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 -> Jun -> Here

From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
Date: Fri, 4 Jun 1999 09:25:15 -0400
Fwd Date: Fri, 04 Jun 1999 11:47:06 -0400
Subject: Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes


>Date: Wed, 02 Jun 1999 19:51:19 -0500
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
>Subject: Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes


>>From: David Rudiak <DRudiak@aol.com>
>>Date: Sun, 30 May 1999 21:17:52 EDT
>>Subject: Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes
>>To: updates@globalserve.net

>>The Eastonian Times-Picayune is back, starting off with the
>>usual bird-brained theories about the original Kenneth Arnold
>>sighting. Bruce Maccabee, myself, and others argued ourselves
>>blue in the face with all sorts of mathematical and other
>>arguments why birds couldn't possibly work (can birds outfly a
>>plane?). A lot of good it did. Don't get me started.


>Why don't we get you started? Did it ever occur to you (and
>Maccabee) that your mathematical arguments and analysis of the
>Arnold case are only right if you assume Arnold was absolutely
>incapable of human error? But what if he was wrong? What if, for
>example, he saw another flight of some 20-25 objects not too
>long after his original sighting which certainly sound like
>birds to most of us? What if he went on to report seven UFO >
>sightings total? What if he eventually concluded that UFOs are
>space animals -- "living organisms...in the atmosphere"?>

Regarding Arnold's _first_ sighting... which has been the subject
of my discussion.... there is no assumption that Arnold was
"absolutely incapable of human error." Anyone who thinks there
was such an assumption does not understand the nature of the
analysis. In fact, the arguments assume that Arnold could have
been in error in some places. But, let's get down to the crux
of the matter: which Arnold statements would you like to reject
or modify?

1) Arnold says he saw flashes of sunlight on his plane. Did he
or didn't he? What did he see?

2) Arnold said the initial flashes came from an area north of
Mt. Rainier. Did he perhaps get the direction wrong, or is there
something else?

3) Arnold thought the objects were a little higher than he was
(9,500 ft, vs his 9,200). What do you think the TRUE altitude
was, if you don't accept Arnold's statement?

4) Arnold described them as "flipping and flashing". If this is
not what he saw, then what do you think he saw?

5)Arnold claimed he looked at his dashboard clock when the first
one passed Mt. Rainier.... Did he get the time wrong? If so, by
how much?


6) Arnold looked again at the clock as the last one passed
Rainier.... did he get the time wrong? If so, by how much?

7) Arnold said he turned the plane sideways and looked through
his open window. At this time he would have been flying south,
parallel to the objects. Was he wrong/lying?

etc.

Any sighting can be broken into a series of observational
details, each of which can be analyzed, but all together of
which form the information content of the sighting.

The skeptic assumption is that Arnold was wrong in one or more
of his descriptive details. For example, that Arnold
overestimated the distance. But he said the objects were going
in and out of mountain peaks which were about 20 miles away. Was
he wrong?

Clearly if the details can be modified "at will" any sighting
can be explained. The analysis of the Arnold sighting has been
carried out with the fulfill realization that Arnold could have
been wrong on some fine points. But to get a conventional
explanation one has to assume Arnold was wrong on some major
points.

If you are going to "complain" that Arnold wasn't perfect, then
specify where you think he was wrong and we can argue over
whether or not it makes sense in the context of the sighting to
assume he was wrong..

>Don't get me started.

>You, Maccabee and others can mathematically analyze Arnold's
>original statements all you want, or until Hell freezes over,
>whichever comes first. And it doesn't mean a goddamn thing unless
>you think he was absolutely dead on and incapable of any error
>in perception whatever.

Not very clever remark. Sounds "whiney"

>Now explain how Miracle Man, i.e., Arnold, came to believe that
>UFOs were living organisms.

>Troubling, isn't it?

Perhaps, but so what?

When the _interpretation_ is separated from the _observation_
and the _observation_ is analyzed, the witness' suggestion as to
the _interpretation_ becomes irrelevant.

You seem to be saying that because Arnold in later years
concluded saucers were animals, that therefore one can't believe
the observational details in his first sighting.

Sorry, I don't buy it..