UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2004 > Feb > Feb 1

Re: Whittlesea Australia UFO Photograph - Ledger

From: Don Ledger <dledger.nul>
Date: Sun, 01 Feb 2004 15:34:24 -0400
Fwd Date: Sun, 01 Feb 2004 16:13:57 -0500
Subject: Re: Whittlesea Australia UFO Photograph - Ledger


>From: Tim Shell <tshell.nul>
>To: ufoupdates.nul
>Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 12:50:21 -0600
>Subject: Re: Whittlesea Australia UFO Photograph

>>From: Don Ledger <dledger.nul>
>>To: ufoupdates.nul
>>Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 19:14:00 -0400
>>Subject: Re: Whittlesea Australia UFO Photograph

>>maybe for once we could hazard a guess as to whether it is a
>>"classic" UFO.

>Whoa, Nellie! What's the big rush? Do you know something more
>about the photo than the rest of us?


Nope. but I know enough about the timidity of "ufologists" who
rather than confront the object and strip it to its bare
essentials are loath to go out on a limb and usually just mouth
off about it for awhile then dump it. Maybe it is as bug as Ray
Stanford says, I don't think so, but it's got some solidity
going for it and perhaps a field surrounding it that makes it
interesting from that point of view [a result of it's propulsive
method perhaps]. And what do you mean, "What's the rush?", 60
odd years isn't good enough for you?

>>This means bite the bullet and pronounce ourselves as to it is
>>an extraterrestrial craft under intelligent control-or that it's
>>an IFO and then prove what the IFO is. Or at the very least
>>assign a high probability as to what it is.

>As it stands now, it's an image of a train crossing with a
>blurry something-or-other in it. Maybe a flying saucer. If it
>is, it sure is a crappy photo of one, as there are dozens if not
>hundreds of better, clearer photos of flying saucers around. As
>for waving our wands over it and declaring it an alien
>spacecraft, what evidence is there of that? If we're going to
>call it alien, we might as well say where it's from and why
>they're here while we're at it, because we have just as much
>evidence to support those claims as the first, namely none.

They are all crappy photos, but this shows some detail, a
leading[?] edge and a possible field of some sort around it.

>Perhaps it would have been a little different had the
>photographer experienced something more (or even seen the
>"craft" in the photo), but he evidently didn't. And that would
>only add a tiny fraction of information to the question, and
>certainly not enough to draw any conclusions.

Ah that's nonesense. Why blow off a picture because the
photographer didn't see it through the viewfinder? If it was
travelling too fast for the eye to perceive but the camera
shutter did see it, why does that make it less viable than one
seen with the naked eye.

>No, what we need to do is file this one away with the others
>determined to be "inconclusive," and get on with it. If more
>information comes to light, we'll review it, but at this point,
>there's nothing more to add.

Yeah, like I said, blow it off. But of course there is more to
add. I haven't seen much of Bruce Maccabee on the lists lately.
This is right up his ally.

I'm getting too old to manage my time. I've been waiting for 54
years for some answers.


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