SUNlite

General UFO stories

Moderators: ryguy, chrLz, Zep Tepi

Re: SUNlite

Postby DrDil » Mon May 07, 2012 5:16 pm

astrophotographer wrote:Claims of triangulation are not the same of showing that it actually was done and how it was done. So far, I have yet to see any evidence that such an analysis was performed.

Agreed but that wasn’t really what I was getting at but rather that the reluctance of the CEFAA to release or mention it raises doubts which would seemingly agree with your question of, “Is there something else going on here” and so was sharing what I deemed as information relevant to that concern. Besides which before triangulation data was even offered I personally would have to see convincing evidence that it IS in fact the same object being triangulated as I still suspect its multiple objects filmed independently of one another and not the same object viewed from different angles.


Cheers.
User avatar
DrDil
On A Quest for Reality
On A Quest for Reality
 
Posts: 116
Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2008 10:55 pm


Re: SUNlite

Postby astrophotographer » Mon May 07, 2012 7:46 pm

I agree that they probably are triangulating on different "objects" instead of one but one would think it would not be hard to determine if an object is the same while watching the videos. For instance, if an object moved from left to right on one video and a person 20 feet away recorded it going from right to left, one might question if they were the same object. Triangulating on one frame that seems to match, while ignoring the conflicting information would seem like a bad way to analyze the videos.

As I said in my article, I find it simply amazing that this kind of analysis was not presented if it was even attempted. This is exactly why you want multiple videos from multiple locations of the same event! Data can be determined from this kind of analysis. Instead, we were fed these arguments from CEFAA that looks like pseudoscientific nonsense using photoshop.

I seriously am beginning to doubt if any raw reports will ever see the light of day. If an analysis does appear, I suspect will see a modified summary of some kind. I personnally would like to see the original reports presented for all to see.
User avatar
astrophotographer
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 577
Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2009 5:46 pm

Re: SUNlite

Postby astrophotographer » Sat Jul 07, 2012 6:05 pm

The latest issue of SUNlite is on-line. It is mostly focused on the Roswell case so enjoy.

http://home.comcast.net/~tprinty/UFO/SUNlite4_4.pdf
User avatar
astrophotographer
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 577
Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2009 5:46 pm

Re: SUNlite

Postby Zep Tepi » Wed Jul 11, 2012 9:46 pm

Great work Tim, very impressive.
I'll write something up about it for the homepage.

Cheers,
Steve
.
Image
User avatar
Zep Tepi
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 2150
Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2006 12:59 pm

Re: SUNlite

Postby astrophotographer » Sat Sep 01, 2012 8:01 pm

The latest issue of SUNlite is now available:

http://home.comcast.net/~tprinty/UFO/SUNlite4_5.pdf

Readers might be intersted in my discussion regarding NICAP's UFO Evidence and the one Blue Book case file.
User avatar
astrophotographer
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 577
Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2009 5:46 pm

Re: SUNlite

Postby astrophotographer » Fri Nov 02, 2012 12:32 am

SUNlite 4-6 is available at:

http://home.comcast.net/~tprinty/UFO/SUNlite4_6.pdf

I beat up on Roswell again. Sorry about that but I can't control myself.

I am very interested in the Virgie, KY video though. I only briefly mentioned it in the "strange UFO" story on page 26 and have . I have argued with a few skeptics about this (some call it a reflection, others a low altitude party or solar balloon) but I am pretty convinced it was a high altitude balloon of some kind (unless I can see data that suggests otherwise). I have a few feelers out but I am not sure if I will get a response at this point.
User avatar
astrophotographer
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 577
Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2009 5:46 pm

Re: SUNlite

Postby James Carlson » Sun Nov 04, 2012 12:37 am

When interviewed, Robert Friend stated that the government should get back into the UFO investigation business. He did not seem to want to make it a USAF project but what organization would do it? NASA did not seem too interested in the 1970s and probably is not interested today. Why waste your budget on a project that accomplishes what the USAF experienced back in the 1960s? UFO organizations would criticize any explanations they don’t agree with and then lobby politicians to end the cover-up this agency was conducting! Does this sound familiar? It is a no win situation for a government organization that does not proclaim that UFOs are “somebody else’s craft”. I seriously doubt that the US government is going to give money to CUFOS or MUFON to study UFOs. Do these people actually believe the taxpayers and congress would willingly spend money on such a program?

Bravo ... :)

Astronomer Derrick Pitts also stated that UFOs should be scientifically investigated. That is an interesting idea to say the least and Lee Spiegal seems to be trying to promote this as something significant. What Speigal does not recognize (or chooses not to mention) is that, in over six decades of “stamp collecting” UFO stories, nothing has been proven that these reports represent alien spaceships. What Pitts is talking about is a serious effort to collect data that takes out the human element, which MUFON and the other UFO groups have failed to do despite having scientists in their organization. This is actually very simple. All UFOlogists need to do is come up with a decent proposal, using present day technology, to gather data on these UFOs that can be analyzed. Instead, UFOlogists waste their time and money on things that resolve nothing.

Bravo!
[note: https://dad2059.wordpress.com/2012/10/0 ... ment-11588] :D

Meanwhile, John Harney pointed out the MUFON journal’s failure to take a scientific approach when studying UFOs. Among the things he mentioned that caught my eye was Margie Kay’s description of a UFO event that had occurred back in Missouri. She appears to be describing the case in May, where she was recorded as stating that she was “90%” sure they were looking at Vega! Apparently, she could not make a positive identification, which would have been easy for anybody with a basic knowledge of astronomy. The videos associated with this sighting all looked like scintillating stars to me. As Harney implies, MUFON’s research seems to lack a scientific approach and is the reason that scientists don’t take UFOlogy seriously. Physician heal thyself!

BRAVO! =D>

If that wasn’t enough criticism about UFOlogy, Nick Redfern had an interesting article on its future. He correctly points out that the decades of collecting UFO stories has proven nothing (other than people can’t always identify what they see in the sky and misperception plays a key role in many reports). He requests UFOlogy change its thinking and methodology. I agree completely.

BRAVO! \:D/

I was pleased to see that there was a lengthy video out there debunking just about everything on the “Ancient Aliens” show. Many decades ago, I was a big ancient astronauts fan/supporter/proponent. However, as I learned more about history, I began to accept less and less of what was presented in those films and books. This video shows all the things wrong with the arguments presented in the show. While the video is over three hours long, it is worth watching. I found the piece about the Egyptian Pyramids very informative. I wonder if Dennis Balthaser finds the explanation compelling?

I've just discovered that it was actually UFOs that killed off the dinosaurs -- not a meteor or comet.:lol:
I did not know that. ](*,)
User avatar
James Carlson
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 783
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2010 7:11 am
Location: Albuquerque, NM

Re: SUNlite

Postby astrophotographer » Wed Jan 02, 2013 3:27 am

I am not sure if anybody is paying attention here but it has become my habit to alert the list that the latest issue of SUNlite is available:

http://home.comcast.net/~tprinty/UFO/SUNlite5_1.pdf

I let Marty Kottmeyer's article dominate the issue. He has a follow-up to that article appearing in the next issue.
User avatar
astrophotographer
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 577
Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2009 5:46 pm

Re: SUNlite

Postby James Carlson » Wed Jan 02, 2013 8:40 am

Of course, we're paying attention! And as usual, my favorites in this issue are the Hot topics and varied opinions found in your "Who’s blogging UFOs?" section:

In his blog posting on the subject, Dr. Phil Plait, stated he talked to Hamilton. Apparently, she was only shown a few clips and was told that these objects were far away and not close. She tried to see wings and body segments on these objects but could not and concluded based on the information she was given, that they probably were not insects. Unfortunately, the Fox news team did not give her all the information. Had she been provided everything, she would have arrived at a far different conclusion. Instead of declaring they probably were fooled by a bug, the Fox reporter took another track, where she chose to paint the skeptics incorrect. Fox should have taken the initial approach that if it acts like a bug and behaves like a bug, it probably is a bug.

I've said it often, and you've established it again: those trying to propose exotic solutions to what are generally provincial questions succeed best when neglecting to provide their audiences with information sufficient to reach valid conclusions. If you give them all of the information available instead of the very limited information that supports the claims you're trying to establish, your audience will eventually quit buying the only thing you've got to say that interests them: the exotic solutions that have replaced their need to externalize a living God they can point to, communicate with, and touch.. Basically, they're promoting idolatry, which has been an easier religion for simpletons to sell since Moses witnessed the reconstitution of Hebrew gold. Oddly enough, this is also characteristic of con-men, frauds, liars, and cheaters.

Kean states one Spanish researcher and Dr. Bruce Maccabee state they are probably bugs. However, she also adds another Spanish researcher states they were metallic and not bugs. Meanwhile, Dr. Haines has stated that he was able to identify two videos showing the same object from two different locations. This means that at least this object was distant. I think that Haines is seeing what he wants to see but that is my opinion on his research. Meanwhile, CEFAA, who were the ones promoting these videos at a UFO conference, now states that they can’t prove they are or are not bugs. I find that very amusing because they could not think of saying otherwise. If they had revised their original conclusion they would look like a bunch of “drooling idiots” and people would start questioning their purpose as a government agency. It was far easier for them to list this as “unsolved” or “inconclusive” . Meanwhile, Kean seems perplexed and is adopting the CEFAA position that she can’t draw any conclusions. For somebody who promoted this as possibly “the case that UFO skeptics have been dreading”, she now seems to be trying to wash her hands of the whole affair with this article.

So even when some of form of peer review is attempted, the “drooling idiots” prefer to ignore the conclusions reached. They could have proved it either way by simply filming a few bugs and comparing the results.

And of course, "Kean seems perplexed and is adopting the CEFAA position that she can’t draw any conclusions." She's an idiot who refuses to examine anything at all. She reports what she wants the world to buy, and when they laugh at her inability to read the fine print, she falls back on the only exit strategy UFO proponents have ever been inclined to adopt: the case is “unsolved” or “inconclusive”.

The point he was trying to make was, at the time of the event, he and his crew thought it was an actual craft of some kind that was flying at extremely high altitude ahead of them.

This is the same reason that U-2 overflights were so consistently reported as UFOs throughout the 50s and 60s. After all, humans couldn't possibly build something that could fly so well at such an "extremely high altitude".

They concluded this UFO was some sort of craft that wanted to “mimic” a balloon!

It's been two days and my wife is still laughing. I don't cook so well, so the two cats and I have been living off of Kentucky Fried Chicken and buttermilk biscuits. For God sakes, Tim, gimme a break! I'm starvin' out here . . .

IRT your "Buy it , Borrow it, or Bin it!" section: I don't know whether you're using this as a new type of format (i.e., a more extensive review of one book instead of three short paragraphs of three different books), but I have to say, I like it . . . a lot. I always need more information than many to decide whether to read a book or not, and you provide here those details that were lacking in earlier reviews. Whereas I was inclined to dismiss many of the books you discussed in the past (and please don't consider this any type of condemnation -- it isn't), I quite enjoyed reading the more dimensional layers you've provided for Dark Object. And providing a link to the book was a great idea; perhaps you can do this in future reviews as well (although I do understand that most legal links of this sort are normally provided for old and often poorly written texts).

In summary, I quite enjoyed reading this issue. I thought Martin S. Kottmeyer's article was an excellent display of some truly in-depth research -- interesting, well written, and it was a pleasure to connect the different ideas in order to reach some important conclusions. One question: Kottmeyer mentions "Contactee John W. Dean"; I've got to ask: is this the same John W. Dean who was the former Counsel to the President of the United States (Nixon)? Because it would probably go a long way to explain his instant dislike for G. Gordon Liddy!
User avatar
James Carlson
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 783
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2010 7:11 am
Location: Albuquerque, NM

Re: http://home.comcast.net/~tprinty/UFO/SUNlite4_6.pdf

Postby Frank Stalter » Tue Jan 22, 2013 3:42 am

"On another note regarding this discussion, Dave Thomas did eventually talk to Stirling Colgate and show him the article that Bragalia wrote. Dr. Colgate told Thomas that he did not retain the e-mails he had with Bragalia so we are not sure exactly what transcribed between the two. Colgate did state that he felt he had been quoted correctly, which still leaves us with second and third hand information being presented as factual. More information, not speculation and unsupported claims, is needed to verify the story."

There was plenty of information out there . . . . 3 years ago.

Zamora's original account, correspondence between Hynek and Menzel regarding the case, David Moody's initial view that it was a hoax, quotes from Sam Chavez, these are documented first hand accounts that were turned up and point to hoax. It was all poured over in excruciating detail and batted back and forth more than three years ago! It's disingenuous to take the position you have. Not every salient point needs to be rehashed every time there's a bit more added to the story.

You were obviously proved wrong that Tony misquoted Colgate. That's the only unsupported claim I see here.
Frank Stalter
 
Posts: 44
Joined: Sat Aug 21, 2010 12:37 am

Re: SUNlite

Postby James Carlson » Tue Jan 22, 2013 4:56 am

I think you may be mistaken as to what constitutes "first hand accounts". "[C]orrespondence between Hynek and Menzel regarding the case" is not first-hand -- it's speculation between two people who don't qualify as witnesses to anything. The same holds true for everything else you've presented, excepting Zamora's original account (the only first-hand testimony you've accounted for). Excruciating details "batted back and forth" by individuals who have no first-hand knowledge of the matter nonetheless qualifies as speculation, while the fruit of such discussions, being hypothetical, is merely a collection of unsupported claims; the details of such discussions are ultimately irrelevant. Any "documented first hand accounts" of the original controversy may be illuminating, but they're still just speculation in regard to the case itself. It may very well be a hoax, but in the absence of confirmed, first-hand accounts, i.e., "more information", it's impossible to verify the story. All you can do is verify the controversy.

In any case, Bragalia has had every opportunity to establish his theories a bit stronger, but his inability (or refusal) to present first-hand accounts to verify his claims will always raise some doubt in his conclusions. "He now states that none of the students that were supposedly involved would ever expose themselves because it would be embarrassing for them to do so. Bragalia also told me that he would never reveal who they were just to prove his argument. If he is going to base his theory on second and third hand stories, he is not going to convince very many people." The fact that Bragalia has basically closed the door to further testimony by insisting that "none of the students that were supposedly involved would ever expose themselves" and that "he would never reveal who they were", leaves one with a number of doubts regarding the veracity of his claims.
User avatar
James Carlson
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 783
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2010 7:11 am
Location: Albuquerque, NM

Re: http://home.comcast.net/~tprinty/UFO/SUNlite4_6.pdf

Postby astrophotographer » Sun Jan 27, 2013 4:28 am

Frank Stalter wrote:You were obviously proved wrong that Tony misquoted Colgate. That's the only unsupported claim I see here.


I am not sure how it was a claim. I had stated I suspected he had misquoted him or took him out of context based on what happened a few years ago. I described what transpired in a previous issue and some of Dr. Colgate's reactions to Bragalia's original article. This is the reason I suspected (not claimed) that Colgate had been quoted out of context. Bragalia's reluctance to release the interview transcript fueled that speculation.
User avatar
astrophotographer
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 577
Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2009 5:46 pm

Re: SUNlite

Postby astrophotographer » Sat Mar 02, 2013 2:08 am

SUNlite 5-2 is ready for download.

http://home.comcast.net/~tprinty/UFO/SUNlite5_2.pdf

Along with Marty Kottmeyer's article, I have two UFO cases I explain. The Blue Book case was an interesting discovery. I also have an article about a correction on last issue's explanation for the August 18, 1964 blue book case. Enjoy.
User avatar
astrophotographer
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 577
Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2009 5:46 pm

Previous

Google

Return to UFOs

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 21 guests

cron