UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2008 > May > May 19

Re: Open Letter To Mike Nardi Of NBC Dateline

From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac.nul>
Date: Mon, 19 May 2008 11:29:17 -0400
Archived: Mon, 19 May 2008 14:28:05 -0400
Subject: Re: Open Letter To Mike Nardi Of NBC Dateline


>From: Stanton T Friedman <fsphys.nul>
>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>Date: Mon, 19 May 2008 08:50:40 -0300
>Subject: Re: Open Letter To Mike Nardi Of NBC Dateline

>>From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac.nul>
>>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>>Date: Sun, 18 May 2008 21:42:47 -0400
>>Subject: Open Letter To Mike Nardi Of NBC Dateline

>>Dear Mike,

>>Your Dateline show was reasonably good despite the attempted
>>'debunking' of each case.

>>I have some problems with your presentation of the cases that I
>>investigated.

>>However, I was really disturbed by your perpetuation of the
>>mixup of the 8:30 PM and 10 PM sightings over Phoenix. Typically
>>you would have one of the 8:30 PM witnesses, whch include Gov.
>>Symington, talking while you showed the 10 PM lights which were
>>probably flares. You never made it clear that there is a
>>deliniation between the sightings at the two times: at 8:30 PM
>>the witnesses said the object was "right overhead" but the 10 PM
>>lights were on the horizon, clearly not "overhead".

>>Therefore the 'explanations' proposed by the 'skeptics' - flares -
>>did not apply to the 8:30 PM witnesses.

>>Fortunately James Fox has it correct in his documentary.

>Bruce hit the nail on the head. The debunking was a splendid
>example of research by proclamation. So the Trents made some
>kind of object and threw it over the wire etc ad nauseum. And
>the Hudson Valley case was just a bunch of small planes. I
>thought the good guys came across much better than the bad
>guys... rational and sensible and aware of the facts vs.
>dogmatic,biased and ignorant.

Thanks, Stan.

Since the New Zealand case was # 2 it is important to clarify
something that Jim Oberg said about it. He claimed that a
satellite photo shows the squid fleet in NZ waters at the time
of the sighting. IT was visible to the satellite because each
boat turns on over a hundred thousand watts worth of
incandescent light to lure squid to the suface.

Oberg is correct: the fleet was in NZ waters, but about 130 nm
east of the area where the UFO was seen.  The unidentified light
was not a squid boat. (Note: "solitary squid boat" was the "last
explanation standin" after all the others had been shot down.)

Anyone who wants to know why it wasn't a squid boat can check
out

http://brumac.8k.com/NEW_ZEALAND/NZSB.html

You can also check the opening web page for other articles on
the New Zealand sightings. One article is a .doc file that
provides a history of the Dec. 31, 1978 sightings.

Note: even though almost 30 years-old these sightings are still
important because they are, so far as I am aware, the only ones
in civilian literature which combine multiple witnesses,
including an experienced air crew and skeptical news reporters
- where were witnesses such as Quentin Fogarty - ground radar,
airplane radar and color movie film.

Anyone aware of another radar-visual case that includes film or
video?



Listen to 'Strange Days... Indeed' - The PodCast

See:

http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/sdi/program/subscribers/


[ 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