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.

Earth Aliens On Earth.com
Resources for those who are stranded here
Earth
UFOs | Paranormal | Area 51
People | Places | Random
Top 100 | What's New
Catalog | New Books
New Bookstore Additions (Random Selection)

An American Life: The Autobiography (used hc) /r/reagan/ - $7.00
Picking on Men: The First Honest Collection of Quotations About Men (used pb) Judy Allen (editor) - $10.00
Becoming Your Own Parent: The Solution for Adult Children of Alcoholic and Other Dysfunctional Families (used trpb) Dennis Wholey - $5.00
Thicker Than Water (used trpb) Kathryn Harrison - $4.00
Facing Shame: Families in Recovery (used trpb) Merle A. Fossum & Marilyn J. Mason - $5.00
Adult Children: The Secrets of Dysfunctional Families (used trpb) John Friel & Linda Friel - $4.00
  More New Items | Subjects | Main Catalog Page  
Thousands of new & used titles, including many you won't find anywhere else!
Search... for keyword(s)  

Log-In Here
For Advanced Features
Mothership -> UFO -> Updates -> 1999 -> Jun -> Here Our Focus

UFO UpDates Mailing List

Re: Kenneth Arnold sighting

From: Mark Cashman <mcashman@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 12:12:09 -0400
Fwd Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1999 00:35:12 -0400
Subject: Re: Kenneth Arnold sighting


>Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 17:14:26 -0500
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
>Subject: Re: Kenneth Arnold sighting

>I credited you for laying the hoax to rest, once and for all.
>(Without raising the question of whether it should have ever
>been on your web page in the first place, given that Hartmann,
>in the 1969 Condon Report, had already cast serious doubts as to
>its validity. See p. 457 for an illustration of how it was
>done.)

Please actually read my IUR article for a detailed discussion of
my knowledge and position re: Hartmann's attempts to reproduce
the photo prior to uncovering the hoax.

I will reiterate some basic points here:

1) Reproduction of a photo, even a perfect reproduction (which
Hartmann's was not) is insufficient to prove a hoax. The ability
to reproduce natural phenomena in cinema, for instance, does not
invalidate the existence of such natural phenomena.

2) Hartmann is the only photographer who looked at the photos
who thought they were hoaxed. Local press photographers did not
believe the photos were hoaxed. Hartmann did not offer specific
photogrammetric evidence to demonstrate a hoax.

3) No character information suggesting a hoax had ever been
previously offered.

I will also simply point out that UFO researchers will sometimes
use data which later is determined to be false. There is no
omniscience in this field, and it is also unwise to remain
completely paralyzed so that no data can be used. Sure, it's a
risk, but one needs to take risks to get something done in this
field, so long as one is willing to modify conclusions should
something be determined to be false or dubious.

As for the Beaver photos being used to corroborate my luminosity
theories, again, I think you are overstating the case. While I
no longer have the pages in their original form (the site
consists of nearly 500 pages of material and I cannot afford to
maintain old copies), I know what was on them.

The following represents the section of my luminosity comments
taken from an article based on that page which was submitted to
MUFON:

"Ventral emissions - are usually observed on objects in flight.
The Beaver, PA case is an excellent example. In some cases, this
"ventral cone" (point downward) is seen to point in the opposite
direction from that in which the object is travelling. In other
cases, most notably, Michel's "jellyfish object" class cases,
these emissions are observed as a cylinder or truncated cone in
a normal orientation. Another well known dorsal emission case is
the Delphos case, where the emission appears to have caused a
ground trace."

In the final version of this, it simply became:

"Ventral emissions - are usually observed on objects in flight.
The Portage County case is an excellent example. In some cases,
this "ventral cone" (point downward) is seen to point in the
opposite direction from that in which the object is travelling.
In other cases, most notably, Michel's "jellyfish object" class
cases, these emissions are observed as a cylinder or truncated
cone in a normal orientation. Another well known dorsal emission
case is the Delphos case, where the emission appears to have
caused a ground trace."

This, by the way, is but one of seven categories of luminosity
descriptively characterized on that page. Again, descriptive
characterization does not constitute analysis.

I hope this clears up some of your misconceptions concerning
my work.

------
Mark Cashman, creator of The Temporal Doorway at
http://www.temporaldoorway.com
- Original digital art, writing, music and UFO research -

UFO cases, analysis, classification systems, and more...
http://www.temporaldoorway.com/ufo/index.htm
------




[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
[ This Month's Index | UFO UpDates Main Index | MUFON Ontario ]

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.


[ UFO Topics | People | Ufomind What's New | Ufomind Top Level ]

To find this message again in the future...
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.
Software by Glenn Campbell. Technical contact: webmaster@ufomind.com

Financial support for this web server is provided by the Research Center Catalog.