tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post7674620005425310071..comments2024-03-19T11:13:40.642-07:00Comments on A Different Perspective: New UFO Documentary including Commentary on the Roswell SlidesKRandlehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06333125414889883920noreply@blogger.comBlogger59125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-36930548636172319272015-10-27T19:58:30.919-07:002015-10-27T19:58:30.919-07:00Interesting last three comments here.
But, the p...Interesting last three comments here. <br /><br />But, the point I attempted to make is that Sharman had the time and opportunity after the May 5th "reveal" to include in his documentary the fact that the body in the slides was of an Indian child mummy, and that Carey and Schmitt's role in promoting the slides ended in an awful debacle. <br /><br />I'm convinced, without having seen the film, based on Sharman's prior activities, efforts, and statements online, that he is in fact a "self-confessed believer" and decided for various financial, ideological, and logistical reasons not to include the details of the slides denouement in his documentary, and Carey and Schmitt's role therein, because to do so would have contradicted the angle ("cosmic" whistleblowers on parade) and viewpoint he has, and has been promoting and filming for his crowd-sourced film from day one well over 2 years ago. <br /><br />And, here's the only "outsider" review I've been able to find online by someone who did attend the premiere of the documentary at the Raindance film festival:<br /><br />http://www.garbage-file.com/2015/10/documentary-cosmic-whistleblowers.html<br /><br />The most telling line of this review is the last one: <br /><br /><i>"As entertaining and interesting as Cosmic Whistleblowers is, it doesn't offer anything new. The truth may be out there but it certainly isn't in here."</i><br /><br />In effect, what I'm saying is that Sharman's documentary amounts to standard UFO fare with a disinfotainment twist, and as such it is an amateurish failure and essentially dishonest in presentation. <br /><br />And no, I'm not "tolerant" of that kind of deception and superficial appeal to the gullible for profit. It's also boring and dumb. Steve Sawyerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17716314515943305158noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-85920664529905888152015-09-28T19:57:14.270-07:002015-09-28T19:57:14.270-07:00From one filmmaker to another, Simon, take it from...From one filmmaker to another, Simon, take it from me - you will <i>never</i> please everyone in the UFO subculture (it's like trying to herd feral cats), so your best bet is to just ignore any pre-release criticism and questions entirely and just let the chips fall where they may.<br /><br />PKPaul Kimballhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08804735930733797952noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-84839534072013898202015-09-28T07:43:48.259-07:002015-09-28T07:43:48.259-07:00FWIW -
The first contact that Simon made with me ...FWIW -<br /><br />The first contact that Simon made with me was long before the May 5 boondoggle. He was interested, dare I say it, in a different perspective for his film. <br /><br />There are things I find interesting, one of which is that some believe that others owe them an explanation or answers to their questions. Do you have any idea how many times I get inquiries for specific information on specific cases... and my favorite was the request for copies of every UFO photograph I have with no offer to pay the costs of reproduction or to provide a stamped, self-addressed envelope.<br /><br />And, I just love it when we get criticism for a work before those criticizing have even seen it. There is one guy who reviews my books based on two words on the cover but never bothers to read the books. There was another who bought one of the books based on the cover but didn't like the conclusions I drew on many of the cases (those were the ones in which I offered a mundane explanation).<br /><br />So, I find it humorous to see the criticism based on a trailer which is designed to draw people to the product but is also designed not to give away the store... unless the store is pretty much empty. Here I think of the decades old movie, The Final Countdown in which a modern aircraft carrier is transported back to a point where it could intercept elements of the Japanese Imperial Fleet as it moved to attack Pearl Harbor. The trailer showed F-14s intercepting and destroying the Japanese aircraft. I went to the movie expecting to see a real fur ball (that's dogfight to those of you from the propeller era) but the trailer contained all the air to air combat. I was disappointed, but I was also in the theater.<br /><br />Anyway, just thought I would mention all this to see if we couldn't become a little more tolerant until we actually saw the final product.KRandlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06333125414889883920noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-8898392673744535302015-09-28T07:13:41.468-07:002015-09-28T07:13:41.468-07:00In fairness to Simon, he was put into a bit of pic...In fairness to Simon, he was put into a bit of pickle.<br /><br />Setting aside the sad probability that he may have (initially?) fallen for the unsupported baloney that is C+S's stock in trade, he found himself, after the slides exposure, with a film that he has spent a lot of effort and money on but a film that spectacularly has bet on the wrong horse.<br /><br />Prior to May 5th, Simon thought that he was nearing completion of his film.<br /><br />Instead he was placed into a quandary: should he cut his losses and just finish up the original idea of the film (which I think was a fawning true believer worship of one of the worst idiots in UFOlogy) or should he spend more money and time and tell the very interesting story of what actually happened.<br /><br />Both approaches have some legitimacy, I think, particularly business-wise.<br /><br />I know that Simon made at least some effort (but limited in production values--presumedly filmed Skype calls) to do the latter. That is what a true filmmaker would have done so I applaud it.<br /><br />But why wouldn't you at least HINT at the story change in the trailer? That would signal to a general audience that the doc was more than another silly UFO thing which one can see ad nauseum on cable TV.<br /><br />Ah, well. I suppose we will find out.<br /><br />Lance<br /><br /><br /><br />Lancehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17280922104955532058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-69385541041904692522015-09-28T06:11:37.631-07:002015-09-28T06:11:37.631-07:00Simon Sharman's comment just above was posted ...Simon Sharman's comment just above was posted only half an hour after I emailed him directly with a few questions about my concerns regarding his film. That he chose to obliquely reply here rather than directly to me via email, as requested, suggests a number of things, given the defensive nature of his comment. <br /><br />Simon, if the purpose of your initial comment here was with "the intention of putting any concerns to rest with regard to how I may have approached things overall," you obviously did not succeed, and for some very specific and legitimate reasons. <br /><br />I find that part of your comment where you say that unless we've seen your film "...you will have no idea how my film tackles all of the issues, be they Roswell, the slides or the investigators themselves" in apparent reaction to my concerns, due to the timing of your comment, both inadequate and somewhat disingenuous. <br /><br />I think we actually <i>can</i> "assume" a few things about the likely "angle" or perspective you bring to the topics you note above in your film, based on many of your own prior online comments, articles, and endeavors. <br /><br />Yes, it <i>would</i> be better if we who might be interested could view your full documentary in order to better judge its content and accuracy, but it appears that won't be possible until vaguely "sometime in the near future." <br /><br />(I would have thought you'd have made arrangements to market it directly after the premiere to capitalize on the showings at Raindance instead of some indefinite later date, but maybe you're hoping to show it at other film festivals beforehand.) <br /><br />I'll have more to say about this tomorrow, but let me ask you two direct questions:<br /><br />Does your film, which was edited months <i>after</i> the May 5th "reveal" and the placard being deciphered by the RSRG, contain any interview or discussion by you with either Tom Carey or Don Schmitt about the fact that despite their continuing belief that the slides show an extraterrestrial body, linked by them to Roswell, the slides actually have been confirmed to show an Indian child mummy from Mesa Verde? <br /><br />And if not, why not?Steve Sawyerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17716314515943305158noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-38951396352674092172015-09-28T04:14:00.025-07:002015-09-28T04:14:00.025-07:00I had already posted my comment earlier on this bl...I had already posted my comment earlier on this blog with the intention of putting any concerns to rest with regard to how I may have approached things overall. It clearly had no impact and I can see that some of you are very happy to judge me and the film despite not seeing it, and despite me having already explained that it has been made for a wider audience than simply a 'ufo' crowd.<br /><br />A film trailer is designed to encourage people to want to see the film - not give away the entire plot. Unless you were in the audience last week then you will have no idea how my film tackles all of the issues, be they Roswell, the slides or the investigators themselves. But do feel free to keep on making assumptions about how I did it, that is entirely your prerogative!<br /><br />I have no interest in making a film for skeptics - which I can see many of you are - and equally I have no interest in making a film for people who believe anything they are told. I am, believe it or not, someone with a brain in his head which is how I managed to make a feature documentary film about UFOs which made it to the cinema here in the UK, with no backing of any studio. You are welcome to try and do better if you can!<br /><br />The film will be available for purchase sometime in the near future, and details of the release will follow to anyone who is interested.<br /><br />Kevin, I'd like to thank you for posting the links here and getting the discussion going. <br /><br />Simon Sharman<br /><br /><br /><br />Simon Sharmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00969585270917828855noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-21623158666402426872015-09-27T07:24:44.651-07:002015-09-27T07:24:44.651-07:00@ Don
Be honest Don, it doesn't take a rocket...@ Don<br /><br />Be honest Don, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that all of your posts are pro-ET on Roswell and other such UFO cases. Just go back to previous dialog you and I had on the definition of disk. "I never said that" is a cop out to avoid discussion.<br /><br />Question? It is. The "question" of whether or not advanced ET societies exist is answered by your "claim" they are already here and they exist elsewhere.<br /><br />Whether or not ET life exists remains a "question" unanswered by scientific proof and validation answered by your "claim" they exist.Brian Bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04201018843054563257noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-1239844487077184982015-09-27T06:50:33.971-07:002015-09-27T06:50:33.971-07:00Re ETs, yes I will answer for myself. I erred in ...Re ETs, yes I will answer for myself. I erred in my statement that science does not admit to ETs. This should be reworded: science does not admit to ETs visiting the earth. It certainly admits to ET's likely existence somewhere in the universe, but only because of the vastness of this universe and the likely number of stars/planets suitable for life, NOT because of any evidence of such life.cdahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01005702597775594084noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-55754138065957142402015-09-26T21:36:00.324-07:002015-09-26T21:36:00.324-07:00Bell wrote
"If Fermi is just a "questio...Bell wrote <br /><i>"If Fermi is just a <b>"question"</b> then so is your massively ridiculous <b>claim</b> that the universe is teeming with advanced intellectual ET life."</i><br /><br />What? I did not claim that, but it may well be that way.<br /><br />Oh, also please explain how in the world a claim can be a question?Don Maorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09501920515893210306noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-34011452250563211062015-09-26T21:32:06.683-07:002015-09-26T21:32:06.683-07:00Steve Sawyer said...
@JR:
"No, that's n...Steve Sawyer said...<br /><br />@JR:<br /><br />"No, that's not me. May I ask what blogs?"<br /><br />Sorry about that -- my mistake --"<br /><br /><br />No problem, Steve.Jeanne Rupperthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05382531551858084318noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-24070329571251988362015-09-26T20:40:09.883-07:002015-09-26T20:40:09.883-07:00Don:
Glad to see you're now DR's official...Don:<br /><br />Glad to see you're now DR's official spokesperson and that you're authorized to speak on his behalf.<br /><br />If Fermi is just a "question" then so is your massively ridiculous claim that the universe is teeming with advanced intellectual ET life.<br /><br />You haven't proved it and you have no answer to Fermi unless I missed it.<br /><br />- no alien bodies to show us<br />- no alien spaceship for us to examine<br />- no alien debris from Roswell to show us<br />- no proof of life on exoplanets<br />- no proof of life on Mars or Earth's moon<br />- no public communication with aliens<br /><br />Nothing. Nada. If anything is childish about this its the fantasy world where you and others absolutely believe ET is here despite one iota of bonafied scientific evidence.Brian Bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04201018843054563257noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-18403084701543329612015-09-26T18:16:00.268-07:002015-09-26T18:16:00.268-07:00Brian said:
"I'm sure Rudiak has never h...Brian said:<br /><br /><b><i>"I'm sure Rudiak has never heard of the Fermi Paradox"</i></b><br /><br />Your claim is fully childish Brian.<br /><br />I have been interested in ufology and astrobiology for about 15 years, and have read about the Fermi Paradox about dozens of times, probably hundreds of times, So I guess that the probability that David has not heard about the Fermi paradox is just ZERO.<br /><br />BTW, Fermi paradox is just a question, just food for thought.Don Maorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09501920515893210306noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-21728581735762365452015-09-26T17:45:35.539-07:002015-09-26T17:45:35.539-07:00"Cosmic Whistleblowers" premiered at the..."Cosmic Whistleblowers" premiered at the Raindance film festival on Thursday, Sept. 24th and was also shown again at Raindance on Friday, the 25th, but as yet there's not a single review of the film online (other than the one I noted in the Raindance catalog of listings), and Sharman cites no other reviews, either on his Facebook page or his main site as yet. <br /><br />Other than his single comment above here, I can find no other commentary online by anyone else who's seen the film or reviewed it, possibly because it was only just shown yesterday and the day before. <br /><br />Perhaps Sharman, if he's still reading this thread, can tell us how one can either obtain a copy of it, or if an online streaming option is being considered, what online link anyone interested can go to in order to see the actual documentary for themselves to consider and evaluate the nature of it's content. I'd like to see the film myself, to see what it says and how the main participants are characterized. <br /><br />Simon? Are you there? Can you help us out with what I'm requesting?Steve Sawyerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17716314515943305158noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-18543329429273797282015-09-26T17:38:10.668-07:002015-09-26T17:38:10.668-07:00Kevin:
If the trailer showed some aspect of a bal...Kevin:<br /><br />If the trailer showed some aspect of a balanced viewpoint I might agree. But it doesn't. And I hardly doubt that Simon would release a film where the approach is to attract believers then slam dunk them with an ending where Schmitt et.al. are painted as idiots. But we'll see very soon.Brian Bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04201018843054563257noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-63947765953277651592015-09-26T17:31:12.497-07:002015-09-26T17:31:12.497-07:00Clearly Rudiak has been blinded by the ignorance o...Clearly Rudiak has been blinded by the ignorance of his believing crowd regarding the science of exoplanets and probability of life elsewhere.<br /><br />I'm sure Rudiak has never heard of the Fermi Paradox which clearly stands as a solid road block to believers who insist advanced interstellar races have been and currently are colonizing the galaxy including earth and its neighboring planets.<br /><br />And David regarding your comment:<br /><br />"Present actual evidence of such a project, then there is something to be interested in and consider."<br /><br />I don't need to because it's in the public domain even though you've never looked for it. <br /><br />Namely there stands a very plausible alternative to Flight #4 in goverment documents clearly stating that aerial trials of both balloon and drone devices occurred in NM. Biological and radioactive contamiments were extensively tested from Los Alamos in 1947 and beyond as a possible high altitude weapon against the soviets.<br /><br />If you go looking you will find it.Brian Bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04201018843054563257noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-79339212730190294592015-09-26T17:21:09.993-07:002015-09-26T17:21:09.993-07:00Kevin,
Well, its mainly because the trailer shows...Kevin,<br /><br />Well, its mainly because the trailer shows a ham handed lack of awareness of the facts you mention. We will see what Simon ended up with but the way he is marketing the film doesn't show that he allowed the story to take the turn that it deserved. Could he have left that idea out of the trailer? Sure. But that seems like a terrible choice since, with this trailer, it simply comes across as true believer hero worship for guys that the whole world knows are idiots.<br /><br />In other words, it comes across as just another UFO documentary.<br /><br />Simon seemed like a very nice guy and it is entirely possible that I am wrong...let's see.<br /><br />LanceLancehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17280922104955532058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-36937955871694379732015-09-26T17:05:26.457-07:002015-09-26T17:05:26.457-07:00All (but especially the skeptics) -
I do not unde...All (but especially the skeptics) -<br /><br />I do not understand your negative reaction to the trailer for the documentary and here's why. You have Tom Carey saying, "We have significant proof for the Roswell event as an extraterrestrial event."<br /><br />Now, this film was taken prior to the great reveal and prior to the reading of the placard, and while they were claiming that they were not making the connection to Roswell. It was the skeptics who had invented the name Roswell slides according to them. What we have are the disingenuous comments made by Carey and et. al. and we have the truth. I would think you all would delight in this sort of evidence... proof that they believed they had photographs of one of the aliens recovered at Roswell and now our knowledge that such was not the case.<br /><br />And, I would think that you would wait to comment until you saw the documentary before passing judgement. KRandlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06333125414889883920noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-29061028601905170142015-09-26T16:58:01.692-07:002015-09-26T16:58:01.692-07:00Lance claimed:
But I know that I (and most UFO sk...Lance claimed:<br /><br /><b><i>But I know that I (and most UFO skeptics I am aware of) accept all of the basic boilerplate about the possibly of life elsewhere that you tediously post above. </i></b><br /><br />That would be a great improvement. Skeptologists finally learning something. However, I am not convinced Lancie. One can still find skeptic weirdoes and ignorants referring to the "vast interstellar distances" purportedly avoiding other civilizations to reach us. Last of it was a poster named Parakletos in Rich-Reynolds' blog. Parakletos, seemingly an astronomer, was very aware of the large interstellar distances of our universe, but was somehow unable to acknowledge the existence of equally large quantities of time available for traveling such large distances.<br /><br />Other guy, a french skeptic named Claude Mauge, posted a manifesto in the UFO Updates list (about 10 years ago) in which he claimed that is was likely that exoplanets similar to Earth were very rare because most ṕlanets found until that date were Jupiter sized giant planets. Of course, he blissfully ignored the already known fact that extremely large planets were much easier to detect, which countedfor the bias. Nevertheless, currect notion is that smaller planets largely outnumber large planets.<br /><br />May it be that Mauge and our friend Gilles are cousins?Don Maorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09501920515893210306noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-19830024913430335762015-09-26T16:05:57.811-07:002015-09-26T16:05:57.811-07:00@JR:
"No, that's not me. May I ask what ...@JR:<br /><br />"No, that's not me. May I ask what blogs?"<br /><br />Sorry about that -- my mistake -- I was misled by the fact that "rare phenomena lover" (who also sometimes signs her comments under that ambiguous blogger ID as "Jean" -- see http://bit.ly/1FAdU3I for an example) is apparently one of the few women who comment on UFO-related blogs, had a similar name (Jean, but not Jeanne), and similar writing style, so I erroneously thought that that she might be you, but realize now that's not the case. Mea culpa... Only sort of an odd "doppelganger" parallel. 8^}Steve Sawyerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17716314515943305158noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-84920616324231066522015-09-26T15:58:32.202-07:002015-09-26T15:58:32.202-07:00David,
Your completely disingenuous post doesn...David,<br /><br />Your completely disingenuous post doesn't surprise me.<br /><br />Although you used the plural to describe mythical debunkers who said something idiotic--you can only come up with one pseudonym and no quote. One doesn't have to work very hard to imagine that you misrepresent what was said 20 years ago just as you, I think, misrepresent what CDA says above.<br /><br />CDA is right ET's are not proven. They are a possibility, likely a probability but that is it. Until we have actual proof of they can't be accepted by science because (unlike your flying saucer religion) scientists require real evidence, not the stuff you make up in your head.<br /><br />CDA can answer for himself. But I know that I (and most UFO skeptics I am aware of) accept all of the basic boilerplate about the possibly of life elsewhere that you tediously post above. That has nothing to do with Flying Saucer Jesus. <br /><br />Indeed, the low-rent religion of UFO's has nothing to do with actual science: it operates as a classic psuedoscience, unfalsifiable and, evidence-wise, stuck precisely where it was when it started circa1947.<br /><br /><br />LanceLancehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17280922104955532058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-62497727938209639492015-09-26T13:01:56.539-07:002015-09-26T13:01:56.539-07:00Lance,
It was in debates with "Twitch",...Lance,<br /><br />It was in debates with "Twitch", either Usenet alt.alien.visitors or alt.paranet.ufo, early days of Internet, only traces of these archives remaining after 20 years. Sorry, all I have our my memories of the debate. Such is life.<br /><br />However, you don't have to go back that far to find similar extreme claims. E.g., one skeptobunker who frequents blogs recently claimed that no less than "science" itself says aliens don't exist, therefore they are nonexistent, therefore they cannot be behind UFO sightings. <br /><br />Going to challenge me on that one as well? I suggest you go a few posts up, where CDA says:<br /> <br />"...how can ETH be the explanation that "best fits the data" when science does not admit to such things as ETs at all? If a thing is non-existent, how does it best fit ANY set of data?"<br /><br />Maybe you can similarly challenge CDA to reference where "science" says ETs are "nonexistent" and how this was proven. (Maybe there is some secret headquarters of "Science" run my monks where all the unassailable truths of the Universe are kept in a ScienceBible.)<br /><br />A small minority of scientists may now feel this way, such as "Rare Earth" authors Peter Ward and Donald Brownlee, who argue that complex, intelligent life requires a unique set of circumstances to arise and Earth may be unique in the Universe. But the vast majority of scientists in fields relevant to the question now believe planets like Earth are far from rare and the existence of intelligent ET's is almost inevitable. (Instead, what is usually said, is that there is currently no scientific proof of such ET's, which is something else entirely.) <br /><br />I used the figure of 40 billion Earth-like planets in the Milky Way alone, an estimate by some scientists based on the early results of the on-going Kepler extra-solar planet survey, now showing most stars having at least one planet. Another website I came across places the number of Earth-like planets at 100 billion. Even if we are very conservative and assume this is off by a factor of 100 and there are "only" one billion such suitable planets in our galaxy, and be very conservative again and assume only one in a million of these evolves complex, intelligence life with a technological civilization, that still leaves 1000 such planets. Since nobody really knows the real numbers, one could use a less conservative number, like one in a thousand, in which case there could be one million such planets. If only a few of these makes the leap to space and interstellar travel, thus capable of colonizing other stellar systems, they could be all over the place, literally filling the galaxy in only a few million years of colonization (assuming steady colonization and exponential growth). <br /><br />(The Drake equation makes no allowances for the possibility of interstellar travel and colonization, assuming this is impossible, not at all a scientific assumption. Maybe Drake, like CDA, consulted the holy ScienceBible at Science HQ when he arrived at this conclusion.)David Rudiakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10213284910238852377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-39909199326015808272015-09-26T11:34:24.769-07:002015-09-26T11:34:24.769-07:00I'm disappointed that the term "Roswell S...I'm disappointed that the term "Roswell Slides" is still in use, as I thought that no one believes that there is -any- connection to Roswell.<br /><br />May we use the term "Not Roswell Slides" instead?<br /><br />. .. . .. oalberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15547680170328747214noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-50472606341558158312015-09-26T03:51:18.291-07:002015-09-26T03:51:18.291-07:00Edit: By 1997, I meant 2007 (for the "Les OVN...Edit: By 1997, I meant 2007 (for the "Les OVNI du CNES" book). Sorry.Gilles Fernandezhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17128214022795566635noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-79334116699328202992015-09-26T02:28:40.810-07:002015-09-26T02:28:40.810-07:00This is not the same movie -or a re edited version...This is not the same movie -or a re edited version- of the Kodachrome film?JChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12021879860418865676noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-71599085190221705942015-09-26T01:27:28.589-07:002015-09-26T01:27:28.589-07:00Hello,
Yeah, many things to say about the GEIPAN ...Hello,<br /><br />Yeah, many things to say about the GEIPAN studies, Christopher. But in a blog comments section, well...<br /><br />1) Brian stated 14% of GEIPAN unexplained cases. Dunno where he found it (that's possible, we can read all and nothing about GEIPAN statistics), but the actual page have 22 % (http://www.cnes-geipan.fr/index.php?id=196). <b>Excepted</b> the statistic is not the real one... It is not updated, you must go on the "dynamics statistics" (which are not updated again^^) : http://www.cnes-geipan.fr/index.php?id=197<br /><br />Many PAN D are then not updated and will ou would be re-classified in A, B or C. The problem is that I have only French links, case by case, for example in our forum (some our members are close to GEIPAN, as GEIPAN takes into account our "counter-investigations) : http://ufo-scepticisme.forumactif.com/t1540-les-pan-d-du-geipan or about the PAN C and B : http://ufo-scepticisme.forumactif.com/f25-les-pan-du-geipan<br /><br />2) GEIPAN means UAP study and information Group (in short), and GEIPAN then study and inform, they dont "conclude" in favor of something (ETH, SPH, etc.). It is not their goal. Sometimes former members speack for their own (Velasco, Patenet, etc.), personnally (giving their own opinion, not the one of the Agency).<br /><br />Another must to read are the videos, papers, slides and abstract of the CAIPAN/GEIPAN/CNES worshop I was invited: Or how ETH, SPH, etc. can meet and work "together": http://www.cnes-geipan.fr/index.php?id=212<br /><br />3) There exists a "famous" 1997 French book wrote by 3 my friends, but again in French adressing some famous GEIPAN PAN D cases and prior 1997 methodology, errors, etc. which is "a must to read": http://www.amazon.fr/Les-OVNI-CNES-officielles-1977-2007/dp/2915312109<br />Some chapters are free to read (but in French): http://www.zetetique.fr/index.php/dossiers/101-ovni-cnes<br /><br />4) Concerning the COMETA report, it seems to be "a legend" for "foreigners" (the grass is always greener on the other side of the fence?), but it is only a privated paper, nothing then " French official". Many the UFO cases presented have received prosaic explanation or had mundane ones proposed (Tananarive 1954, Air France AF3532 1994, Cussac, Valensole, Trans-en-Provence, etc.) or are very weak as "proof" for ETH (anonymous pilot, not the version of the second pilot available when there were two, etc.)<br />After, each one may have his/her own opinion about such cases: personnally I find normal that there exists and will always exist "unsolved cases", as it exists unsolved cases for other corpora for murders, rapes, disparition, domestic (car, plane, refrigerators^^) incidents or accidents, house or forest fires, and many others. It is an expected "statut" and I'm not really surprised by it.<br /><br />My own "big picture" (then a very must to read ^^) about Ufology is <b>summerized</b> in English in some the chapters of the following articles for those possibly interrested about the "French pragmatic School":<br /><br /><b>Space Re-Entry Stimulus as CE-3 Generator: The Example of a December 12 1987 case...</b><br />http://skepticversustheflyingsaucers.blogspot.fr/2015/01/space-re-entry-stimulus-as-ce-3.html<br /><br /><b>Cracking the 1896/97 Airships Mystery? Toward a Psycho-SocioCultural Explanation (Long Version)</b><br />http://skepticversustheflyingsaucers.blogspot.fr/2014/01/cracking-189697-airships-mystery-toward_11.html<br /><br />Regards,<br /><br />Gilles.Gilles Fernandezhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17128214022795566635noreply@blogger.com