From: Don Ledger <dledger.nul>
Date: Mon, 02 Nov 2009 13:41:57 -0400
Archived: Mon, 02 Nov 2009 14:06:48 -0500
Subject: Re: The Dudley's Merry Hill UFO Video


>From: Sean Jones <Sean.Jones.nul>
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <post.nul>
>Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 21:39:07 +0000
>Subject: Re: The Dudley's Merry Hill UFO Video

>Warning, this is long!

>>From: Don Ledger <dledger.nul>
>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <post.nul>
>>Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 02:20:05 -0300
>>Subject: Re: The Dudley's Merry Hill UFO Video

>Good Evening again Don

I was away for three days.

<snip>

I've cut some of this because I don't have the time to keep
going over thesame thing over and over.

>Planes do fly at night. I am also certain the stealth planes fly
>at night as well. So, how many night time sightings of UFO's
>could be planes mis-identified.

I never said that planes don't fly at night - but when they do
it's under certain rules plus it takes skill to fly at night.
Everything changes. I imagine some planes are mistaken for UFOs
but often what the witness reports is not matchable to current
technology. And actually and it also depends on who is seeing
it/ reporting it. And of course stealth planes fly at night,
that's how they stay stealthy.????

>I'm pretty sure I can be 100% confidant of that as well.

>>>Just because you refuse to accept it, doesn't mean that it isn't
>>>possible. There is a distinct lack of supporting evidence that
>>>some UFO's are from other planets, doesn't mean that people stop
>>>believing it either <g>

>>UFOs are unidentified flying objects not alien spacecraft.

>Careful, that's bordering on heresy around here! <g>

No it is not. And since when has this become a religion? Keep
that out of it.

>A UFO is just that, an unexplained flying object. The theories
>of where they come from is what the nub of the matter is really
>isn't it.

>>>None to your knowledge.

>>None so far.

>A hundred pounds, dollars or currency of your choice to a
>charity of your choice if one is made public before this decade
>is out. Care to take me up on this bet?

You are missing the point. Finding out there is a top secret
aircraft flying around means nothing. That doesn't solve a lot
of these cases. If you can find me one - particularly a very
large craft - that can hover silently and very low - say 3500
feet - displaying multicolored lights of non-aviation sanctioned
colors over populated areas then speeds away at high Mach
numbers that is admitted to with technical data by some military
on this planet [and that it has been doing so for years] then
you are on.

>>>I just think it is too easy for the UFO buffs to trot out the
>>>same rubbish every time and expect to be believed.

>>So 'I'm' trotting out rubbish. Come on Sean, the rubbish is
>>coming from you this time.

>Actually, I'm not doing any more than playing devils advocate &
>positing alternative ideas. My first post was commenting about
>the similarity of this sighting (before it was concluded that it
>was a hoax) and one that I had previously investigated. But I
>suppose all "black triangle" sightings could be compared in the
>same way.

Now that is a cop-out... the old 'devils advocate' ploy. How
many times have I heard that one.

>As for rubbish trotted out by UFO buffs (and I don't mean to
>include you in "trotting out this rubbish") I have heard myself
>personally, (and I'll never forget the quote) "Whilst we was
>watching this UFO they must have read our mind that we was
>watching it because it morphed into a plane to make us stop
>watching it". Scary!

That's your reason for ignoring other better investigated cases.
Why is it you guys always trot out this nonsense that most
experienced investigators would not spend 5 minutes on. I see
this ploy all too often these days particularly when a debunker
is talking to the media; they use these shit cases as examples to
explain away the phenoemnon al the while knowing that these are
not worth the time to explore.

>>If it happens then it's by accident and then the crap hits the
>>fan. Controlled airspace is sacrosanct. I know as a lay person
>>you do know nothing about ICAO air regs and you can't just look
>>on the internet for them; you have to spend thousands of dollars
>>to train and learn many of them then study and keep updating
>>yourself. There are thousands of air regulations governing
>>flying in controlled and uncontrolled airspace.

>I bow to your superior knowledge on this.

>And http://www.icao.int/ to those interested.

>>In congested areas at low levels near airports is where most
>>accidents happen. Military of civilian some one's ass is going
>>to fry. Most airforces of the world don't suffer hotdog antics
>>in civil airspace. The cost is too high in human life and
>>aircraft costs.

>And rightly so.

>>Let me ask you this. If the MoD claims that UFOs pose no threat
>>to national security-where then are these coming from?

>I assume, and this is _my_ assumption only, that if they
>consider that they pose no threat it is because "they" know what
>they are, or where they are from???

This could be turned around to mean that they can't do anything
about what they know.

>>Certainly
>>not from the UK top-secret aircraft; the UK doesn't have any.

>To my knowledge, which is admittedly weak in this area, all
>plane developments from the UK have been in conjunction with
>various of our European neighbours for the past thirty or so
>years?

And none of them are of the top secret varity. The Tornado
fighter i8s the best example.

>>So are these French or Russian perhaps

>There is more than France in Europe :) And the Russians have
>been caught with the proverbial pants down spying on us numerous
>times, and this has been reported in our press.

What's that got to do with anything. It's mostly all spy
satellites these days, not airplanes.

>>If so how then can the MoD
>>claim there there is no threat to national security if they
>>can't secure the skies over their shopping centers?

>Speaking generally, I can offer several suggestions. One as
>above, two is that radar anomalies happen all the time and
>amount to nothing when investigated. Another suggestion would
>be that the MoD don't much care for the reports of civilians who
>they claim aren't credible witnesses. And as for mobile phone
>footage such as this, they no doubt write it off as a hoax
>straight away.

The MoD, the DoD [US] and the DND here in canada have spouted the
same mantra-"UFOs are no threat to national security" which is a
cope-out by air forces that can't match the ability of these
things and are outclassed by them. They can't do anything about
them so to avoid embarrassemnet they ignore them.

>>Are the
>>Americans roaming around your skies willy nilly with top secret
>>aircraft showing off to the locals.
>
>
>Top Gun?? <g>

Top Gun takes place in the American Soutwest. It's an exercise
not the bilge that was in the movie.

>>There is great deal of absurdity being postulated as sober
>>reasoning coming from some debunkers in the UK-particularly when
>>it concerns aviation.

>Please don't confuse me with the debunkers. I am a sceptic. I
>don't accept at face value the sighting reports without
>investigation. From my own personal experience well over ninety
>percent of UFO sightings could be resolved when investigated
>thoroughly. The remaining few is where the "fun" lies.

I don't accept that. Once you get into the aircraft side you are
not working with information that can be useful. If you know very
little about aviation how can you come to an informed opinion as
to what is and what is not likely a top secret aircraft or an a/c
of some other ilk. You remarks about gliders thermalling over the
heat from exhaust and pavement at a shopping center pretty much
gives away your skill level in that department.

Gliders do not fly at night-legally. They have no electrics and
therefore carry no lights. They have a couple of instruments-an
airspeed indicator and a rate of climb indicator. They might have
a hand-held aviation radio on board. It's all about weight with
gliders. They are launched into the air in three ways, airplane
tow, vehicle tow and cable, and winch launch. Each of these
methods reqires a ground support crew.

The field I've been flying out of for the last 30 years had
gliders operating for about 25 of them. They shut down about 3
years ago after they lost three 'glider rated' pilots during a 2
year period.

These gliders were launched by a winch mounted on a truck that
played out 5,000 feet of cable that when implemented pulled the
glider up to about 1,800 to 2,000 feet before the glider pilot
released the cable. Each glider launch required 4 or 5 ground
support personnel plus the winch operator a mile away. Most of
them thermaled around - if the conditions were right - at about
3-4,000 feet in the vicinity of the field.

The more experienced glider pilots could go many miles and get
up a couple of miles [max 12,500 feet without oxygen] but they
stayed well away from the populated areas preferring to glide
over areas where there were fields available where the pilot
could land if that pilot could not make it back to the field.

Glider pilots with just that certificate have no night training
nor is the aircraft legal to fly at night due to the lack of
instruments and lighting.

Now you didn't know any of this until I just told you. Your
argument was that you have seen them flying at dusk. That is not
nightime. No one wants a glider flying around in airspace when
you have no way of know it's there. They are hard enough to see
in daylight due to their slim sillouettes.

>>But if this makes them feel comfortable,
>>good enough. Whatever floats your boat.

>Water generally <g>Seriously. I think to provide a balanced
>argument you need to look at both sides.

No, you need to look at facts. You have ignored a whole sector
of the phenomenon that must agree to what is real and what is
just fairytale nonsense about aviation.

>Don, whilst you may consider some of my arguments "horse manure"
>others may consider them valid.

It doesn't matter what they think - it's what is fact. If they
want to run off hell west and crooked with uninformed belief,
that's their problem.

>Whilst your experience in the
>aerospace/pilot industry gives you greater knowledge in certain
>areas, this also could cloud your judgement to new, radical
>ideas.

These aren't radical ideas, Sean. Don't be silly. This stupid
top secret argument has been flogged for years by people who
know dick about aviation or what's up in the military sector. A
prime example is Greg Boone who I now see mentions "our
airfield".

>I consider myself fairly open minded and will consider
>alternative arguments even if I think they are too way out
>there, or plain ludicrous, but I will always check them out
>before laughing.

That's your attitude you see. It's laughable  whether you have
the facts or not. Don't fool yourself, Sean, you are  more the
debunker than a skeptic.
>
>I hope in our discourse you don't think I am in idiot or
>debunker, or even a looney left fringe flower power hippy, I am
>not. I am just a regular guy who happens to have spent (on &
>off) over twenty five years investigating UFO reports at ground
>level.

Yeah but you missed one impotant section re UFOs-what is and what
isn't kosher in aviation.

>All the best

Back at you,

Don Ledger


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

At:

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

Your access info works there too...

These contents above are copyright of the author and
UFO UpDates - Toronto. They may not be reproduced
without the express permission of both parties and
are intended for educational use only.