For other Cohen/Devereux discussions
From: Jerry Cohen <firstname.lastname@example.org> Date: Tue, 25 Mar 1997 20:34:52 -0500 Fwd Date: Tue, 25 Mar 1997 22:41:23 -0500 Subject: Re: EL/TST JC: To the list: I apologize for this long post. Just felt it necessary to respond here. This post is best read at UFO UpDates Instant Archive now available at http://www.ufomind.com/ufo/updates (jc 4/1/02: Actually better read here) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - >From: DevereuxP@aol.com >Date: Sun, 23 Mar 1997 07:40:53 -0500 (EST) >To: email@example.com >Subject: EL/TST > >>Date: Sun, 16 Mar 1997 09:00:06 -0500 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <firstname.lastname@example.org> >>From: "Jerry Cohen" <email@example.com> >>Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: EL/TST > >On 16 March, Jerry Cohen made an extensive posting so full of >'attitude' that I can't really be bothered to respond in full. >But I will pick up on a few points he made, just to show willing. JC: Must have been my recovery from the flu, but the points I made were quite valid nonetheless. I'm just not used to having someone on our mail list making so many statements without providing the proof we usually like to see to fully back up what they are saying. >>JC: Paul, I'm sure I've missed something here. Did you say you >>have proof that particular light that was "on-off"/"here-gone-here" >>was an "earth light." Could you possibly point the members of >>this list directly to this information? Is it on the NET. I am >>interested in seeing this. >No - I didn't say we have proof, we have evidence. JC: Evidence that it _may_ be so, but no direct proof as of yet. But we do need proof for you to make a solid statement regarding this. Otherwise, it is just your thoughts as to what you _think_ it _might_ be. Mind you, I am not saying you are wrong, but rather you can't say it with authority and we can't accept it "until you have this proof and we can see it too." This list has a lot of sticklers, both skeptics and believers alike; and excellent many of them are, I might add. You may not have seen enough correspondence here to really realize this yet. >I discuss the >matter in some length in EARTH LIGHTS REVELATION (1989/90.). >A case of this is also described in the Final Technical Report of >Project Hessdalen. This, like so much, is not on the literature >circuit of American ufology. Don't blame me, blame the publishers >and the attitudes and interests their market research people >perceive in U.S. ufology.. JC: I guess you're powerless to help us out? Providing anyone with something they could scan in electronically for evaluation? Anything of that sort? Something solid to bolster your statements with? >As for the Net - the longer I look, the less I see that is >worthwhile from a ufological standpoint, to be quite honest with >you. JC: This is amazing. The entire Internet and not much on it "worthwhile from a ufological standpoint." I guess you mean including this mail list? I believe the real question here is "Have you actually read what is there?". When an excellent case is offered for your comment(s) you shun this. (Sorry for the redundancy here folks!) Exeter 1/2 http://www.ufomind.com/ufo/updates/1997/jan/m26-010.shtml Exeter 2/2 http://www.ufomind.com/ufo/updates/1997/jan/m26-008.shtml When material from 25 years of in-depth research is offered for your perusal, you do not respond. i.e. http://www.li.net/~rjcohen A website on the life of Dr. James McDonald and his research at: [http://www.primenet.com/~bdzeiler/papers_e.htm] (no longer at this
address) is apparently of no interest to you. (jc 6/30/2006: Adding this and this to replace what was originally intended.) Gleaning possible insights regarding where cases may be occurring from National UFO Reporting Center at: http://www.nwlink.com/~ufocntr so one might be able to check this information against his data. Totally useless from a ufological standpoint? I think not. >In any event, don't shun good old-fashioned books and that wonderful >democratic institution, the library. JC: Paul, exactly what was it that we said that makes you think we shun the library? If you'd looked at my research (as well as at the research of others on this list), you might have noticed that the library, amongst other things, was an essential part of it. >> JC:...If you had "little chance ....snip.... >>to check the matter," how could you have determined that this >>green light was an "earth light" [at Mexico City airport]? >I obviously didn't make myself clear. I meant that there have >been few cases where we can check the effect of radar on EL. But >I gave you the best quick summary I could. As for the Mexican >air traffic people, my colleagues and I went into their sightings >quite fully with them, have no fear. JC: And how did you determine what was seen there was an "earth light" and not something else? ....snip.... >>JC: When you get it [radar tapes], I for one would be happy >>to see it. I'm sure others would as well. >You and me both. (You have the training, expertise and >facilities to study such material, I assume?) JC: I, myself personally? Unfortunately not. But, believe it or not, there may be some on this mailing list who might have the necessary qualifications. And, if not, I'd at least like to read the final report. Believe it or not, I am qualified to read english and am capable of asking questions of others if and when I reach any portions I might not thoroughly understand. >>JC: Again, many of us have never said there are no such things >>as earth lights... >I'm glad to hear it. >>...but, the person(s) studying them has to 1) prove they are >>"earth lights" and not something else.... <snip> >Well, I could say that *you* have to prove they *are* something >else! JC: You are missing the point. I am not the one making the statements and claiming to be able to explain all UFO phenomena by studying nocturnal lights. This cannot be claimed without conclusive proof, confirmable by others, to back it up. I believe most people would find this logical. >It cuts both ways. In truth, all any of us can do >is acquire the best evidence we can, and be prepared to drop our >pet beliefs if the evidence isn't forthcoming. JC: Absolutely. ....snip.... >>JC: And did you capture this [golden lights seen by PD in >>Cornwall] on film for others to view? >No, my old son, I didn't. I wasn't out skywatching when these >phenomena were seen - I was nearing the end of a 350-mile drive, >and it was around midnight. There were two adults and one child >witness with me, though. One of these did have a snapshot camera, >and she took a pic but it didn't come out. Sorry! JC: Again, how did you _know_ these were "earth lights?" You stated it was "nearing the end of a 350-mile drive, and it was around midnight." You had to be just a little tired. Did they move in a particular pattern? Was it apparent random motion? Apparent organized motion? So, how did you know it was "earth lights" and not something else? Was this in a TS area? >However, we *have* got some pix from sessions where we deliberately >studied areas for EL. Some will be shown in UFOs & UFOLOGY when >it comes out later this year. >>JC: And you've proven conclusively that light [at Barmouth, >>1905] was an "earth light?" May we see that proof? Again, we'd >>be quite interested and impressed. >What do you consider as 'proof'? How many UFO sightings do you >consider have been 'proven'? JC: Actually, what I'm trying to find out is what you consider proof in specific cases. You still haven't answered this. However, in answer to your question: At the minimum, Kirtland AFB, a Blue Book case researched by both the Condon Study and Dr. James McDonald. It's located at: (7b & 7c are the actual case & analysis) * O/C rebuttal: part 7a http://www.ufomind.com/ufo/updates/1997/feb/m06-025.shtml * O/C rebuttal: part 7b http://www.ufomind.com/ufo/updates/1997/feb/m06-027.shtml * O/C rebuttal: part 7c http://www.ufomind.com/ufo/updates/1997/feb/m06-026.shtml and probably: * O/C rebuttal: part 2 (SKYTHING 1960) http://www.ufomind.com/ufo/updates/1997/feb/m05-021.shtml The last one was the case you didn't have time to comment on. (The shortest of all. That's why I suggested it originally.) >Have you not read the reports on this case [Barmouth, 1905]? Have >you not read EARTH LIGHTS REVELATION on it? JC: As I said we'd really like to read this. We may need your help obtaining it. You, yourself, stated it is not available. >> AUGUST 5, 1981 National Enquirer:... <snip. >Is this your idea of 'proof' (of anything)? I grow uneasy that >your reading seems to be on the Net and in the National Enquirer... JC: You can rest your "uneasiness." Some of the research I've performed over the 25 years has demonstrated a solidity to some of the UFO cases which appeared therein, especially at the time a panel of UFO groups, including Dr. J. Allen Hynek, NICAP and APRO were reviewing cases at the time of submission. I can demonstrate this more than adequately, but you probably don't have the time to read it or would possibly rather read that than read the Exeter case and comment on it with regards to your theories. Remember, I asked this first. >> <snip>....Landrum can't tell an "earth light" from a UFO or a >>diamond from a sphere. It's those darn hallucinations. They get >>you every time. Did I hear you say there were fault lines in the >>vicinity? >Huh? Come again, Jerry? JC: You heard (read) me correctly. You are casting doubts on someone's ability to tell an "earth light" from a UFO which they witness at close range (for an approximate 15 minute period) or a diamond from a sphere. I'm not 100% positive they would make this mistake. Additionally, I was asking whether there were major fault lines in the vicinity. Since you commented on the case, I assume you've checked this out. >>And the beeps? Earth lights beep too, right? I'm sure you've >>recorded this somewhere. >I have done a survey of sounds associated with EL, yes. Haven't >you read that? A version is in EARTH LIGHTS REVELATION....snip.... JC: Since we cannot easily obtain the article you mentioned, could you just tell us, since it is your survey, if some of those sounds were beeps? Were they regular? Irregular? How long did they continue? How much data did you get on this? ....snip.... >> And I must have forgotten that gravity pushes plasmas into a >>"diamond shape." Maybe it's my rotten human perception that does >>this. I'll have to go back and check this out. >>From the sounds of it, you'd better check *something* out, that's >>for sure.... JC: You've skirted the point I was trying to make. I and others want to see proof and pictures of these various shapes and how you proved they were earthlights. How long did the diamond shape you recorded hold its shape? This is important. If Landrum claimed it kept that shape for a specific period of time, we could ask if the two times correlate or not. >>JC: [Bentwaters]... must be just like the Belgium case where >>it got _repelled_ from the front part of the plane that was diving >>trying to catch it after it got computerized radar lock-on. The >>same plane that got the gun camera data? Very interesting. I'd >>like to see that demonstrated in a lab. Perhaps a member of your >>group could perform this experiment for us? >The logistics seem a bit too daunting, I fear.... JC: The point was, "your theory fails to explain that." >> >>So, in short, we really do not know what EL has to explain<< >>- JC: You said it, not me. >No, you said it. JC: I apologize if somehow I somehow misinterpreted you. Those were the words you used. Honestly, I wouldn't lie to you. Our original conversation is at (last paragraph): http://www.ufomind.com/ufo/updates/1997/mar/m16-006.shtml >*I'm* saying we do not really know what EL is >supposed to have to explain, as the alternative notions don't >add up to a whole heap...You know, citing videos by the Elders, >reports in National Enquirer, statements, credos and flames on >the Net, etc., doesn't inspire much confidence. JC: Paul, you really need to look a little closer. If you honestly deal with what's really in the depths of this post, you've done a lot. Many of the links included herein are quite informative if one reads them. (Even just the first few) >>JC: A large number of us would agree with you [that EL and >>spaceships can coinhabit the skies]. The real trouble here is, >>you really don't believe they can. >Since when are you in a position to make that statement? JC: Simply because I, deep in my soul, honestly don't believe you really believe it. That's why I said it. Other people can make their own judgments from what was written by both of us in our original post. If they don't agree with me, they don't agree with me. No problem. It's my personal opinion. I'm entitled to this. ....snip.... >I live in the United States, I'm married to an American, I pay >taxes in the United States, I spend my money there. (I am the ETHers >nightmare - a 'resident alien'... I suppose that makes my old >Subaru a kind of structured alien craft...). But I do come from >a slightly different culture, and each year I live and travel >considerably in other societies and cultures. There is much I like >about the United States and its people. But the naive, >over-simplistic and literal attitude they take to numerous >topics, especially ufology, isn't one of them. JC: Perhaps some do. But generalized statements about an entire group of people don't solve anything. I've provided some links in our posts that prove that 1) not all Americans are as naive and simplistic as you make them out to be and 2) there is definitely much solid research going on if one makes an honest effort to look for it. >If you had my >'alien' perspective, you really would see that much (not all) of >what goes on in 'mainstream' US ufology looks at times a bit like a >meeting of the Barking Mad Society. It *does* feel like a trip to >Salem during the witchunting trials. JC: Those darn humans have their problems, don't they. :-) Look at history and these problems aren't isolated to America. Matter of fact, one only needs to read the newspapers to see what people are doing to each other all over the world. Certainly not just in America. >The United >States *does* have a tendency to be very inward-looking in some >respects, to think of itself as the sole norm of everything. >Miller's CRUCIBLE said it better than I - whether it is McCarthyism >or whatever. The sheer size and power of a high-tech United States >focusing on its own navel is a distressing wonder to behold - >and, again, nowhere more so than in ufology. JC: It isn't possible we're just trying to solve the cases that are closest to us, that have affected us directly and can have legitimate research performed on them because we can get there to do that research? And are we totally unaware of sightings in Belgium, Britain, Mexico, etc.? >Alas, the perspective >I am speaking of is by definition invisible visible to most of those >involved within it, so you *cannot* accept the point I am making. >It is just one of those things, I suppose. JC: You're right, I couldn't possibly be intelligent enough or have an overview to understand what you're saying. :-) >I tell you this as a friend, not an enemy.( I could tell you much >worse things about Britain, I assure you!) It is just an >alien's eye view. JC: Paul, if you really think about it, what we really need to realize here is that people are people no matter where they are. They all have human fallibilities. But we humans are certainly not all totally incompetent, in any country, _all_ the time either. Buenos noches Gracie, (Spanish George Burns) Jerry Cohen E-mail: "Jerry Cohen" <firstname.lastname@example.org> For other Cohen/Devereux discussions
Click here Page from the website of: CohenUFO.org
UFO UpDates - Toronto - email@example.com
Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp - ++ 416-696-0304
A Hand-Operated E-Mail Subscription Service for the Study of UFO Related
To subscribe please send your first and last name to firstname.lastname@example.org
Message submissions should be sent to the same address.
Link it to the appropriate Ufologist or UFO Topic page.
Archived as a public service by Area 51 Research Center which is
not responsible for content. Financial support for this web server is provided by the Research Center Catalog.
Software by Glenn Campbell. Technical contact: email@example.com
Financial support for this web server is provided by the Research Center Catalog.