UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2002 > Nov > Nov 20

Re: Jimmy Carter The Nobel Prize & ETs

From: Jerry Cohen <rjcohen.nul>
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 07:10:15 -0500
Archived: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 07:20:04 -0500
Subject: Re: Jimmy Carter The Nobel Prize & ETs


>From: Tom Bowden <tomrbowden.nul>
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates.nul>
>Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 17:24:06 -0800 (PST)
>Subject: Re: Jimmy Carter The Nobel Prize &  Extraterrestrials

>>From: Jerry Cohen <rjcohen.nul>
>>To: ufoupdates.nul
>>Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 11:52:51 -0500
>>Subject: Jimmy Carter The Nobel Prize & Extraterrestrials

><snip>

>>Unfortunately, I can't rely on this as gospel because of another
>>comment you make below concerning the size of the moon being
>>only as big as "your little fingernail."

>>Let's see what else we know here:

>>1)   As to the "little fingernail" statement: For a typical full
>>moon, your little fingernail must be at least as big across as a
>>quarter. Perhaps you have a very large hand? (because I know I
>>don't.) You also omit the fact that no matter what size the
>>moon, it is _always_ a lot larger than any stars that might be
>>present.

>>2)   At certain times when the moon appears low to the horizon,
>>the moon appears much larger than typical. I am sure most of us
>>have seen this effect. This may or may not bear on this case but
>>it was never mentioned.

>>We also know that the proximity of the Moon or a star near the
>>horizon does appear to make it look much bigger but as you
>>mentioned it probably loses _some_ of its luminosity due to the
>>extra atmosphere in the way. (and I believe, the refraction of
>>the incoming light.) Losing _all_ of it? That's another story.

>Jerry,

>When discussing sizes of celestial object with reference to such
>items as a "quarter" or "fingernail", it is meaningless to
>reference these items without a complete spatial reference.

>I assure you that if you observe the largest full moon you can
>see and compare it to a U.S. quarter dollar coin held at arm's
>length, you will find that the moon appears much smaller.

>In fact, the moon appears smaller than a dime held at arm's
>length. This is well known to most experienced UFO
>investigators.


Tom, (and Bob Young)

I take it back. I looked out the window at a full moon tonight
and decided that it does appear pretty small, but still a lot
bigger and brighter than the stars/planets around it. At other
times it does "appear" bigger. (optical illusion as you've
indicated.)

I guess I didn't get my original point across. It wasn't really
about the actual size of the moon but that at times, it "seems"
even bigger than its actual size. Therefore I believe it is more
difficult for a person to ever "think" that Venus could ever be
the size of the moon. How many people with the technical
education (Nuclear Physics) and observer skills of Carter have
thought the moon was a UFO?

And what if the object Carter reported _was_ the size he
described? Sheaffer really hasn't proved that it wasn't. He has
hypothesized same. "Others have made a mistake, so you must have
too." To me, this isn't proof positive. The two things nullify
each other.

Another way to put it. Jack sees John jump up and down. A lot of
people in the last 50 years have never seen John jump up and
down. Therefore, we hypothesize that John really didn't jump up
and down. How about Frank, George, Ollie, Clyde who did see John
jump up and down during the fifty years. Do we just omit them
because we feel like it?

But I believe this is a minor point compared to some of the
others. We'll focus on them in my response to Bob's post.


Sincerely,

Jerry
http://www.cohenufo.org/


[ 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