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!