UFO UpDates Mailing List
From: Mark Cashman <mcashman@temporaldoorway.com> Date: Sun, 06 Feb 2000 20:54:24 -0500 Fwd Date: Mon, 07 Feb 2000 08:06:08 -0500 Subject: Re: Should Saucers Spin? >Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2000 02:19:54 -0500 >From: Kelly McGillis <kellymcg@netcom.ca> >Subject: Re: Should Saucers Spin? >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca> >You know, last >year, from my office here I saw a - just a very weird thing. >Since I had been a quiet member of Errol's list for about three >years, and also a member of the Fortean list, I immediately >reported to both. >Errol was away and Nic Balaskas asked me all kinds of questions, >I tried to explain what I saw that night, and quite frankly the >lights ziz-saging were okay, they blew me away, but they were >okay, but it was the green light that came out of those other >lights that I will never forget. It *emerged* from one of the >lights, like an aquatic animal, and anyway, what is the point of >trying to describe anything to this list? >At the end of my interrogation I just felt like a stupid idiot. >And nothing I said ever made it onto this list. So! All you >brilliant people ignore perhaps things people see now and yet >yap on and on and on about 1947 or something. >The one thing I realize is that none of the so-called experts >seem to have much to do with, or can't handle, a recent and >modern-day event. Hi, Kelly! I personally perform a couple of investigations a year. As you can see at these URLs... http://www.temporaldoorway.com/mufonct/report/980419.htm http://www.temporaldoorway.com/mufonct/report/950715/index.htm http://www.temporaldoorway.com/mufonct/report/970819.htm which include analyses of the sightings I've investigated, serious investigation is a complex, time consuming and potentially error-prone process. But one thing is for sure - it involves asking a lot of questions. Indeed, I have always appreciated the willingness of witnesses to anomalous events to explain, often with excruciating detail and repetition, exactly what they saw. Sometimes these questions can be very productive. In one recent case, the witness insisted on the object appearance as they sketched it, which revealed that the object was pitched down at the start of the observation and pitched up at the end, despite it also following a level course. Usually about three to five hours of interviewing are needed to get the basic data of a sighting. In e-mail time that translates into a lot of messages, especially since the descriptive hand waving and other useful things one can do face to face are impossible. So don't be discouraged. But remember that a UFO story is just a story until solid quantitaive data like elevation, azimuth, angular rate at various points, color, angular size, and so forth, are pinned down as tightly as we can manage after the fact. That takes work, both from the investigator and from the witness. ------ 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 ------
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.
|
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.
Financial support for this web server is provided by the
Research Center Catalog.
Software by Glenn Campbell.
Technical contact:
webmaster@ufomind.com