Monday, June 19, 2006

Updates feedback...

Martin Shough responds to my email to the UFO Updates List. As I told you, an anonymous poster asked that I send the images I'd collected to the List, which I did.

Of course, I forwarded the blog address rather than just send the images, in the interest of full disclosure. Martin Shough felt compelled to reply, and was apparently offended or thought all my comments were directed at him.

Martin makes some excellent points, although in several cases he is mistaken. But no matter.

He is right in saying that many of his points were first brought to light by him. I never claimed otherwise, but I have managed to insult him. Whatever. Unfortunately, I don't write to please Martin, or anyone else.

His comments are linked to the title of this post for anyone to read. I urge you to read the post. [But please ignore any "...anger, antipathy, dismissal, and just plain rudeness ... " you find therein. LOL]

At least he agrees with the important issues...which I never doubted.

If you are interested in this case, and care to see the results of my this space. I am bidding on the camera and film now, and will be visiting a local train shop today to compare wheels for a suitable candidate. It will be interesting to compare results with Victor...

And had the idea FIRST! LOL

I'm looking forward to a similar amount of glee, exuberance, and vitality I know you're going to demonstrate trying to display the validity of some future case... and not the mere reflex invalidation of same.

UAPs or UFOs, Kyle? Plausible deniability or something tangible in near infinite space, time, and surface area?

A vaunted list member, you're in a position to help dictate the "which is where." ...Got balance?
AVG Blog --
Hi Alfred -

I damn sure hope so. Every time I see one of these photos or clips, I honestly look for the sign of a true anomaly.

When I see the errant clue of hoax, I even ask myself is I'm fooling myself because I so don't want to be fooled by others.

To be perfectly sincere, I was one of those who thought the Heflin case was a "slam dunk". For all the straw hat fakeness of the object in the pictures, I actually felt that enough brilliant minds had looked it over and done the work for me.

Now, I'm just utterly disappointed at the current status of the research, and at the response to those who question it.

For all those who keep saying we shouldn't reinvent the wheel, I now have people excoriating me for NOT doing re-creations, while simultaneously saying that doing such re-creations would prove nothing, and would in fact be a waste of time and effort.

And I thought this was a group of people trying to ascertain the truth.

As it turns out, for many it appears to be nothing more than an ultra-paranoid pseudo-intellectual circle-jerk....a competition to see who came up with what idea first...and a club where "membership in good standing" is the reward solely for knee-jerk acquiescence.

If you think I am enjoying a bout of "glee, exuberance and vitality", I can assure you that this is anything but the case.

I am gravely reassessing who I honestly believe to be the truth-seekers versus the knee-jerk defensive "believer-snobs".. The list of the former is shrinking the "benefit" of the list of the latter.

What truly and completely confuses me is that someone like Martin Shough...for whom I have held the utmost respect and have expressed as much...would think that my posts were some sort of personal attack on his credibiliti or whatever. Only a true paranoid could deduce as much from what I have written. And he had to ignore some of the writing in the very same posts to derive such a position.

Finally, how to "balance" when this is a case-by-case thing.

I can only speak to the cases in which I bear some skill to assess. Photos and video clips are something with which I am familiar, skilled and demonstrably knowledgable.

How to apply "balance" to the search for the suspension string, the truck mirror, the train wheel, the bird, etc., is something that will come when I find something that appears to be explainable by none of the above.

As I said before, I sincerely hope that I am around when I find it, and I sincerely hope that I retain enough integrity to display the glee, exuberance and vitality you describe.

As of this day however, my shoulders merely slump, my gaze merely dims, and my mind merely compels me to turn to other things...less depressing things.

I sincerely appreciate the undertone of your comments, and hope that I truly earn the status you apply.

Yes. We all aspire to be on the correct side of this thing, not the *right* side. Still, are you sure you properly exhausted the work done on this before you seized on lens caps and train wheels and off center mono-filaments?

Honestly dude, if I wasn't convinced of your honesty and aggregate integrity in the matter I'd be writing unflattering epic poetry in your regard.

Strike the sun if it offends you, dude! Just remember the space, time, and surface area involved.
AVG Blog --
Hi Kyle,

Don't let the bastards get you down!

The main principle I follow is that you must find truth for yourself. If others are interested, that is nice, but should not be the impetus.

What drove me to try to understand the Mexican FLIR video was not some notion of being first or to receive plaudits, but it was for _myself_ since I want some proof (as judged by myself) of non-prosaic UFOs.

Others would prefer that we spend time proving the "validity" of some case but that is hard because you must first show the case is not anything else. Can we do that? Do we ever have enough "reactive" data to do this? This is what is so disheartening with such cases. There is always a missing set of data we can never obtain which can either eliminate some prosaic source or confirm it is such a source.

If we are "lucky" we can explain a case. But this isn't really satisfying to you or me. But the detractors always think,"Here's the debunkers again, trying to show a case is prosaic". It seems like the primary rule in UFO research (as in criminal investigation) _should_be_ to rule out all the alternatives and what one is left with must be the truth. But it seems that most UFO folk what to skip alot of steps since they have preconceived notions and belief systems.

I have just about given up trying to explain past cases because we just don't have the necessary data.

For instance, who captures incoming bolide data and provides this to the public? What about NORAD tracking records? Does any of that see the light of day? No. Even aircraft radar records are not available (maybe at a fee commercial data is available, but the entire record is not..for security reasons). Too much missing data!

[I did read how some amateur folk are using the NORAD radar signal fence to track their own satellites using only a radio receiver! Perhaps we, the proactive UFO researchers, have to do that ourselves to get the data we need!]

How about continuous video monitoring of the North American continent? If we had that (at high enough resolution) we could spot the UFO lights as they harass or amaze folks and we would have perfect confirmation. But we don't have that, we only have one Earth viewing video camera with publically accessible data (ISS) and it isn't on frequently.

>And I thought this was a group of >people trying to ascertain the >truth.

So to I thought. Maybe they are seeking other truths having already pigeonholed the Heflin case. Kind of disquieting for them to have to open the case again.

>I can only speak to the cases in >which I bear some skill to assess. >Photos and video clips are >something with which I am familiar, >skilled and demonstrably >knowledgable.

I know what you mean, I have done the same thing. I am good with satellite orbit determination so did alot of correlations (for a while) with witness reports to see whether they were caused by NOSS triads or ISS or something. But if they were not so correlated, I could only keep them in the UFO file although it will never prove them to be ET. This becomes boring quickly and I dropped doing it.

With the Mexican FLIR video, I happened to be pretty knowledgeable about satellite imagery resources and I was fortunate that it helped correlate the event. I would have been even more happy if it had _disproven_ the gas flare theory, but the UFO believers would not believe I feel this way.

In summary, I see nothing wrong with your pursuit of the truth regarding Heflin. It should be inspiring to young folks to see you tackle this task. If you have the enthusiasm and energy to do this, then by God go do it! Don't let the UFO clique affect you because there are so many personalities and temperments involved you are bound to step on toes. This is not a popularity contest and you are not a yes-man or a Kool-aid drinker!
Hi James -

I sincerely appreciate your comments.

And I'm sure my current melancholy will subside.

We couldn't agree more on the need for data gathering. We speak with one mind on that topic, absolutely.

If my efforts expended on these old cases are any kind of inspiration to younger UFO researchers-to-be, I feel quite vindicated. The truth remains to be seen.

I DO wish that UFOlogy would embrace young people and invite them to be more participatory.

As it is, most UFO conferences I read about are sparsely attended affairs populated for the most part by grizzled "bleevers", wary faux-insider conspiracy buffs, and hopeful wide-eyed sightees.

A pronounced effort to engage young people would go a long way to legitimizing the field.

But see, there my juices are starting to flow already!

Thanks again, James.

And by the way, I saw the UFO FIles on Mexico last night, and the FLIR case was front and center. It was excellent, excellent work you did with the LandSat data correlating with the FLIR data, and the plotting of the flight against the locations of the Campeche platforms cliched it for me.

It was superb detective work, and the vehemence of the denials serves to buttress that contention! LOL

If we're being attacked, we must be doing something right, no?


Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?