UFO UpDates Mailing List
From: werd@interlog.com Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 00:50:37 -0500 (EST) Fwd Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 21:25:24 -0500 Subject: Re: 'UFO Sphere/Orb' over Brooklyn, NY >Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 12:29:00 +0100 >From: Don Ledger <dledger@istar.ca> >To: updates@globalserve.net >Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: 'UFO Sphere/Orb' over Brooklyn, NY >> From: werd@interlog.com [Drew Williamson] >> Date: Mon, 9 Feb 1998 23:14:38 -0500 (EST) >> To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> >> Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: 'UFO Sphere/Orb' over Brooklyn, NY >> >Date: Sun, 08 Feb 1998 13:49:05 +0100 >> >From: Don Ledger <dledger@istar.ca> >> >To: updates@globalserve.net >> >Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: 'UFO Sphere/Orb' over Brooklyn, NY ><snip> >> >Hi Alex, >> >What happens is that some of the people who subscribe to the list >> >don't read all of the data that comes in but just target certain >> >areas. I find this a bit maddening because you have to keep >> >explaining yourself over and over, thereby making yourself look >> >defensive. I've had this happen to me more than a few times and I >> >won't waste my time on it. >> >The guy sez, he saw the thing then took a picture of it. Accept >> >that and move on, other wise you're calling him a liar. If we took >> >that attitude with all of our witnesses, and it got around, where >> >the hell would we be? >> >Don Ledger >> Don, >> I take strong offense to this response of yours. Perhaps it's >> just your need to vent frustration at your attempts at requesting >> information or help from an E-mail list. >Like that's never been done before. It didn't bother you any when >I sent you those Japan sightings. Thanks incidentally for your >stuff. Sorry, don't remember anything about Japan sightings,...and you're welcome. >> Firstly, I am aware of all the circumstances surrounding Alex's >> claim. As I stated, I can only respond to the evidence provided, >> and, in my opinion as a professional photographer, what I see is >> a lens flare and all the incumbent circumstances that cause it. >Saw it where, on a grainy, scanned image? Yup! Just like everyone else. The point being that it is of the right size and position for a lens flare. That is my opinion, which seems to be dis-allowed by most if it doesn't agree with what others want to believe. >> I don't have to accept anything, and I am NOT calling Alex a >> liar! Where the hell would we be if we accepted everything? >> Exactly where the state of "ufology" is today, with too many >> people who are already accepting everything at face value. >Nobody suggested you were Drew... To qoute you; "The guy sez, he saw the thing then took a picture of it. Accept that and move on, other wise you're calling him a liar." >..., but the witnesses take enough >crap as it is. They at least deserve a BIT of an investigation >before being jumped on. What crap,..who's jumping? I am using my 25+ years experience in photography in the hopes of answering someones question posted on this list. If anyone is getting jumped on, its anyone who looks at prosaic explanations first, before theorizing about extraterrestrial ones. >> It has already been suggested by Bob that there may be two >> phenomenon at work. Alex admits at least the possibility that he >> may not have captured what he saw on film. >> I sure hope you used more critical faculties in writing your book >> on the Shag Harbour incident! Otherwise we may have to suffer >> through an account by a fisherman `Jones' who claims he saw pigs >> flying the craft before it hit the water. >> Drew Williamson >Now that's a cheap shot and you know it. So is being called a liar. (see above) >Spending four years on >this investigation, and Chris Styles five and a half is hardly >just an account by fisherman Jones watching pigs flying some >craft. I was speculating on the eyewitness testimony that could be included if you "just accept it and move on," not on the entire case. Ok, maybe I should have put a smilie face next to it. :-) [ Hynek version, please note the goatee :-7~] >Apparently you and others ignored this one when it was >right in your face, even in the Condon report. It appears as well >that you have continued to ignore it if that foolishness is all >you can come up with. Wrong assumption! I did not ignore this case as I hadn't heard of it until only a few years ago. Ergo, it wasn't in my face. Digression of this thread can now resume. :> Drew Williamson
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