From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac.nul> Date: Sat, 13 Mar 2004 12:50:28 -0500 Fwd Date: Sun, 14 Mar 2004 10:02:33 -0500 Subject: Re: Depressing But Instructive - Maccabee >From: John Harney <magonia.nul> >To: <ufoupdates.nul> >Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 21:20:28 -0000 >Subject: Re: Depressing But Instructive >>From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99.nul> >>To: ufoupdates.nul >>Date: Mon, 08 Mar 2004 13:54:40 +0000 >>Subject: Re: Depressing But Instructive <snip> >>such things as high altitude, high-speed pelicans; >The Kenneth Arnold sighting? The pelican hypothesis is one of >several suggested explanations. Of course the the chief >objection to it is that one needs to assume that Arnold's >estimates of speeds and distances were very inaccurate. Yes, one objection is that Arnold's estimates of speed and distances must have been (very) wrong for pelicans to be an acceptable hypothesis. This ties in with my previous (several years ago) challenge to "draw a map" to show how Arnold's reported speed and directions of travel (eastward and then turning southward briefly) would compare with the direction(southward) and speed (50 mph or less) of assumed pelicans. It is my contention that there is no "map" that would produce a sighting consistent with Arnold's description of what happened if the objects were... pelicans.....
[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp