From: Tim Shell <tshell.nul> Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2004 15:57:15 -0600 Fwd Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2004 17:12:21 -0500 Subject: Re: 1956 Lunar Path Light - Shell >From: Alfred Lehmberg <Lehmberg.nul> >To: ufoupdates.nul >Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2004 08:45:03 -0600 >Subject: Re: 1956 Lunar Path Light >>From: James Oberg <joberg.nul> >>To: <ufoupdates.nul> >>Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2004 07:18:23 -0600 >>Subject: Re: 1956 Lunar Path Light <snip> >>Am I the only one curious about missing data such as date/time >>of the image and the reported angular rate across the face of >>the Moon? Seems to me that obtaining such information would go a >>long way towards constraining the speculations that have been >>offered. >>James Oberg >...and as we all know 'speculations' must be 'constrained' at >all costs if comfortable stasis is to be remotely achieved! I suggest that additional data would have little or no effect on "constraining" speculation. What fresh data usually does is steer speculation into different avenues, rarely is it constrained. Speculation tends to be like toothpaste that resists being squashed back into the tube. Fortunately, I'm entertained by speculation. I never consider it a hinderance to investigation. When dealing with extraordinary claims, one must remain open to avenues that might lead to extraordinary evidence.
[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp