levels of civic responsibility" without question, and no doubt the jails would be bursting with even more miscarriages of justice than they are now. This of course is why Britain and the USA are blessed with a jury system which allows all reported and remembered versions of an event to be heard and judged, and come to a verdict which is "beyond reasonable doubt". I am just glad that most people in law enforcement do accept that uncorroborated eyewitness testimony is open to doubt and challenge. May I just reprise a few questions I have asked which have gone notably unanswerd from previous posts: Why does Mark Cashman reject "accounts of communication with UFO occupants, repeater sightings and any suggestion that the witness has been 'chose' by the UFO source"? Why is he unwilling to accept that there is a proportion of unsolved hoaxes amongst UFO reports whilst he is happy to make assumptions about unreported observations of unusual natural phenomena? What about Monnerie's identification of UFOs and IFOs? How can investigators ensure that 're-enactments' are accurate reporoductions of the conditions of the original event; and what techniques do ufologists use in their interviews to ensure that they are "capable of determining the witnesses perceptual ability and the degree to which they are capable of distinguishing natural phenomena."? John Rimmer Magonia Magazine
UFO UpDates - Toronto -
updates@globalserve.net
Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp - ++ 416-696-0304
A Hand-Operated E-Mail Subscription Service for the Study of UFO Related
Phenomena.
To subscribe please send your first and last name to
updates@globalserve.net
Message submissions should be sent to the same address.
|
Link it to the appropriate Ufologist or UFO Topic page. |
Archived as a public service by Area 51 Research Center which is not
responsible for content.
Financial support for this web server is provided by the
Research Center Catalog.
Software by Glenn Campbell.
Technical contact:
webmaster@ufomind.com