UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2001 > Apr > Apr 21

Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Hatch

From: Don Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 10:40:19 -0300
Fwd Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 13:16:14 -0400
Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Hatch


 >From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook
 >Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 21:29:55 +0100

 >>Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 01:22:17 -0300
 >>From: Don Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook

 >>Now if you are on quicksand already with the first sighting then
 >>47 years later, I think it's a mistake to start writing off
 >>another sighting [number 2] stating the faulty reasoning of the
 >>first as a precedent. Again this is a case of the outside agent
 >>second guessing the witnesses, and very credible and reliable
 >>witnesses at that... with considerably more experience than the
 >>"experts" at describing and encountering aerial phenomenon.

 >I appreciate that point, of course.

 >But - pilots may be experts at flying. They are not experts at
 >seeing fireball meteors as these are rare enough for most air
 >crew never to see one.

 >And ufologists have an expertise at dealing with witness
 >testimony and how human perception experiences a visual
 >stimulus.

 >So in this case - yes, I respect the abilities of the pilots and
 >they are indeed very credible witnesses. But that doesn't mean
 >they should have been any more aware of what happens when  a
 >fireball meteor whizzes past you in mid air.

 >In this case it was the l995 sighting that I investigated. I saw
 >the Chiles-Whitted case as an interesting precedent and it was
 >Allen Hynek's expertise on this that I trusted to. He was an
 >astronomer and a very experienced investigator and certainly not
 >a skeptic.  But the Chiles-Whitted case was not the reason I
 >regard the l995 incident as solved.


Hi Jenny,

The point I was trying to make is that the pilots were on the
spot-and pretty good observers.The experts [meaning
investigators and or astronomers] were not and when the UFO
didn't fit the usual description of a UFO in the new sense of
the word, then the pilots must have been mistaken. Once you
begin second second guessing the witness [in place] and making
assumptions then you risk changing the evidence to make the
sighting fit into a catagory it does not deserve.

Like others I do not like the description of this UFO. It does
smack of Buck Rogers. Off-List, one investigator mentioned that
there could have been embellishment on the pilot's part due to
the weight of the press interest. That seems more likely to me.
But I still have trouble with a slow, climbing meteor-despite
Corliss [ranks up there with unproved ball lightning].

Hynek - though an astronomer - again was still not there and
likely IMO had little more experience in observing a fireball or
meteor train than did the pilots.It would be interesting to know
what kind of film footage existed in those days of meteors and
fireballs for an astronomer to study. Fireball, bolide and
meteor trains are rarely caught on film so I wonder what an
astronomer of the 40s and 50s would have had on which to base a
conslusion.

One other thing, this sighting was in the same era as the Ghost
Rockets-a UFO tag I always had trouble with. But the C-W
sighting does sound a like a rocket doesn't it, except it was in
the US instead of Sweden.


Best,

Don Ledger





[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |

UFO UpDates Main Index

UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp


Archive programming by Glenn Campbell at Glenn-Campbell.com