Sunday, July 16, 2006

Druffel's Klass act...

As posted to UFO Updates by Heflin photo "caretaker" Ann Druffel...pictured here with UFO-denial maven Phil Klass...

Hello, all:

Dr. Kelson and I are gratebul[sic] that the Heflin photos are
receiving so much attention, but unfortunately the attention
contains a flurry of uninformed speculation among the logical
questions that are being asked.

[Which could be easily corrected by making the photos available. Why withhold them any longer? Seems like it would be very constructive.]

We want to be professional and scientific as Dr. Kelson
completes his analysis of the originals. Those who have specific
questions about the photos are welcome to send these to us, but
they must be specific, and if these questions are something Dr.
Kelson can address in his second paper he will do so.

[Specific question: on what basis do you withhold the photos since they
are NOT Dr. Kelson's property, and since you promised that you would
make them available for Ufological study?]

Releasing the original images or digital copies of same into the
public arena at this time would not be constructive.

All best regards,

Ann Druffel

"...would not be constructive."? I am mystified as to how making the original photos available for others (as promised) could be anything OTHER than constructive. Oh, unless she means it would not be constructive for Dr. Kelson's book sales? Sorry to seem...umm...skeptical of her motives here, but good Lord.

Now, how does this square with Druffel's supposed promise to Heflin that his photos would be made available for the good of Ufology?

And notice not a word on the time-frame for completion of this epic 6 year old (as of today) re-analysis. Perhaps he has to keep re-starting his re-analysis when a new re-vision to Photoshop comes out? Re-diculous! :)

Since this is one very prominent UFO case where the ACTUAL evidence is still in existence, it seems far beyond the pale for its "caretaker" to be so flippant about the need for transparency, availability, and integrity. And so obviously deferential to ONE scientists "needs".

Ms Druffel's post above raises far more questions than it answers, IMO. Shameful, really.

[via UFO Updates]

Wow, Hoss.

I suspect Ms. Druffel has a tad bit more perspicacity than she is being credited with here, eh?

...and is a little more genuine.
...and is a little more honorable.
...and is a little more credible.

Seems there is plenty to disrespect in Ufology... I suspect Ms. Duffel should get the _minimal_ share, at best.

Moreover, it may be she perceives the flurry of interest of late, as I do, largely as the concerted activity of "some persons" to fallaciously dismiss in *microcosm* for the _express_ _purpose_ of invalidating the Ufological macrocosm.

I exclude you from the aforementioned company of course as I'm convinced of your sincerity, Kyle. This is forgetting for a moment you do pour combustibles on the conjectured fire... still.
AVG Blog --
Alfred -

Here's the deal...

Stan Friedman has spent decades trying to get real data from the government on UFOs...with no success.

The Disclosure Project (a group of which I am not particularly fond) has likewise done its damndest to get some real data from the Feds.

MANY many other researchers regularly decry the inability to wrest real UFO data from government/military sources.

I have made comments here in which I unfairly criticized some researchers and subsequently saw said comments as "harm done", and summarily recanted.

So, here we have REAL data on a UFO case, in the hands of a UFOlogist who promised a dying man she would make available.

And we have a group of very interested and involved researchers attempting to re-investigate this case...using a host of different methods...all of whom are hamstrung to some degree because this REAL data is being withheld, NOT by the government or the military, but by the very UFOlogist who holds same, and promised to make it available.

The justification for this is that a separate re-investigation is underway, and sharing "his" data is not appropriate until his analysis is complete. Seems reasonable, except...

Dr. Kelson is not using the original photos for his project, since he took high-resolution scans of the photos for his project. The original photos are sitting at Ann's house.

So, while these researchers spin their (train) wheels attempting to make comparisons and get photometric calculations through all sorts of methods that would be unnecessary if the original photos were available, we see the holder of the photos criticizing these researchers for making incorrect claims, when said claims could be instantly verified (yea or nay) by offering up the very photos sitting in her home.

"Help as best you can and do no harm"?

And you say I'M the one tossing fuel on the fire?

Sorry Alfred, what is good for the goose is good for the gander. If we're going to demand transparency and integrity from the government and the military on REAL UFO data, how does a UFOlogist get a pass?

I didn't ask Ms. Druffel to post her letter. But I'll be damned if the one holding the evidence is going to cast aspersions on those who seek the truth while holding said evidence back in violation of HER promise AND claim that making said evidence available would "not be constructive"...without my pointing out the obvious hypocrisy of doing so.

She may deserve much respect for past deeds, but not so for this present deed. And we all know that respect is only deserved until it is proven mis-applied.

She is not helping and is most assuredly doing word as well as in DEED.

This is clearly not about science, doing good, or getting at the truth.

So what IS it about? Can you explain it to me? Can you provide ONE reason why making the photos available would "not be constructive"?

I appreciate your comments as always, but her criticism has just taken this whole situation beyond the pale.
Maybe she's reluctant to give priceless artifacts to the generally non-vetted peanut gallery? Of which you and I are card-carrying members... you're not letting Mr. Kimball's suspect assessment of you go to your head are you? [g].

And then there's:

"Moreover, it may be she perceives the flurry of interest of late, as I do, largely as the concerted activity of "some persons" to fallaciously dismiss in *microcosm* for the _express_ _purpose_ of invalidating the Ufological macrocosm."

...And is reluctant to facilitate same? I don't know. Still, it seems we could provide more benefit of doubt to the woman with regard to decades of not compromising or disgracing herself and only ever making contribution to a truth we share interest in, eh?

...And then there's the matter of investigation extant. It just seems you're being a little needlessly confrontational... (GAWD... did _I_ just say that? LOL!)
AVG Blog --
Alfred -

My confrontational tone is nothing more than tit for tat, in my view.

Withholding important data is harmful in any milieu. Full disclosure is in everyone's interest.

I do not, and would not, deign to demand access to the photos for myself. I do not feel that I have some higher "status" at all. It is the real researchers...Rudiak, Shough, Golubic, Maccabee...that I think are getting shorted...and

Those fellows are all interested in the truth wherever it may lead. UFOlogy does not depend wholly on this one case. If it did, there would be no UFOlogy at all.

And she doesn't have to "give priceless artifacts" over to anyone. Just make them available (at her home) for others to scan at high she apparently did for Dr. Kelson. No more.

We'll see where it all leads, of course. And perhaps I will be found to have been too severe. I will gladly make amends when if and when appropriate.

Thanks again. We just really need some help on this, and the response is less than helpful.
Post a Comment

<< Home

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