UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2004 > Feb > Feb 14

Re: 50 Years Ago The Coniston UFO Photograph -

From: Larry Hatch <larryhatch.nul>
Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2004 01:53:28 -0800
Fwd Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2004 16:25:47 -0500
Subject: Re: 50 Years Ago The Coniston UFO Photograph -

>From: Steven Kaeser <steve.nul>
>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 11:48:00 -0500
>Subject: Re: 50 Years Ago The Coniston UFO Photograph

>>From: Tim Shell <tshell.nul>
>>To: ufoupdates.nul
>>Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 09:05:22 -0600
>>Subject: Re: 50 Years Ago The Coniston UFO Photograph

> <snip>

>>I've always been wary of admitted hoaxes. I guess I'm just a
>>hardened skeptic who doesn't believe anybody, no matter what
>>they say.

>>I wonder why someone's admission of a hoax is so much more often
>>readily accepted than that someone's initial claim. Particularly
>>when it's proven they often have much more motivation to take
>>back their claim after they've had a strong dose of unwelcome
>>attention from the authorities and the fringies.

>>Also (in a neat little bit of circular logic), if a person is so
>>untrustworthy as to create a hoax, if they've shown themselves
>>to be horrible liars, why do they suddenly become trustworthy
>>when they admit it?

>>I guess we're much more likely to believe people when they're
>>telling us things we want to hear.

>I think the issue is that no one has the ability to listen with
>a completely open mind and uses their own beliefs, faith and
>training to filter all information they absorb.


>... UFO researchers seem to have their own
>areas of interest and most are leary of opening that
>psychological can of worms.


Hello Steve:

I hate to open psychological cans of worms, I even avoid canned
beer if I have any choice.

Regarding the Coniston photo(s): I view anyone coming up with
Adamski Saucer pix as extremely suspect. In this case (and if I
have it right) the Coniston pix came out just months after the
Adamski-Leslie book, complete with its own images.

Something very similar happened in Spain. From
my Discredited Sightings page:

"1973/08/xx Bolonia, Tarifa, Cadiz, SPAIN: Amateur Archeologist
(some boy) photos saucer. Wide publicity by J.J. Benitez. /LDLN
#139 etc. Delisted. Photo was perfect copy of earlier one from
Barra da Tijuca in Brazil, also fake. Credit: V-J Ballester
Olmos "

As for Barra di Tijuca, I include that on the very
same D-list:

"1952/5/07 BARRA di TIJUCA, Brazil: FIVE photos taken of 60
meter silent Flying Saucer. Goes South to sea. /FSR vol.17 #3
and APRO Bulletin Vol.1 #1, their first issue! Shadows on an
uncropped photo indicate the Sun about 45 degrees beneath the
horizon (underwater) at 4:15 PM local time. A most unlikely
arrangement.  Credit: Loren Gross (/r142#1p47) and Brad Sparks.

Those two cases were 21 years apart. Now picture 2 boys in their
early teens, right on the heels of the Adamski craze, complete
with pix of an Adamski saucer.

That really rings my warning bells. Frankly, I'm about one inch
from throwing Darbyshire/Coniston onto the same Discredited
Sightings page.


Does anyone consider that a rash or unwarranted
thing for me to do?

Best wishes

- Larry

= = = = =

[ 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