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: Tim Printy <Tprinty2.nul>
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 19:14:26 EST
Archived: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 08:28:17 -0500
Subject: Re: Jimmy Carter The Nobel Prize & ETs


>From: Jerry Cohen <rjcohen.nul>
>Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 08:51:41 -0500
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates.nul>
>Subject: Re: Jimmy Carter The Nobel Prize & ETs

>However, as to the "sharply outlined" point, I said before, he
>had three choices on the form:

>Fuzzy or Blurred, Like a bright star, or sharply outlined He
>chose "sharply outlined"

I am not sure how a star can be described as "fuzzy" or
"blurred". Most stars are pinpoints that twinkle.
However, planets do not appear like stars. They do not twinkle
(at least not very much) and usually exhibit a steady light
giving them a distinct appearance. One could easily see how
a planet would be described as "sharply outlined".

>Exactly my point. Not good enough. We really need solid examples
>of a person(s?) _with Carter's skills who either thought the
>moon was a UFO or thought Venus was a UFO_, and we are entitled
>to see this as well.

Exactly how do we acquire individuals with Carter's "skills"?
Can you quantify them so we can measure them? However, there are
some examples of Venus/stars being described as large as the
full moon or having a distinct size:

1) Condon report case #37. Hynek even admitted this one was
Venus:

"The latter case should be read by all UFO investigators. It is
a fantastic example of how persuasive the planet Venus can be as
a nonscreened UFO." (The UFO Experience)

2) Alan Hendry lists several cases where stars/planets were
misperceived to have size:

"Included among these shapes are: discs and discs with domes
("Like two plates put together"-case 332; "elongated, as big as
a distant plane"-case 377; "dome on top and bottom" - for one
and a half hours in case 332), domes, a "plate with a hole in
the center," vertically oriented small triangles, ovals, a
football ...even "teacups," "Mexican sombreros," and "bananas as
large as the moon, shrinking back down to a star." People have
seen "spikes," beams," "appendages," and sparkles shooting out
in all directions from bright stars." (The UFO Handbook)

>When one has a hypothesis one needs to back
>it up with some solid supporting examples or you can't even
>submit the hypothesis for analysis. It is one thing for an
>average person to be fooled by something like this but another
>for a person with a nuclear physics degree and trained sky
>observation skills.

I am not sure exactly how a physics degree translates into
"trained sky observation skills". If you are referring to Jimmy
Carter's Navy training, there are some problems with this.
Exactly when did he acquire such skills? I am sure Jimmy Carter
had his celestial navigation course in the academy but he was
not a navigator on any ship. This is a matter of "If you don't
use it, you lose it." During my twenty-plus years in the Navy, I
knew many officers and very few were had a working knowledge of
astronomy. Many were fascinated by me pointing out various
astronomical objects when I came up to the bridge (which on a
sub was not often). In one interesting moment, we had several
officers wonder what ship light that was on the horizon they
were looking at through the periscope. The quartermaster (an
enlisted man) went to an old program called Sky Globe to
identify Venus. These were nuclear qualified officers, who were
quite knowledgeable in their trade but not to the point of
infallibility. Hynek addressed this when he noted that pilots
seemed to suffer from misperception problems:

"What we have here is a good example of a well-known
psychological fact: "transference" of skill and experience does
not usually take place. That is, an expert in one field does not
necessarily "transfer" his competence to another one" (The UFO
Report)

Then we have the problem of Carter being outside the military
for almost two decades when he saw this event. Exactly what
proficiency did Carter have at identifying planets at this time
in his life? We really don't know but speculating he could have
easily identified Venus is not being very accurate.

Of course, we have to take Carter's report with a grain of salt
since it was made several years after the event occurred. He
could not even recall the date. Exactly why are we to suspect
that he got all the other details exactly right?


Tim Printy



[ 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