UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2002 > Jun > Jun 3

Re: 'Media Not Covering-Up' - Bowden

From: Dave Bowden <grafikfx@lineone.net>
Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2002 01:12:00 +0100
Fwd Date: Mon, 03 Jun 2002 23:10:36 -0400
Subject: Re: 'Media Not Covering-Up' - Bowden

 >From: Lan Fleming <lfleming5@houston.rr.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Sun, 02 Jun 2002 19:26:10 -0500
 >Subject: Re: 'Media Not Covering-Up'

 >>From: Dave Bowden <grafikfx@lineone.net>
 >>To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Sun, 2 Jun 2002 13:27:59 +0100
 >>Subject: Re: 'Media Not Covering-Up'

 >>You're right Lan, I am probably mistaken but I did say in my
 >>post I'd like to see it, I should have added 'not read about

 >If you'd said that "all UFO's that appear to be a 'nut's and
 >bolt's' spacecraft" are claimed to be hoaxes by skeptic clubs,
 >you'd have been pretty close to the truth, I think. But that's a
 >lot different than saying they all "turn out" to be hoaxes,
 >since reasonable people, some with sufficient scientific
 >backgrounds to speak with authority, dispute these claims in
 >some cases.

Right again Lan, perhaps I should be a little more careful with
the wording.

 >>At the risk of causing carpal tunnel syndrome could I ask if you
 >>might do this 'on-list' since I'm sure there are others out
 >>there who would also be interested.

 >Why don't you do a Google search for the Trindade photos or the
 >Trent photos? The Trent photos, among other interesting ones,
 >are on Bruce Maccabee's web site.

 >Naturally, skeptics have claimed that the Trindade and Trent
 >photos are hoaxes, a claim they've made for every other
 >photograph that clearly shows what appears to be a structured
 >unconventional aircraft.

Seen them and they are indeed interesting, but the jury's still
out on them as far as I know.

 >The only exceptions to the seemingly reflexive assertions of
 >hoax are NASA photos. Obviously, no skeptic in good standing
 >would claim that NASA hoaxes photographs, so they have to rely
 >on the shuttle debris explanation for those.

 >I think it's actually a quite reasonable explanation for many of
 >the cases I'm aware of. But there is one for which I think that
 >explanation is not at all plausible: STS- 80. While most shuttle
 >'UFOs' appear to be aimlessly drifting dots, the STS-80 video
 >shows one object that at some points in the sequence exhibits a
 >definite structure, (although it's not large enough to see
 >exactly what its shape is). It and other objects move in a most
 >peculiar manner for aimlessly drifting debris - decelerating
 >rapidly, reversing course, and moving on converging paths. The
 >3-minute video can be downloaded at:


 >It's about 7MB, so it helps if you have broad band.

Thanks for the link but I think I've already seen this one, I'll
download it anyway just to make sure.

 From my point of view one of the most interesting pieces coming
from NASA was the now famous 'tether footage'.

It wasn't so much how the objects looked but how they acted,
like simple life forms attracted to a light source in a feeding

There's also the shuttle footage showing three objects hovering
above a lightning storm seemingly confirming my observation of
them being attracted to a light source.

While your point is well taken that shuttle footage is beyond
any doubt it does illustrate my point that any UFO footage I
have seen so far appears to be more organic than mechanic.

I have heard (and read) many stories of spacecraft with lights,
landing gear and sometimes even windows with the occupants
looking out. But I have yet to see footage of this.

Anyway, I appreciate you taking the time.

All the best,

Dave Bowden

[ 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