From: email@example.com [Sharolyn Stenger] Date: Wed, 1 Oct 1997 00:40:34 -0500 Fwd Date: Wed, 01 Oct 1997 11:35:34 -0400 Subject: Re: One Picture is Worth a Thousand Words >From: firstname.lastname@example.org [Barbara Becker] >Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 09:47:38 -0500 >X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win95; I) >To: ufo updates <email@example.com> >Subject: Re: One Picture is Worth a Thousand Words >What happened to my critics? Steve, Don, Roger et al? I thought we >were going to have a good discussion. Do you not understand the >law? Or does your silence indicate agreement? >BB I'm not Steve, Don or Roger, but I do have an opinion about the Gulf Breeze photographs. In the beginning of the Gulf Breeze flap it was reported that the "Ed" who photographed the craft did not want his identity known. We've already had volumes of discussion here about witness anonymity. I understood his reticence then and was certainly not surprised when Barbara reported that he may have submitted photos to the newspaper under assumed names. It would seem to me that the only people who would have a gripe or grounds for a suit against Ed would be Bob and Jane. I don't care if the pictures carried the caption, "photographed by Little Lord Fauntleroy." The miraculous thing here is the photographic evidence of something unexplained in the skies or hovering over the roads in Gulf Breeze, Florida! Now, if you have some kind of proof that the photos taken by Ed, Bob, Dick, Jane, or Spot are fakes, trot it out. Thanks, Sharolyn - but I will admit I have participated in chatrooms using the aliases "Lady" or "Ladybug". So sue me.
[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp