You forgot "www." at the beginning of the server name! You have accessed this page though an incomplete server name: ufomind.com instead of www.ufomind.com --- so some services may not work. Please go to the correct address for this page to make this message go away.

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: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
Date: Sat, 05 Jun 1999 00:53:47 -0500
Fwd Date: Sat, 05 Jun 1999 13:28:37 -0400
Subject: Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes


>Date: Fri, 4 Jun 1999 09:25:15 -0400
>From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
>Subject: Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>

<snip>

>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?

Bruce,

Well, let's do get down to the crux of the matter. Since neither
you nor I were in the cockpit with Arnold on that fateful day,
neither of us have any idea as to how accurate, or inaccurate,
he was in his perceptions. My point was simply that you and
Rudiak can make any kind of calculations you want and they
remain essentially meaningless in real world terms. They could
well be right -- and they could well be off by who knows what
exponential factor. My point was that we don't _know_. And for
you and Rudiak to suggest otherwise -- as if the case were
automatically solved in non-conventional terms -- is simply
wishful thinking on both your parts.

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

I have no idea, since I wasn't there at the time, but neither do
you. But if the objects were a good 20 miles or more away, as
Arnold claimed, then I seriously doubt whether he could have
discerned "flashes of sunlight on his plane." He might have seen
light flashing off distant small objects, which is altogether a
different thing.

<snip>

Your other questions can be addressed in similar fashion. Where
was Arnold wrong in a specific instance? I don't know. Where was
Arnold right in a specific instance? You don't know, and neither
does David Rudiak.

<snip>

>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?

I don't know. Do you? My question was, what if he was 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.

So? How do you presume to know that he wasn't wrong on some maor
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..
>

Sorry, Bruce, can't do. For all I know, he could have been wrong in
general. A little more than a month after his original sighting, he claimed
another one of small objects, 3-5 ft. in diameter, numbering a couple of
dozen or more. If you or Rudiak would like to exercise your mathematical
abilities on this case, you're perfectly welcome to. In fact, I wish you
would.

A few years later, in 1952, Arnold claimed to have filmed two UFOs, one of
which could be seen through, and which apparently led him to conclude that
UFOs were living objects. Arnold would go on to claim several more
sightings in his lifetime. Lucky dude, eh?

Have you seen the film Arnold claimed to have taken on this
occasion? Neither have I. Odd that he didn't make it publicly
and readily available, isn't it, as it would have surely proved,
or at least supported,  his earlier claim.

>>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"

Sorry, we can't be clever 24 hours a day, can we?

>>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.

It's late here, so I'm not going to address the above statement
in any detail. If you had it to do over, though, I think you
would have put it differently.

>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..

Well, something of the sort, although it's not quite as
straightforward as that. I simply have reservations about
Arnold's first sighting that are serious enough to lead me to
wonder whether or not they are worthy of the mathematical
calculations you and Rudiak have devoted to same, in light of
some other statements by Arnold.

Such as his second sighting, little more than a month later, and
his claim of having filmed a living, transparent UFO in 1952.
(See my response to Jerry Clark for additional details.) Have
you ever seen this film? Wouldn't you admit that, if it exists,
it would prove much more evidential than anything Arnold had to
_say_ about his earlier June, 1947, sighting?

So where is the Arnold film that would obviate anything he had
to say about his 1947 sighting? Wouldn't it save you and Rudiak
some serious calculus? But what if there isn't any such film?

I trust you or Rudiak will get back to us on this matter post
haste. After all, why mathematically analyze Arnold's claims
when you could be mathematically analyzing his film?

Dennis
http://www.anomalist.com