UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2002 > Nov > Nov 22

Re: Jimmy Carter The Nobel Prize & ETs

From: Don Ledger <dledger.nul>
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 13:35:07 -0400
Archived: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 08:22:29 -0500
Subject: Re: Jimmy Carter The Nobel Prize & ETs

>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2.nul>
>To: ufoupdates.nul
>Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 23:14:49 EST
>Subject: Re: Jimmy Carter The Nobel Prize & ETs

>>From: Don Ledger <dledger.nul>
>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates.nul>
>>Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 12:53:43 -0400
>>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


>>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

>Except finding the real date, tracking down Jimmy Carter's
>written reports, contacting other wintesses who were there
>(and remember nothing which casts doubt on Venus as an
>explanation), and publishing the same more than 20 years ago.

>>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.

>You believers are the ones who continue to dredge up this long-
>solved "2nd rate" UFO report, only because it was Jimmy Carter.
>How many other boring reports like this receive regular
>publicity decades later?

>>So here's what I'm suggesting Bob.

>>You get involved.

>Why? I find Sheaffer's investigation to be persuasive.

>If you think that he's wrong, why don't _you_ investigate it
>again by trying to message something new from 30 year-old


>>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.

>Strange request, Don: if I am satisfied with his conclusion I
>must do it all over myself or shut up and never mention it
>publicly. You, however, can declare his investigation "less than
>stellar" without doing a thing.

>Whazza problem? Frustrated that you don't have anything useful
>to add to his long-published investigation? Or is it just that
>continuing to mispell his name as an in-joke is easier?

So that's a no. You're just echoing what I was saying. I'm
always suspicious of the Venus explanation for UFO sightings,
particularly in this case.

Scheaffer's findings leave me unsatisfied and suspicious.

You on the other hand are prepared to accept the lamest of
explanations for every sighting which is a lazy attitude to my


[ 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