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 -> 1999 -> Jul -> Here

From: Roger Evans <moviestuff@cyberjunkie.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 21:32:29 +0000
Fwd Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 08:54:13 -0400
Subject: Re: Kenneth Arnold's 'Flying Discs'


 >From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
 >Date: Sun, 25 Jul 1999 17:07:57 -0400
 >Fwd Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 10:38:45 -0400
 >Subject: Re: Kenneth Arnold's 'Flying Discs'

Previously, Bruce had offered:

 >>>What is more likely to be wrong: that his time
 >>>estimate is too short or his estimate of initial distance is
 >>>wrong? I vote for the initial distance estimate.

To which I had essentially questioned why it was okay for Bruce
or others to make assumtions about the validity and accuracy of
Arnold's statements to support their own theories; but not for
Easton to have the same right, regardless of what his theory
might be.

Bruce responded:

<much respected snip>

 >Everyone is "selective" in deciding whether to
 >accept ("believe") in the accuracy of  certain values of
 >quantities or certain descriptions by witnesses.  The
 >descriptions have to be rated on a scale of something like
 >"probability of being correct" or "which is more likely to be
 >correct."

<snip>

 >Returning to the main discussion, yes, I have chosen to assume
 >his initial distance estimate was wrong. There is no way he
 >could have known exactly how far away they were when he first
 >saw them unless they in some way "interacted with" a landform at
 >a known distance.

<snip>

 >EVERYONE is "guilty" of picking and choosing the "data"
 >(descriptions).... When it comes to analysis of a UFO sighting
 >we are given the testimony of the witness (no photos, etc. in
 >this case) and we have to make the most of it. Witnesses will
 >sometimes say things that seemingly could not be.

<snip>

 >If Easton is correct, then Arnold said
 >something that could not be true.  If Easton is correct, why in
 >the world would Arnold think that the objects had traveled on
 >the opposite side of a mountain peak (or mountain peaks)? But
 >Arnold said it. Is there any reason to doubt Arnold's
 >statement?

<snip>

Come on, Bruce. Be fair, here. By your own admission, you have
chosen to believe some of Arnold's claims but not others. And
the fact is that he has given several versions  of the same
story. Which one do you believe is true and why?

Moving on, Bruce offered:

<snip>

 >Therefore Arnold could be reporting
 >accurately his impression of seeing the objects "at his
 >altitude" whereas they were actually below his altitude by
 >several thousand feet, and, hence, they could, in principle,
 >have been flying "in and out of the high mountain peaks. Is this
 >being "selective" of the data? Sure.  But it is backed up by
 >some analysis.

<snip>

 >As for myself, I _have_ assumed a constant speed and concluded
 >that the initial sighting location was abou 40-60 miles north of
 >Arnold.

I think you missed my point; or perhaps I wasn't clear enough.

It is obvious that for your own theory to "work", it is
important to assume that some of Arnold's claims were either
untrue or incorrect. And let's not be vague about this; there is
a big difference between "interpreting" his information and
simply claiming Arnold was wrong or making something up. It is
also obvious from your previous statement that you feel free to
"fill in the blanks" about some things that you admit neither
you, nor anyone else, could possibly know. The justification you
give is that doing so "makes sense"...to you.

If it is allright for you to make assumptions, fill in the
blanks and disregard statements that don't fit your theory, then
why can't anyone else, including Easton?

For the record, I don't believe that what Arnold saw was
Pelicans. My own reasoning is less than scientific; I'd simply
like to believe what he was were UFO's. However, I offer this
info regarding the "dissapearance" of the pelicans behind
mountain peaks. I have some video that I shot of my relative's
kids playing frisbee. On more than one occasion, the frisbee
flatened out to the point that it "dissappeared" behind a tree
almost a hundred feet in the distance. The effect was quite
startling. I have no doubt this was the effect Easton was
talking about. Considering we lose our sense of three
dimensional perception beyond about 35 feet or so, it would be
easy to be fooled by this effect in mid air. Just a thought.

Later,

Roger