Aliens On Earth.com Resources for those who are stranded here UFOs | Paranormal | Area 51 People | Places | Random Top 100 | What's New Catalog | New Books Search... for keyword(s)   in Page Titles in Book Title/Author in Contents of Pages ---other searches--- Metacrawler Yahoo FAST Search Google Altavista Dogpile Inference Find Northern Light IWon.com MSN Search Las Vegas Sun Our Bookstore is OPEN Mothership -> UFO -> Updates -> 1998 -> Feb -> Here

From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@proaxis.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Feb 1998 08:25:28 -0800 (PST)
Fwd Date: Mon, 09 Feb 1998 17:55:17 -0500
Subject: Re: 'UFO Sphere/Orb' over Brooklyn, NY

>From: "Tom Burnett" <burnettc@gte.net>
>To: "UFO UpDates - Toronto" <updates@globalserve.net>
>Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: 'UFO Sphere/Orb' over Brooklyn, NY
>Date: Sun, 8 Feb 1998 19:39:24 -1000

>> From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>> To: updates@globalserve.net
>> Subject: UFO UpDate: Re: 'UFO Sphere/Orb' over Brooklyn, NY
>> Date: Sunday, February 8, 1998 17:32 PM

>> Date: Sun, 8 Feb 1998 19:13:54 -0800 (PST)
>> To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>> From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@proaxis.com>
>> Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: 'UFO Sphere/Orb' over Brooklyn, NY

>> Tom,

>> Obviously if the object looks and behaves like some well known
>> object, it doesn't interest either a layman or ufologist as being
>> anything abnormal.

>> If an object that looks like a certain kind of lens flare flits
>> around the sky as reported by a reliable eye witness, then it's
>> of great interest to the layman and even to some ufologists!
>> (Most ufologists have heard of similar reports for so many years
>> that it may not interest them any more.)...

>>For me, it's worth noting for two reasons: (1) It says something
>>about how far ahead the UFO-aliens' technology is from anything
>>we can understand,

>Aloha Jim...


>If you see a perfectly recognizable terrestrial aircraft, the
>chances are that you cannot tell it's altitude within 1,000 feet
>or it's speed within 50% of actual groundspeed.  Nor can you tell
>the weight or engine size of a car approaching you on the road.
>Without knowing whether an object even exists; what an object is;
>a known distance from the object or a quantifiable performance
>spectrum of an unknown, you cannot tell anything at all. The only
>thing a still picture of what appears to be a lens flare tells
>you is that you cannot tell anything at all about it.  You cannot
>even tell whether or not it is actually a lens flare.

Tom,

As you should know, one doesn't divorce a photograph from the
testimony of the eye-witness to the event who took the
photograph.

>>and (2) it says something about their strategy
>>or level of ethics in dealing with us, in that they provide a
>>certain measure of deniability to persons who can't accept its
>>reality and who don't mind ignoring certain aspects about the
>>object's description or reported behavior when latching onto that
>>deniability factor.

>You do not even know what the picture represents, Jim.  What does
>a picture of a lens flare tell you about 'their strategy or level
>of ethics..........' ?  And since you cannot know what it is a
>picture of, since no one does, it cannot tell you anything.

You should also know that a sensible investigator doesn't divorce
one UFO event from the multitude of other such events that
preceded it.  Many of them provide the skeptic withy a measure of
deniability.  I think this has been gone over too much before to
do so again now. But perhaps you can't realize what a horrible
shock it would be for negative skeptics, who think that the UFO
phenomenon is just something dreamed up by the entertainment
media or by sick minds to have to suddenly find out for sure it's
for real. The UFO entities have given us and the negative
skeptics 50 years to get used to it all.  To me, that says
something about their level of ethics, even if you don't see it.

Jim Deardorff