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: David Rudiak <DRudiak@aol.com>
Date: Sun, 6 Jun 1999 22:11:34 EDT
Fwd Date: Tue, 08 Jun 1999 00:19:18 -0400
Subject: Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes


>From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
>Date: Wed, 02 Jun 1999 19:51:19 -0500
>Fwd Date: Thu, 03 Jun 1999 06:55:58 -0400
>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?

Did it ever occur to you (and Easton) that your handwaving
arguments and "analysis" of the Arnold case are only right if
you assume Arnold was an absolute drooling idiot?

Not that you apparently care or even comprehend, but the issues
of potential human error _have_ been addressed.  E.g., even if
Arnold erred _seriously_ in his determination of distance,
thereby also throwing his timed calculation of speed badly out
of whack, birds still cannot outfly Arnold's plane.  The only
way Arnold could have screwed this up is if he was completely
unable to tell the difference between objects that flew forward
of his position vs. falling behind.

Would you care to address just this one point Mr. skeptical
genius?  Please explain to us with that devestating common sense
you think you possess how birds could outfly Arnold's plane.
Easton never dared tackle this, and I seriously doubt you will
either.  Instead it will be off to the races with a million more
Dennis Stacy angry rants and irrelevancies.

> But what if he was wrong?

Wrong about what?  Tell us _specifically_ what Arnold could be
wrong about in his first sighting that would clearly enable
birds to explain it.  Please, not your usual run-off-your-mouth
garbage, actual specifics reported by Arnold.

> 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?

Everything sounds like birds to you guys.  Even if his second
sighting was of birds, it was a completely different situation.
The second sighting lasted only a few second in completely
different flying and lighting conditions and no geographical
landmarks that I know of.  The observations were hurried and
lacking in detail.

In contrast, Arnold's first sighting lasted several minutes
during which he made a number of careful observations to try to
determine what he was seeing, such as the timing of flight
between two geographical landmarks while on a parallel course.

He also reported the _angular_ spread of the objects, again
using landmarks, as the objects flew past Mt. Rainier.  Even if
his estimated absolute distance to the objects was _very
grossly_ in error, the distance between the objects still would
have been much too great for them to be flocking birds.  E.g.,
if instead of being 25 miles away, the objects were only 2000
feet from Arnold (so close that it would be impossible NOT to
recognize them as large flocking birds like geese), they still
would be approximately 50 feet from one another, not the few
feet distance required for flocking.  This is just one of those
simple mathematical arguments, which you ignorantly sneer at,
but which is devastating to the bird hypothesis.

> 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"?

What if he did?  Do you have a point here?  How exactly does
that change the _original_ reported details of his first
sighting?  How does that validate some silly birds explanation
of that sighting?

How do birds outfly a plane Dennis?

>See Clark's "The UFO Book," p. 62.

>Would this lead you to conclude that you had something
>approaching a fruitcake on your hands, or would you prefer to
>conclude that a living organism crashed at Roswell?

Judging by your typical irrelevant ranting and use of non
sequitors, I would agree that we probably have something
approaching a fruitcake on our hands.

>You treat the Roswell case and its witnesses in the same
>fashion. When they support your argument, such witnesses as
>Proctor et al are absolutely accurate and inviolable in their
>recall, never mind interviewed 30 and 40 years after the fact.

You treat the Roswell case and its witnesses in the same
fashion.  When they support your argument, such witnesses as
Moore et al  are absolutely accurate and inviolable in their
recall, never mind interviewed 30 and 40 years after the fact.

Duhhh, talk about brainless, boilerplate debunking!

Did it ever occur to you in one of your more rational moments,
that early witnesses like Floyd Proctor and Bill Brazel were
interviewed _at virtually the same time_ and completely
_independently_ of Jesse Marcel?  Yet they corroborated many of
the controversial details also related by Marcel about highly
unusual debris properties, or the size and shape of the debris
field, or of Brazel Sr. reporting an explosion?  So if they
misremembered, then you have to explain how they would
misremember unusual details in such a similar  way.  That's a
pretty neat trick.

>When they don't -- as in the case of Kent Lorenzo, first
interviewed by Friedman in >1992, but never conveniently
mentioned since --

Again off on a pointless tangeant.

If you got a problem with Friedman and his reporting, take it up
with him.  Frankly a lot of us on this list are sick and tired
of your endless laundry list of petty grudges.

As for what I wrote about Lorenzo, all I said was that a junior
medical officer couldn't be everywhere at all times on Roswell
base or off the base.  So if he was unaware of anything unusual
happening while he was on-duty at the hospital or off-duty at
the officer's club, that's interesting information but hardly
conclusive, since we have others at the base who have said they
were aware of something unusual happening or were personally
involved.

But only "pro-Roswell" people ignore or attack witnesses they
find inconvenient, right Dennis?

>they must be, what, part of the ongoing cover up?

Like usual, you're just all over the place, aren't you Dennis?
From my post on Mogul paper parachutes, you've raved about
Kenneth Arnold being a nutcase and incapable of properly
perceiving even the simplest possible things, how UFO and
"pro-Roswell" witnesses are never accurate or honest, how you've
got a gripe with Friedman about reporting one witnesses'
testimony.  And now we have your idiotic broad-brushed
accusation that "pro-Roswell" people accuse every witness they
don't like as being part of a cover-up.

>Don't get me started.

Unfortunately, nobody knows how to stop you.

>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 goddam thing unless
>you think he was absolutely dead on and incapable of any error
>in perception whatever.

So while flying on a parallel course at 110 mph, Arnold
"misperceives" "birds" falling behind him for "birds" rapidly
flying past him.  That is the ONLY possible and virtually
inconceivable misperception that would even remotely allow a
bird explanation.

I'm sorry if you find such simple logical arguments like this so
incomprehensible.  But Maccabee and others did graduate grade
school.

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

Typical Stacy talking out of both sides of his mouth.  First he
attacks Arnold as a "fruitcake."  Then we get his grossly
hypocritical lectures about how pro-UFO people are so biased in
which witnesses they choose to believe and attack those they
don't like.

But to label Arnold a liar and a "fruitcake," that's completely
different, eh Dennis?

>Troubling, isn't it?

Only to ranting fruitcakes.

>Unless you're the editor of the Rudiak Real Times-Picaynue.

There, feel better now Dennis now that you've vented with one of
your usual pointless diatribes?

David Rudiak