UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2002 > Nov > Nov 25

Re: Jimmy Carter The Nobel Prize & ETs

From: Jerry Cohen <rjcohen.nul>
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 09:43:13 -0500
Archived: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 09:07:13 -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


>>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.

Bob, that isn't quite the same. One problem with the cloud
theory is that other than the possibility that there were a few
scattered clouds in the area, we don't have any visual
witnesses. Who is going to remember a cloud if they don't
remember a sighting; other than Carter. Was Carter asked if he
saw any clouds?

So what we have is, there may have been a cloud or there may not
have been a cloud. We know there weren't a lot of them; the
weather report was mostly clear.


>>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.

No, it "may" have been Venus, or it "may" have been something
else. One person thought it could have been a balloon.

>>>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.

The question is: "Which science trained
professionals with some sky observation training
amongst us have made this mistake in a "live" visual
sighting beside Carter. It's a meaningful question.

>>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

Of course not. Are you trying to tell me that if an astronomer
was standing there with Carter, that astronomer's view of the
situation wouldn't perhaps contain more valuable input than
Carters; things that Carter might not be aware of?

Bob, what I was saying was Robert is using a generalization from
past cases to solve a specific case and taking all his data
basically from one side but without even being specific to the
type of individual involved. What he's got is a "generalized"
hypothesis, not a honed-in specific answer and generalizations
can be wrong for a specific situation.

>>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

It's not my self-selected criteria. If you are going to
"generalize" a solution from other cases, it might not be a bad
idea to at least give some consideration to the profile of the
person making the claim to have some degree of accuracy in the

People perceive things differently. A child trying to make a
determination concerning an object he sees views that object
from a simplistic point of view while a person with some degree
of scientific training is going to view that object from an
entirely different perspective. The scientific person is going
to have a number of questions he can ask himself about what he
seeing that the child can never begin to contemplate. Likewise,
a non-scientific person may not realize that Venus doesn't
blink, while a scientifically trained person might possibly have
this knowledge and run it by himself before jumping to a
conclusion; and you don't know what the person was thinking
until you ask him/her. That's got to be part of your analysis or
what have you really got?

And I ask again, did anyone ask Carter what means he used to
determine his various references to the UFO? Did he happen to
notice any clouds? Was he thinking about them when he made his

>you will be doomed to studying old long-solved
>cases reported by "expert" witnesses until the cows
>come home. My life is too short.

This is not unimportant data. The investigation certainly isn't
as meaningful or complete without it. Robert is using "old long-
solved cases" to claim Carter didn't really see a UFO, but doing
so in a totally generalized manner. Also, you don't realize it
but, by saying what you just said, you're making a similar
mistake to one the Condon Committee made years ago when it
eliminated key- testimony from its report by eliminating 99% of
the past cases as though they never existed. Here are some
statements NICAP made in its January 1969 journal which explains
this and gives some examples of cases that were never studied
because of it.


High quality cases that were eliminated:


and testimonies eliminated:


Yep, let's only look at what we want to look at and ignore the
rest. Well, "the rest" is really tired of being ignored. We need
totally fair studies and Robert's, although a good effort, is
not complete as is and is therefore still unresolved.

>Human beings are fallible. Witnesses of every IFO ever
>seen were fallible.

And so are researchers and their solutions. The
above Condon study is a prime example of this but we
both can give numerous others on both sides of the coin.

>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.

In the Carter case we've established that there was no haze. It
was a clear night with "a few" scattered clouds. And the only
thing we established concerning clouds was that "perhaps" there
could have been a cloud present. Without first hand witnesses
testimonies concerning this, what do you have? Merely a guess, a
hypothesis this "may" or "may not" have occurred. The weatherman
wasn't standing there when the sighting took place.

It is also interesting to note the above mentioned Condon Study,
whose conclusions at the time were telling everyone that there
was absolutely nothing to UFOs, that the majority of them had
been solved and the ongoing studying of UFOs couldn't be
justified, was released on January 8, 1969, _two_ days after
Carter's incident. Isn't it slightly possible that might have
made it a lot easier for the witnesses to ignore what they had
seen and forget it over time, as did my wife in our own more
detailed daylight sighting?

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

You bring this up again but you still haven't responded to what
Robert Gates and I wrote about this at


I think if you think about it, the "eleven witness" part of your
argument is greatly affected by the things we stated there.
Robert Sheaffer's argument isn't as cut and dried as it might
appear on the surface.

>>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
>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,

I respect "skeptical to the max," however, I think most will see
the obvious intent just by viewing the web page you told us to
see. It speaks volumes for itself.


>>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?

I hadn't realized that 'we' did it. I thought it was Robert's.
Perhaps I missed your name on the study. (I don't mean this in a
nasty way. Just asking.) However, my answer to your question is;
not if one is performing a serious scientific study on a
specific case and then throws in a lot of irrelevance along with
what he puts forth as the study. But if you feel this is
appropriate, no problem. I just wanted to get your view on it.

Thank you,

Jerry Cohen

To facilitate analysis of these discussions and to reference
material therein for all parties, I have included the following
URLs to other discussions regarding this case at UFO UpDates.



















[ 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