UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2002 > Nov > Nov 21

Re: Jimmy Carter The Nobel Prize & ETs

From: Don Ledger <dledger.nul>
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 12:53:43 -0400
Archived: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 07:55:13 -0500
Subject: Re: Jimmy Carter The Nobel Prize & ETs


>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2.nul>
>To: ufoupdates.nul
>Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 01:29:43 EST
>Subject: Re: Jimmy Carter The Nobel Prize & ETs

>>From: Jerry Cohen <rjcohen.nul>
>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates.nul>
>>Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 08:22:43 -0500
>>Subject: Re: Jimmy Carter The Nobel Prize & ETs

>>>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2.nul>
>>>To: ufoupdates.nul
>>>Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 20:17:07 EST
>>>Subject: Re: Jimmy Carter The Nobel Prize & Extraterrestrials

><snip>

>>a)  A cloud was actually there. "A 'few' scattered clouds . ."
>>Did anyone else there actually notice clouds present?
>>Did Sheaffer query people or did he simply discount this? I
>>think this information is important to arrive at a meaningful
>>analysis.

>The nearby weather observers reported this, I believe.

><snip>

>>your viewpoint is that Carter may have
>>mistaken the size of what he saw. He may have seen a star and
>>mistaken it for an object almost as large as the moon. I do not
>>believe there is a certainty he would have made this mistake.

>The object would have been brilliant Venus.

>>>Then "none of us" would have ever mistaken a planet or star for
>>>a sizeable UFO? The last 55 years have many examples of such
>>>IFOs.

>>And examples of UFOs that have yet to be explained, and UFOs
>>which were labeled IFOs and then found to still be UFOs. These
>>things cancel each other out. So what's your point?

>You are claiming that all identified IFOs are "cancelled out"
>because there are still unsolved UFO reports out there?

>>I asked for a specific case; one where another person saw what
>>he thought was a UFO the size of the moon or slightly smaller
>>and also had the technical education (Nuclear Physics) and
>>observer skills of Carter. I would think this would be one part
>>of Sheaffer's proof concerning this point. Is this available for
>>us to see? Is this perhaps found in Sheaffer's book?

>If the only IFO explanations you will ever consider are those in
>which the witness's background must be matched to another IFO
>witness using your self-selected criteria, you will be doomed to
>studying old long-solved cases reported by "expert" witnesses
>until the cows come home. My life is too short.

>Human beings are fallible. Witnesses of every IFO ever seen were
>fallible. See The UFO Handbook by Allan Hendry, p. 64 where he
>describes daylight UFOs which turned out to be the planet Venus,
>Changes in brightness caused by clouds and haze were interpreted
>as motions toward and away from the witness.

>Eleven other witnesses were present, some seeing the little star
>or blue light, and none thought anything unusual happened.

>>Bob, a question for you: Do you feel the Rosalynn Carter piece
>>has any truly meaningful place in a debate concerning Carter's
>>sighting other than to cloud the issue at hand? Do you think it
>>has any direct bearing on an investigation of Carter's specific
>>sighting? Be honest.

>These are two seperate articles, actually five, two by Sheaffer
>and three by local newspapers. I don't believe the UFO article
>ever mentions the ghost story, or vica versa. Robert Sheaffer
>bills himself, after all, as "skeptical to the max." He also
>includes Opera, Philosophy, astronomy and other debunking on his
>site, too.

>>My point was that if Robert Sheaffer had a truly locked down
>>solution concerning Carter's sighting, he wouldn't have had to
>>resort to putting that stuff on his web site.

>Oh, come on. He published that solution more than 20 years ago
>in a magazine article and a book. Aren't we allowed to mix
>anything else with UFOs, too? Kind of thin-skinned aren't you?


Hi Bob,

One thing Jerry isn't is thin-skinned. He's very patient. It's
not he that is resorting to the  childish ploy of sneeringly
bandying about the true believer nonsense and thin-skinned
ufologists.

What's bothering you is that someone is casting doubt on
Scheaffer's less than stellar investigation into a 2nd rate
sighting by using the old "Venus was in the sky so it must have
been that" explanation for a UFO sighting. He's not provided
anything substantial to prove his theory; so as far as I'm
concerned it stays a UFO.

Now I realize this has you really concerned because the witness
was, subsequently, a US President and this must be shot down at
all costs. So here's what I'm suggesting Bob.

You get involved.

Get out the phone book, and call that club and get them to
search out the names of those other witnesses and then you call
them and see if any of them remembers this sighting, and if so
get the details. You start building a folder on this thing. Once
you feel you have enough to bury the thing - you publish here.
But right now you are riding on Shcheaffer's coat tails. If you
are not prepared to do that, then button up because your usual
input, "It must have been this because it couldn't have been
that" is just a waste of bandwidth.

Don't be lazy, do your homework-then you will see what many of
us have to go through before we go yea or nay on a sighting.

Tip-avoid the internet, that's other people's work.

Do your own. You will find it's more satisfying. And you might
learn something.


CAVU

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