CRASHED SAUCER at Roswell?
Josh Olaf
[snip]
>The following article is reprinted from the July 1997 issue of
>Skeptics UFO Newsletter by permission of the editor, Phil
>Klass. I thought some of you might find it of interest.
>**************************************************
>"ROSWELL INITAITIVE" SPONSOR JEFFREY
>CONCLUDES: NO CRASHED SAUCER
I wasn't aware that this 'Kent Jeffrey' character was a research
scientist. You will of course, post his c.v., as well as his
scientific accomplishments in the field of atmospheric research.
>Kent Jeffrey, who got more than 20,000 persons to sign a
>"Roswell Initiative" petition asking president Clinton to release
>all classified UFO information in the hope that the "truth"
>about the incident could be known, has gone on record that he
>is now convinced that there was no Roswell crashed saucer
Is Kent Jeffrey a scientist who has performed the correct, rigorous
methodology to arrive at the conclusion that s now backing
wholeheartedly? No, Kent Jeffrey is a commercial airline pilot.
I find it quite interesting that Phil Klass, current Editor of the
Skeptics UFO Newsletter, does not hold others to the evidence to
same standards of scientific methodology as the rest of the
scientific establishment. I suppose, a magician will now be called
upon to give his scientific opinion on the methodology employed by
Jeffrey.
>as predicted by SUN (#44/March 1997). Jeffrey’s candid
>report on what prompted him to change his views – partially
>the result of his own investigations – is detailed in a lengthy
>article slated for the new (June) issue of the "MUFON UFO
>Journal."
>Several months ago, when Jeffrey confided his new views to
>several Roswell researchers (including officials from the Hynek
>Center for UFO studies) and explained what has prompted the
>change, he was sharply criticized and accused of "letting down"
>the many persons who had signed his Roswell Initiative. In
>Jeffrey’s MUFON article he explains:
>"With regard to reversing my stance, it is important to
>remember that the objective of the Roswell Initiative has been
>to find the truth, not define it. Unfortunately, the truth turned
>out to be different from what I thought it might be, or hoped it
>would be. However, now that I am absolutely certain that the
>debris recovered from Roswell was not that from an
>extraterrestrial craft, I feel and obligation to get that
>information out as well. Not to do so would be less than
>forthright and less than honest" [SUN compliments MUFON
>for enabling Jeffrey to present his new views.]
>Jeffrey, a senior pilot with a major U.S. airline, is best known in
>UFOlogical circles for his Roswell Initiative, but he has done
>considerable investigation on his own – funded out of his own
>pocket.
I think I can stop reading now.
This piece by Phil Klass wins the disinformation award for the entire
year of 1997.
Nice job.
> Jeffrey hired a Washington D.C. law firm at his own
>expense to send two of its lawyers to New Mexico to counsel
>Schmitt’s eight ET-body witnesses. But when they arrived in
>Roswell, there was only one witness – and his tale "was
>considered outlandish and unbelievable," according to Jeffrey.
I would suppose that any evidence bearing the identity of ET would be
considered 'outlandish and unbelievable.' And for this, the testimony
was discarded.
But of course.
Sherilyn
In article <33a6b844....@news.sfo.com>, Josh Olaf
<jo...@hotmail.com> writes
...
>
>This piece by Phil Klass wins the disinformation award for the entire
>year of 1997.
What disinformation does it contain? As far as I can tell, it simply
reports a change of heart by a prominent sponsor of ufo investigation.
To wit:
"ROSWELL INITIATIVE" SPONSOR JEFFREY CONCLUDES: NO CRASHED SAUCER
>
>> Jeffrey hired a Washington D.C. law firm at his own
>>expense to send two of its lawyers to New Mexico to counsel
>>Schmitt’s eight ET-body witnesses. But when they arrived in
>>Roswell, there was only one witness – and his tale "was
>>considered outlandish and unbelievable," according to Jeffrey.
>
>I would suppose that any evidence bearing the identity of ET would be
>considered 'outlandish and unbelievable.' And for this, the testimony
>was discarded.
Well, what would you do with outlandish and unbelievable uncorroborated
testimony?
>
>But of course.
>
I am more interested in what happened to the seven other alleged
witnesses.
--
Sherilyn
Robert Imrie, DVM
Josh Olaf wrote:
> [snip]
> >The following article is reprinted from the July 1997 issue of
> >Skeptics UFO Newsletter by permission of the editor, Phil
> >Klass. I thought some of you might find it of interest.
> >**************************************************
> >CONCLUDES: NO CRASHED SAUCER
> I wasn't aware that this 'Kent Jeffrey' character was a research
> scientist. You will of course, post his c.v., as well as his
> scientific accomplishments in the field of atmospheric research.
I wasn't aware this "Kent Jeffrey character" ever claimed to be
a "research scientist." Perhaps you could name a single UFOlogist
who IS trained to do scientific "research" into "space aliens they
can't demonstrate to exist." I can just imagine the "course work"
involved in obtaining such credentials.
Perhaps, as an undergrad, they might take "Fuzzy Photographs
101," "Irrelevant ad hominem 4A," "Using Big Words and Sounding
Scientifical 10A," and of course, "Human Perception: Why It's
Infallible." In the graduate phase of their training, no doubt
they cover such subject matter as: "Evidence: What Is It, and
Why We Don't Have Any," "How To Objectively Investigate Cases
and Always Come Up With Space Aliens," and "Conspiracy -- The
Ultimate Explanation for Everything."
> >Kent Jeffrey, who got more than 20,000 persons to sign a
> >"Roswell Initiative" petition asking president Clinton to release
> >all classified UFO information in the hope that the "truth"
> >about the incident could be known, has gone on record that he
> >is now convinced that there was no Roswell crashed saucer
> Is Kent Jeffrey a scientist who has performed the correct, rigorous
> methodology to arrive at the conclusion that s now backing
> wholeheartedly?
Consider Nuclear UFOlogist Stanton Friedman: He apparently
has a Masters in physics, but doesn’t seem to have earned a
nickel as a "physicist – nuclear or otherwise" in more than a
quarter century. Furthermore, one might ask how credentials
in "nuclear physics" afford him special authority in the
realm of "unidentified things, or "evidence-free claims of
space aliens." I don't see you taking Friedman to task for
his lack of pertinent credentials. Just what, in your
opinion, constitutes "authoritative credentials and
qualifications" for "scientifically" investigating
fifty-year-old UFO stories?
> No, Kent Jeffrey is a commercial airline pilot.
Hey! I thought you guys claimed airline pilots were "trained
observers"?! At least that's what you seem to do whenever one
sees some unidentified thing in the sky you think is a space
alien! You're applying a double standard here.
> I find it quite interesting that Phil Klass, current Editor of the
> Skeptics UFO Newsletter, does not hold others to the evidence to
> same standards of scientific methodology as the rest of the
> scientific establishment. I suppose, a magician will now be called
> upon to give his scientific opinion on the methodology employed by
> Jeffrey.
Could you back these silly assertions up with something other
than ad hominem?
Might as well. You obviously stopped thinking years ago. ;-)
> This piece by Phil Klass wins the disinformation award for the entire
> year of 1997.
> Nice job.
Thanks, Josh. It's refreshing to see yet another UFO believer
"take the high road" by refraining from trashing other
citizens who devote hundreds of hours of time and thousands of
dollars of their own money to do primary research into the
"UFO phenomenon," just because they fail to find any space
aliens.
> > Jeffrey hired a Washington D.C. law firm at his own
> >expense to send two of its lawyers to New Mexico to counsel
> >Schmitt’s eight ET-body witnesses. But when they arrived in
> >Roswell, there was only one witness – and his tale "was
> >considered outlandish and unbelievable," according to Jeffrey.
> I would suppose that any evidence bearing the identity of ET would be
> considered 'outlandish and unbelievable.' And for this, the testimony
> was discarded.
No. Being "outlandish and unbelievable" is not a particularly
compelling reason to accept testimony at face value -- unless,
of course, you're habitually disposed to believing outlandish
and unbelievable things. But if anyone ever manages to
actually come up with "any evidence bearing the identity of
ET," many of us will enthusiastically embrace it as a friggin'
miracle! Unfortunately, after fifty years of dedicated
investigation, UFO "researchers" have failed to come up with a
shred of unambiguous evidence demonstrating that visiting
space aliens exist. Kent Jeffrey just happens to be one of
the more honest among them.
--
Bob Imrie,
Volunteer counselor for the fantasy-prone.
"A space ship made of sticks, and foil, and floral tape? Oh, my!"
Scott A. Munro
On Tue, 17 Jun 1997 16:31:31 GMT, jo...@hotmail.com (Josh Olaf) wrote:
>Is Kent Jeffrey a scientist who has performed the correct, rigorous
>methodology to arrive at the conclusion that s now backing
>wholeheartedly? No, Kent Jeffrey is a commercial airline pilot.
Is Kevin Randle a scientist who has performed the correct, rigorous
methodology to arrive at the conclusion that [he is] now backing
wholeheartedly? No, Kevin Randle is a writer and former Air Force
officer.
Is Budd Hopkins a scientist who has performed the correct, rigorous
methodology to arrive at the conclusion that [he is] now backing
wholeheartedly? No, Budd Hopkins is a sculotor and painter.
Is David Jacobs a scientist who has performed the correct, rigorous
methodology to arrive at the conclusion that [he is] now backing
wholeheartedly? No, David Jacobs is a history professor.
Is Donald Schmitt a scientist who has performed the correct, rigorous
methodology to arrive at the conclusion that [he is] now backing
wholeheartedly? No, Donald Schmitt is a postal worker.
Is Stanton Friedman a scientist who has performed the correct,
rigorous methodology to arrive at the conclusion that [he is] now
backing wholeheartedly? No, while Stanton Friedman _is_ a nuclear
physicist, his Roswell investigations have nothing to do with science
or scientific methodology. I don't mean that Friedman is acting
_anti-_scientifically; simply that there is no aspect of the Roswell
Mess that is amenable to scientific investigation. Friedman is acting
not as a scientist, but as an investigative reporter, and not a very
good one.
>This piece by Phil Klass wins the disinformation award for the entire
>year of 1997.
Oh, my, disinformation! Not such thing as honest disagreement for
someone of Olaf's mentality. Gotta be spooks and spies and evil, evil
government disinformation agents!
-----
Scott A. Munro
http://www.nextdim.com/users/smunro/
UFOs, Jack the Ripper, politics, fiction,
and other strange subjects.
Scott A. Munro
On Tue, 17 Jun 1997 16:31:31 GMT, jo...@hotmail.com (Josh Olaf) wrote:
>I wasn't aware that this 'Kent Jeffrey' character was a research
>scientist. You will of course, post his c.v., as well as his
>scientific accomplishments in the field of atmospheric research.
And while I'm at it: you will of course post Stanton Friedman's
scientific accomplishments in the field of atmospheric research
(though what atmospheric research has to do with an alleged crashed
spaceship, I'm damned if i can see).
Josh Olaf
In article <33a72b4d...@205.235.135.3>, smu...@nextdim.com said:
>
>On Tue, 17 Jun 1997 16:31:31 GMT, jo...@hotmail.com (Josh Olaf) wrote:
>
>
>>methodology to arrive at the conclusion that s now backing
>>wholeheartedly? No, Kent Jeffrey is a commercial airline pilot.
>
>Is Kevin Randle a scientist who has performed the correct, rigorous
>methodology to arrive at the conclusion that [he is] now backing
>wholeheartedly? No, Kevin Randle is a writer and former Air Force
>officer.
I think you missed the point. Asking the question doesn't necessarily
imply a negative. If one is scientific in their approach, then isn't
one practicing science, and thus, one is a scientist. The usual
criteria applies.
[snip]
>Is Stanton Friedman a scientist who has performed the correct,
>rigorous methodology to arrive at the conclusion that [he is] now
>backing wholeheartedly?
Clearly, the answer is a resounding and overwhelming Y-E-S.
>No, while Stanton Friedman _is_ a nuclear
>physicist, his Roswell investigations have nothing to do with science
>or scientific methodology.
And your evidence for that statement would be?
>I don't mean that Friedman is acting
>_anti-_scientifically; simply that there is no aspect of the Roswell
>Mess that is amenable to scientific investigation.
You've got to be kidding, here. Are you mad?
> Friedman is acting
>not as a scientist, but as an investigative reporter, and not a very
>good one.
Your opinion has been noted.
>>This piece by Phil Klass wins the disinformation award for the entire
>>year of 1997.
>
>Oh, my, disinformation! Not such thing as honest disagreement for
>someone of Olaf's mentality. Gotta be spooks and spies and evil, evil
>government disinformation agents!
Could you show me where I said that? The disinformation award is
given out freely, to those who justly deserve it.
You claim that UFOlogy has no place in science. A scientist
investigates the phenomena, and you claim that a scientist has no
business investigating UFOs. Then, on top of your delusion, you claim
that I claim, that 'evil govmint agents' are behind the 'cover-up'.
Having fun with that skeptical piñata you keep swinging at?
Scott A. Munro
[cc'ed by e-mail]
On Wed, 18 Jun 1997 02:30:46 GMT, jo...@hotmail.com (Josh Olaf) wrote:
>In article <33a72b4d...@205.235.135.3>, smu...@nextdim.com said:
>>
>>On Tue, 17 Jun 1997 16:31:31 GMT, jo...@hotmail.com (Josh Olaf) wrote:
>I think you missed the point. Asking the question doesn't necessarily
>imply a negative. If one is scientific in their approach, then isn't
>one practicing science, and thus, one is a scientist. The usual
>criteria applies.
Since you ask for Jeffrey's CV and accomplishments in atmospheric
research, you clearly imply that unless he is a credentialed
atmospheric scientist, his opinion doesn't count.
You also say: "Is Kent Jeffrey a scientist who has performed the
correct, rigorous methodology to arrive at the conclusion that s now
backing wholeheartedly? No, Kent Jeffrey is a commercial airline
pilot."
He is not a scientist; he is an airline pilot. You must, therefore,
have been rejecting his arguments on the _ad hominem_ basis that he is
not a _professional_ scientist.
>>Is Stanton Friedman a scientist who has performed the correct,
>>rigorous methodology to arrive at the conclusion that [he is] now
>>backing wholeheartedly?
>
>Clearly, the answer is a resounding and overwhelming Y-E-S.
>
>>No, while Stanton Friedman _is_ a nuclear
>>physicist, his Roswell investigations have nothing to do with science
>>or scientific methodology.
>
>And your evidence for that statement would be?
How is Stanton Friedman testing his Roswell hypothesis with a view
toward falsifying it if possible? I'd be very interested to hear this.
>>I don't mean that Friedman is acting
>>_anti-_scientifically; simply that there is no aspect of the Roswell
>>Mess that is amenable to scientific investigation.
>
>You've got to be kidding, here. Are you mad?
Look. If I say that a falling object accelerates downward at a rate of
32 ft/sec^2, I can prove it by repeatedly measuring the acceleration
of various falling objects. If I say that the earth goes around the
sun, I can (well, someone can) record the movements of objects in the
sky, and demonstrate that the simplest explanation for those movements
is that the earth goes around the sun. Copernicus did it, and so did
Galileo.
If I want to prove that the moon is made of green cheese, I can (in
theory) go to the moon, bring some moon stuff back, and test it for
green cheese.
All Roswellologists have got is "________ told me this, and I believe
him." Nothing _testable_.
>>>This piece by Phil Klass wins the disinformation award for the entire
>>>year of 1997.
>>
>>Oh, my, disinformation! Not such thing as honest disagreement for
>>someone of Olaf's mentality. Gotta be spooks and spies and evil, evil
>>government disinformation agents!
>
>Could you show me where I said that? The disinformation award is
>given out freely, to those who justly deserve it.
_Disinformation_ means false information knowingly given out, and this
term is usually applied to government. If you meant to imply that
Klass was lying for amusement, rather than (as some on these groups
have implied) because he is in the pay of the government, I apologize
for the "Gotta be spooks and spies and evil, evil government
disinformation agents!" part, but I let stand the part about no honest
disagreement.
>
>You claim that UFOlogy has no place in science.
I didn't say this. I said that Roswell is not amenable to scientific
investigation. If some sort of physical evidence (metal fragments,
photographs, etc.) is brought forward, then that will be amenable to
scientific investigation, but the tales of witnesses by themselves
(which is all we have) simply cannot be _tested_ scientifically,
although they can certainly be investigated (as an investigative
reporter investigates).
> A scientist
>investigates the phenomena, and you claim that a scientist has no
>business investigating UFOs.
You know damned well I never said this, Olaf. Stanton Friedman is
perfectly free to investigate UFOs, elves, the origins of Roquefort
cheese, or anything else he wants to. I would never say that he "has
no business" investigating anything--unlike your good self, who made
it very clear that you think Kent Jeffrey has no business expressing
his opinion on Roswell unless someone can "post his c.v., as well as
his scientific accomplishments in the field of atmospheric research."
Then, on top of your delusion, you claim
>that I claim, that 'evil govmint agents' are behind the 'cover-up'.
Explained above, but I frankly don't understand who you _do_ think is
behind the alleged cover-up, if not the government.
Josh Olaf
<<<My news feeds are nada so going from the e-mail that was cc'ed
thank you very much >>>
>From smu...@nextdim.com Tue Jun 17 21:21:44 1997
>Received: from [205.235.135.42] by nextdim.com
> (SMTPD32-3.03) id A22512A10104; Tue, 17 Jun 1997 21:20:53 -0700
>From: smu...@nextdim.com (Scott A. Munro)
>To: jo...@hotmail.com (Josh Olaf)
>Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.alien.research,alt.alien.visitors,alt.paranet.ufo,alt.paranet.skeptic,alt.ufo.reports
>Subject: Re: CRASHED SAUCER at Roswell?
>Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 04:21:34 GMT
>Message-ID: <33a761e6...@205.235.135.3>
>References: <33a74494...@news.sfo.com>
>X-Mailer: Forte Free Agent 1.11/32.235
>
>[cc'ed by e-mail]
>
>On Wed, 18 Jun 1997 02:30:46 GMT, jo...@hotmail.com (Josh Olaf) wrote:
>
>>In article <33a72b4d...@205.235.135.3>, smu...@nextdim.com said:
>>>
>>>On Tue, 17 Jun 1997 16:31:31 GMT, jo...@hotmail.com (Josh Olaf) wrote:
>>I think you missed the point. Asking the question doesn't necessarily
>>imply a negative. If one is scientific in their approach, then isn't
>>one practicing science, and thus, one is a scientist. The usual
>>criteria applies.
>
>Since you ask for Jeffrey's CV and accomplishments in atmospheric
>research, you clearly imply that unless he is a credentialed
>atmospheric scientist, his opinion doesn't count.
I'm sorry you feel that way. Unfortunately, you do not represent my
position. I do not imply that the criteria of 'credentialed
atmospheric scientist' is a prerequisite. But when the 'usual
cirteria' applies, I mean, I expect that Kent Jeffrey has at least
published papers in a peer-review journal on this subject. If I had
his CV, I could glance at his long and hardy list of journals Mr.
Jeffrey has been publishing in, shouldn't I? Therefore, credentials
have absolutely no bearing on my argument. What I am looking for is
sound proof of Mr. Jeffrey's experience. Why, he could be anyone.
How do we know Mr. Jeffrey is telling the truth?
>You also say: "Is Kent Jeffrey a scientist who has performed the
>correct, rigorous methodology to arrive at the conclusion that s now
>backing wholeheartedly? No, Kent Jeffrey is a commercial airline
>pilot."
Correct. Is this or is this not a statement of fact? Did I make a
mistake? Nope.
>He is not a scientist; he is an airline pilot. You must, therefore,
>have been rejecting his arguments on the _ad hominem_ basis that he is
>not a _professional_ scientist.
I never formerly rejected his argument on the basis that Mr Jeffrey
may or may not be a professional scientist. I rejected his argument
based on the fact that I have zero information about who Mr. Jeffrey
is, and I wonder why I should believe anything this person says. Is
this or is this not 'healthy' skepticism?
>>>Is Stanton Friedman a scientist who has performed the correct,
>>>rigorous methodology to arrive at the conclusion that [he is] now
>>>backing wholeheartedly?
>>
>>Clearly, the answer is a resounding and overwhelming Y-E-S.
>>
>>>No, while Stanton Friedman _is_ a nuclear
>>>physicist, his Roswell investigations have nothing to do with science
>>>or scientific methodology.
>>
>>And your evidence for that statement would be?
>
>How is Stanton Friedman testing his Roswell hypothesis with a view
>toward falsifying it if possible? I'd be very interested to hear this.
So would I, from a scientist, not a commercial airline pilot. Is Mr.
Jeffrey a scientist and a pilot? Perhaps he's a magician too?
>>>I don't mean that Friedman is acting
>>>_anti-_scientifically; simply that there is no aspect of the Roswell
>>>Mess that is amenable to scientific investigation.
>>
>>You've got to be kidding, here. Are you mad?
>
>Look. If I say that a falling object accelerates downward at a rate of
>32 ft/sec^2, I can prove it by repeatedly measuring the acceleration
>of various falling objects. If I say that the earth goes around the
>sun, I can (well, someone can) record the movements of objects in the
>sky, and demonstrate that the simplest explanation for those movements
>is that the earth goes around the sun. Copernicus did it, and so did
>Galileo.
I got your point two paragraphs ago. The question is, "Is there any
evidence that points to the ETH in the Roswell case?"
>If I want to prove that the moon is made of green cheese, I can (in
>theory) go to the moon, bring some moon stuff back, and test it for
>green cheese.
>
>All Roswellologists have got is "________ told me this, and I believe
>him." Nothing _testable_.
Nothing? Are you sure about that? Are so certain that there is
nothing testable that you are willing to bet your reputation on that
statement?
>>>>This piece by Phil Klass wins the disinformation award for the entire
>>>>year of 1997.
>>>
>>>Oh, my, disinformation! Not such thing as honest disagreement for
>>>someone of Olaf's mentality. Gotta be spooks and spies and evil, evil
>>>government disinformation agents!
>>
>>Could you show me where I said that? The disinformation award is
>>given out freely, to those who justly deserve it.
>
>_Disinformation_ means false information knowingly given out, and this
>term is usually applied to government.
Really? I don't think so. Disinformation is all around us.
>
>>
>>You claim that UFOlogy has no place in science.
>
>I didn't say this. I said that Roswell is not amenable to scientific
>investigation. If some sort of physical evidence (metal fragments,
>photographs, etc.) is brought forward, then that will be amenable to
>scientific investigation, but the tales of witnesses by themselves
>(which is all we have) simply cannot be _tested_ scientifically,
>although they can certainly be investigated (as an investigative
>reporter investigates).
Ok, what happened to Leir?
>> A scientist
>>investigates the phenomena, and you claim that a scientist has no
>>business investigating UFOs.
>
>You know damned well I never said this, Olaf. Stanton Friedman is
>perfectly free to investigate UFOs, elves, the origins of Roquefort
>cheese, or anything else he wants to. I would never say that he "has
>no business" investigating anything--unlike your good self, who made
>it very clear that you think Kent Jeffrey has no business expressing
>his opinion on Roswell unless someone can "post his c.v., as well as
>his scientific accomplishments in the field of atmospheric research."
No. What I was wondering was, had Kent Jeffrey published any articles
in scientific journals, and if so, I was interested in reading them.
A CV contains a listing of one's publications, as well as experience,
and usually, credentials.
> Then, on top of your delusion, you claim
>>that I claim, that 'evil govmint agents' are behind the 'cover-up'.
>
>Explained above, but I frankly don't understand who you _do_ think is
>behind the alleged cover-up, if not the government.
'We' are the govt. While the USA remains a republic, it is also a
representative democracy, so in a sense, the people are the govt,
represented of course. So you are in fact blaming the people, when
you claim that the government is behind the so-called cover-up.
No, if the government is behind anything, it would have to be a small
rogue agency, accountable to no one and no thing. You've heard of
black ops?
But, that is not what I believe. What I believe, is that the people
are ready for full disclosure. Are you? Do you think our culture
could handle it, or do you think its true, when any advanced culture
meets a less-advanced culture, the less technologically advanced
culture falls apart? That is one logical reason for a cover-up.
There are thousands more...
Sherilyn
In article <5o73ld$6...@q.seanet.com>, "Robert Imrie, DVM" <aleonis@{nosp
am}aleonis.seanet.com> writes
>Josh Olaf wrote:
...
>
>> >"ROSWELL INITAITIVE" SPONSOR JEFFREY
>> >CONCLUDES: NO CRASHED SAUCER
>
>
>> Is Kent Jeffrey a scientist who has performed the correct, rigorous
>> methodology to arrive at the conclusion that s now backing
>> wholeheartedly?
>
>> No, Kent Jeffrey is a commercial airline pilot.
>
>Hey! I thought you guys claimed airline pilots were "trained
>observers"?! At least that's what you seem to do whenever one
>sees some unidentified thing in the sky you think is a space
>alien! You're applying a double standard here.
LOL! Thanks Bob, I got a twinge when I read Josh's claim there, but the
true significance didn't hit me.
--
Sherilyn
Josh Olaf
In article <$vQQ6HAw...@sidaway.demon.co.uk>, Sherilyn says...
>
>In article <5o73ld$6...@q.seanet.com>, "Robert Imrie, DVM" <aleonis@{nosp
>am}aleonis.seanet.com> writes
>>Josh Olaf wrote:
>...
>>
>>> >"ROSWELL INITAITIVE" SPONSOR JEFFREY
>>> >CONCLUDES: NO CRASHED SAUCER
>>
>...
>>
>>> Is Kent Jeffrey a scientist who has performed the correct, rigorous
>>> methodology to arrive at the conclusion that s now backing
>>> wholeheartedly?
>...
>>
>>> No, Kent Jeffrey is a commercial airline pilot.
>>
>>Hey! I thought you guys claimed airline pilots were "trained
>>observers"?!
Please post the quote where I stated such a thing.
>> At least that's what you seem to do whenever one
>>sees some unidentified thing in the sky you think is a space
>>alien! You're applying a double standard here.
No, you are applying false attribution, here.
>LOL! Thanks Bob, I got a twinge when I read Josh's claim there, but the
>true significance didn't hit me.
My claim? I guess you can't tell the difference between an
observation and a claim. Perhaps the 'twinging' is preventing you
from thinking clearly.
Also, don't forget to post all the references to the articles Kent
Jeffrey has made in scientific, peer-reviewed journals.
We're waiting...
Scott A. Munro
This is getting a little weird. . . .
In article <33a764f3...@news.sfo.com>,
jo...@hotmail.com (Josh Olaf) wrote:
> I'm sorry you feel that way. Unfortunately, you do not represent my
> position. I do not imply that the criteria of 'credentialed
> atmospheric scientist' is a prerequisite. But when the 'usual
> cirteria' applies, I mean, I expect that Kent Jeffrey has at least
> published papers in a peer-review journal on this subject.
A. Why do you expect that?
B. I still don't understand what investigating the Roswell crashed
flying
saucer/balloon has to do with experience in atmospheric research.
C. Have you asked the same question about the advocates of the
"spaceship
crash" hypothesis (e.g., Randle, Friedman, Moore,)?
> If I had
> his CV, I could glance at his long and hardy list of journals Mr.
> Jeffrey has been publishing in, shouldn't I? Therefore, credentials
> have absolutely no bearing on my argument. What I am looking for is
> sound proof of Mr. Jeffrey's experience. Why, he could be anyone.
> How do we know Mr. Jeffrey is telling the truth?
Mr. Jeffrey is making an _argument_. Are you suggesting that he might
be
lying about his interviews with the members of the 509th, or the
hypnosis
session he had with Jesse Marcel, Jr.? Do you make the same
suggestions
about the evidence put forward by Randle or Friedman?
> >You also say: "Is Kent Jeffrey a scientist who has performed the
> >correct, rigorous methodology to arrive at the conclusion that s now
> >backing wholeheartedly? No, Kent Jeffrey is a commercial airline
> >pilot."
>
> Correct. Is this or is this not a statement of fact? Did I make a
> mistake? Nope.
>
> >He is not a scientist; he is an airline pilot. You must, therefore,
> >have been rejecting his arguments on the _ad hominem_ basis that he is
> >not a _professional_ scientist.
>
> I never formerly rejected his argument on the basis that Mr Jeffrey
> may or may not be a professional scientist. I rejected his argument
> based on the fact that I have zero information about who Mr. Jeffrey
> is, and I wonder why I should believe anything this person says. Is
> this or is this not 'healthy' skepticism?
No, in fact it isn't. Jeffrey is not making a _claim_, he is making an
_argument_. To suggest that you do not have to deal with his argument
(which has _nothing_ to do with atmospheric science) because he is not
a
scientist is an _ad hominem_ evasion.
> >>>Is Stanton Friedman a scientist who has performed the correct,
> >>>rigorous methodology to arrive at the conclusion that [he is] now
> >>>backing wholeheartedly?
> >>
> >>Clearly, the answer is a resounding and overwhelming Y-E-S.
> >>
> >>>No, while Stanton Friedman _is_ a nuclear
> >>>physicist, his Roswell investigations have nothing to do with science
> >>>or scientific methodology.
> >>
> >>And your evidence for that statement would be?
> >
> >How is Stanton Friedman testing his Roswell hypothesis with a view
> >toward falsifying it if possible? I'd be very interested to hear this.
>
> So would I, from a scientist, not a commercial airline pilot. Is Mr.
> Jeffrey a scientist and a pilot? Perhaps he's a magician too?
This has nothing to do with Jeffrey. This is _my_ question, and I
expect
_you_ to answer. _You_ claim that Friedman is investigating Roswell
scientifically. So answer the question, Mr. Olaf.
> >Look. If I say that a falling object accelerates downward at a rate of
> >32 ft/sec^2, I can prove it by repeatedly measuring the acceleration
> >of various falling objects. If I say that the earth goes around the
> >sun, I can (well, someone can) record the movements of objects in the
> >sky, and demonstrate that the simplest explanation for those movements
> >is that the earth goes around the sun. Copernicus did it, and so did
> >Galileo.
>
> I got your point two paragraphs ago. The question is, "Is there any
> evidence that points to the ETH in the Roswell case?"
Yep. That's the question.
> >If I want to prove that the moon is made of green cheese, I can (in
> >theory) go to the moon, bring some moon stuff back, and test it for
> >green cheese.
> >
> >All Roswellologists have got is "________ told me this, and I believe
> >him." Nothing _testable_.
>
> Nothing? Are you sure about that? Are so certain that there is
> nothing testable that you are willing to bet your reputation on that
> statement?
_Is_ there something _related to Roswell_ that can be tested
scientifically? What is it?
> >>You claim that UFOlogy has no place in science.
> >
> >I didn't say this. I said that Roswell is not amenable to scientific
> >investigation. If some sort of physical evidence (metal fragments,
> >photographs, etc.) is brought forward, then that will be amenable to
> >scientific investigation, but the tales of witnesses by themselves
> >(which is all we have) simply cannot be _tested_ scientifically,
> >although they can certainly be investigated (as an investigative
> >reporter investigates).
>
> Ok, what happened to Leir?
Gee, is Leir investigating Roswell? I mean, I'd heard about the
"implants" taken from the "abductees" but I was unaware that he was
investigating Roswell.
What aspect of Roswell is he investigating?
> >> A scientist
> >>investigates the phenomena, and you claim that a scientist has no
> >>business investigating UFOs.
> >
> >You know damned well I never said this, Olaf. Stanton Friedman is
> >perfectly free to investigate UFOs, elves, the origins of Roquefort
> >cheese, or anything else he wants to. I would never say that he "has
> >no business" investigating anything--unlike your good self, who made
> >it very clear that you think Kent Jeffrey has no business expressing
> >his opinion on Roswell unless someone can "post his c.v., as well as
> >his scientific accomplishments in the field of atmospheric research."
>
> No. What I was wondering was, had Kent Jeffrey published any articles
> in scientific journals, and if so, I was interested in reading them.
> A CV contains a listing of one's publications, as well as experience,
> and usually, credentials.
>
> > Then, on top of your delusion, you claim
> >>that I claim, that 'evil govmint agents' are behind the 'cover-up'.
> >
> >Explained above, but I frankly don't understand who you _do_ think is
> >behind the alleged cover-up, if not the government.
>
> 'We' are the govt. While the USA remains a republic, it is also a
> representative democracy, so in a sense, the people are the govt,
> represented of course. So you are in fact blaming the people, when
> you claim that the government is behind the so-called cover-up. \
No, no, no, no, no. I don't believe in the "UFO cover-up."
> No, if the government is behind anything, it would have to be a small
> rogue agency, accountable to no one and no thing. You've heard of
> black ops?
>
> But, that is not what I believe. What I believe, is that the people
> are ready for full disclosure. Are you?
Yeah. I'm ready. And waiting.
And waiting.
And waiting. . . .
Josh Olaf
[snip]
>> Jeffrey hired a Washington D.C. law firm at his own
>>expense to send two of its lawyers to New Mexico to counsel
>>Schmitt’s eight ET-body witnesses. But when they arrived in
>>Roswell, there was only one witness – and his tale "was
>>considered outlandish and unbelievable," according to Jeffrey.
>
>I would suppose that any evidence bearing the identity of ET would be
>considered 'outlandish and unbelievable.' And for this, the testimony
>was discarded.
Also, its interesting to note that Jeffrey has appointed himself
independent Judge and jury, not to mention, they could only interview
one supposed witness who's testimony was then promptly, discarded.
Sherilyn
In article <33a7f90...@news.sfo.com>, Josh Olaf <jo...@hotmail.com>
writes
>In article <$vQQ6HAw...@sidaway.demon.co.uk>, Sherilyn says...
>>
>>In article <5o73ld$6...@q.seanet.com>, "Robert Imrie, DVM" <aleonis@{nosp
>>am}aleonis.seanet.com> writes
>>>Josh Olaf wrote:
>>...
>>>
>>>> >"ROSWELL INITAITIVE" SPONSOR JEFFREY
>>>> >CONCLUDES: NO CRASHED SAUCER
>>>
>>...
>>>
>>>> methodology to arrive at the conclusion that s now backing
>>>> wholeheartedly?
>>>
>>>> No, Kent Jeffrey is a commercial airline pilot.
>>>
>>>observers"?!
>
>Please post the quote where I stated such a thing.
More on that later.
>
>>> At least that's what you seem to do whenever one
>>>sees some unidentified thing in the sky you think is a space
>>>alien! You're applying a double standard here.
Yes, what I had in mind is where you ask "how do you know it wasn't a
mirage?" or something and they invoke the fact that pilots saw it as if
to dare you to doubt the observational skills of trained pilots.
So I went and did a tailored search for mentions of pilots. I came up
with many, many examples of the kind, including this one:
>> >I mean, a UFO is a real objective phenomenon that can exist
>> >independently outside the mind.
>> >
>>
>> Like a mirage then, right?
>
>The O in UFO is for objects, not for optical illusions. Also,
>I wasn't aware that mirages could return multiple radar echoes and
>then be identified as UFOs by pilots of commercial aircraft, Air
>Traffic Controlers, and multiple ground-based witnesses.
This was:
Subject: Re: Interesting article
From: Josh Olaf <in...@cydonia.org>
Date: 1996/12/27
Message-Id: <32C42B...@cydonia.org>
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.alien.visitors,alt.alien.research
>
>No, you are applying false attribution, here.
Don't think so.
>
>>LOL! Thanks Bob, I got a twinge when I read Josh's claim there, but the
>>true significance didn't hit me.
>
>My claim? I guess you can't tell the difference between an
>observation and a claim. Perhaps the 'twinging' is preventing you
>from thinking clearly.
Your claim is crystal clear to me:
>
>Also, don't forget to post all the references to the articles Kent
>Jeffrey has made in scientific, peer-reviewed journals.
>
>We're waiting...
>
I think Josh's problem is that he mistakenly believes the article is
citing Kent Jeffrey as an authority on UFOs rather than reporting a
change of heart in a prominent supporter of the Roswell Saucer cover-up
story. I suppose it's plausible that he fears that EVH proponents may
be swayed by appeals to authority.
I did a quick web search for Kent Jeffrey's name to see what he had said
and what had been said about him in the past. These are my findings.
It certainly looks as if the ufologists have regarded him as a sane and
credible investigator.
The J. Allen Hynek Center for UFO Studies (CUFOS) has this by Kent
Jeffrey:
http://www.cufos.org/ros2.html
Time for the truth about Roswell
The International Roswell Initiative has much on the latest findings,
but also this by Kent Jeffrey who lives in Fairfax, CA, and Joachim Koch
and Hans-Juergen Kyborg, both of Berlin, Germany.
http://www.roswell.org/roswell-dec-1.shtml
APPEAL FOR SUPPORT OF THE INTERNATIONAL ROSWELL-INITIATIVE
Kent Jeffrey is cited as an associate of CUFOS in this November 1995
CSICOP article:
http://www.csicop.org/si/9511/autopsy.html
"Alien Autopsy" Hoax
In this and in many other articles on the WWW he is quoted as saying
there was no doubt in his mind that the alleged alien autopsy movie was
a hoax.
A number of posts on the alien autopsy footage are here, including two
long posts by Kent Jeffrey:
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Corridor/8148/autopsy.html
The Roswell Alien Autopsy film
In this notice for the International UFO Conference in Gothenberg,
Germany, on October 27th, 1996, the speakers are described as "some of
the most respectable and well informed researchers in the field of
Ufology." Prominent amongst them is Kent Jeffrey.
http://www.wic.net/colonel/notice.htm
SKYWATCH NOTICES
Kent Jeffrey is cited as the person who checked the dating of the
Roswell movies stock in this document by Philip Mantle, Director of
Investigations of the British Ufo Research Association (BUFORA):
http://www.paragon.co.uk/ros/bufora5.htm
Roswell film footage.
So I guess Kent Jeffrey was regarded as some kind of authority on
Roswell amongst ufologists for a while. This doesn't count for much, of
course, since as soon as he says something they don't agree with he
magically loses that authority. Ho hum.
--
Sherilyn
Robert Imrie, DVM
Who do you suggest should have made up his mind for him? Since
he pursued and paid for the "Roswell Initiative" on his own, it
seems only reasonable he should be allowed to point out that it
turned up no evidence of space aliens. And it's pretty
difficult to interview alleged witnesses when they refuse to show
up for any interviews. Also, I imagine it's more than a little
irritating to have Don Schmitt tell you eight witnesses will
show up, and pay to fly two attorneys more than half way across
the country to interview them, only to find that the eight
witnesses have suddenly boiled down to one guy who tells
"outlandish and unbelievable" tales. (One can only imagine how
"outlandish and unbelievable" these tales must have been,
considering the attorneys were EXPECTING the guy to tell of
space aliens and crashed flying saucers.)
Sherilyn
[my usual follow-up restrictions apply]
In article <33a818d5...@news.sfo.com>, Josh Olaf
<jo...@hotmail.com> writes
>[snip]
>
>>> Jeffrey hired a Washington D.C. law firm at his own
>>>expense to send two of its lawyers to New Mexico to counsel
>>>Schmitt's eight ET-body witnesses. But when they arrived in
>>>Roswell, there was only one witness and his tale "was
>>>considered outlandish and unbelievable," according to Jeffrey.
>>
>>I would suppose that any evidence bearing the identity of ET would be
>>considered 'outlandish and unbelievable.' And for this, the testimony
>>was discarded.
>
>Also, its interesting to note that Jeffrey has appointed himself
>independent Judge and jury, not to mention, they could only interview
>one supposed witness who's testimony was then promptly, discarded.
For what Kent Jeffrey claims happened, see:
http://www.roswell.org/myth-04.htm
I wish Kent Jeffrey would flesh out the story some more with names of
his supposedly unreliable source for the "eight witnesses" story, the
"board member of [a respected major UFO organization]...a well known
Roswell researcher and co-author of a leading book on the
subject...Although a personable individual, he proved to be less than
honest. He was subsequently removed from the board of the UFO
organization...and his co-author, still a respected researcher,
disavowed any association with him." It ought to be possible from this
cryptic description to identify the person in question. In the absence
of further information I will assume this guy is either Don Schmitt, or
Kevin Randle, who co-authored two highly regarded Roswell ufologist
books. Mr Schmitt presented a paper "New Revelations from Roswell" at
the 1990 MUFON Symposium at Pensacola, FLA.
This document describes Schmitt as one of the co-directors of CUFOS.
http://www.dscga.com/~dragoncon/people/schmitd.html
Kevin Randle is described as a Captain, USAF (Ret.)
"We have six generals telling us that it is true - Roswell happened.
We have eight living witnesses describing the recovered bodies,
and we have two dozen witnesses describing the material"
----Don Schmitt, special agent for CUFOS
Jeffrey says of the one witness:
"I would later learn that this particular so-called secret
witness was already known to other researchers and that his
story was considered outlandish and unbelievable -- an
assessment with which I now fully agree."
I'd like to know to whose opinions Jeffrey is referring in the above,
and on what basis they made their assessment.
--
Sherilyn
"For the Snark _was_ a Boojum, you see!" Lewis Carroll.
Garry Bryan
Scott A. Munro (smu...@nextdim.com) wrote:
: I didn't say this. I said that Roswell is not amenable to scientific
: investigation. If some sort of physical evidence (metal fragments,
: photographs, etc.) is brought forward, then that will be amenable to
: scientific investigation, but the tales of witnesses by themselves
: (which is all we have) simply cannot be _tested_ scientifically,
: although they can certainly be investigated (as an investigative
: reporter investigates).
This raises up the question would it be possible to do an archeological type of
excavation on the crash site, manned by volunteers to try and recover some
physical evidnece that the govt. missed? It seems to me there would be plenty
of "gullible,lunatic,believers" who would love to have a chance to recover a
piece of history. There must be some rich investor who could buy the recover
rights to materials on the ranch and organize the project. I think one summer
would be enough to excavate down 1 or 2 feet at the crash site. . .
Garry (%^{>
Josh Olaf
In article <5o9hu1$i...@q.seanet.com>, "Robert wrote:
>
>Josh Olaf wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> >> Jeffrey hired a Washington D.C. law firm at his own
>> >>expense to send two of its lawyers to New Mexico to counsel
>> >>Schmitt’s eight ET-body witnesses. But when they arrived in
>> >>Roswell, there was only one witness – and his tale "was
>> >>considered outlandish and unbelievable," according to Jeffrey.
>
>> >I would suppose that any evidence bearing the identity of ET would be
>> >considered 'outlandish and unbelievable.' And for this, the testimony
>> >was discarded.
>
>> Also, its interesting to note that Jeffrey has appointed himself
>> independent Judge and jury, not to mention, they could only interview
>> one supposed witness who's testimony was then promptly, discarded.
>
An independent, third-party, whose evaluation would then be evaluated
by another third-party. At this point, a magician could bless Mr.
Jeffrey, and proclaim the so-called "investigation" holy for all to
psee.
>Since he pursued and paid for the "Roswell Initiative" on his own, it
>seems only reasonable he should be allowed to point out that it
>turned up no evidence of space aliens.
Even more reason to be skeptical of his claims. Is Mr. Jeffrey acting
out of a deep emotional investment in the outcome of the
investigation? Since Mr. Jeffrey had access to private funding, I
would like to know what third-party evaluated his research?
>And it's pretty difficult to interview alleged witnesses when they refuse to show
>up for any interviews.
Blaming the victim again, huh, Bob?
>Also, I imagine it's more than a little
>irritating to have Don Schmitt tell you eight witnesses will
>show up, and pay to fly two attorneys more than half way across
>the country to interview them, only to find that the eight
>witnesses have suddenly boiled down to one guy who tells
>"outlandish and unbelievable" tales.
Why do you think that happened? Were the seven other witnesses
intimidated by someone or some thing? Usually when witnesses don't
show, especially on what could possibly be the biggest case of this
millenium, one should think about the possible reasons for their
absence. Did that ever occur to you? This whole argument is a total
farce. Eyewitness testimony can be shot down in a minute, so it
doesn't even matter what the witnesses have to say or are going to
say. Nothing matters to you except actual, physical evidence. Of
course you will now bring me a piece of a black hole for me to
examine, or perhaps a neutron star.
Presently, the ETH is a possible explanation for UFOs. There is some
evidence to support this conclusion, but at the time, I have
insufficient evidence to prove it.
> (One can only imagine how
>"outlandish and unbelievable" these tales must have been,
>considering the attorneys were EXPECTING the guy to tell of
>space aliens and crashed flying saucers.)
It was a ruse from the beginning. Let's pretend for a minute that the
lone witness did go on record regarding the existence of space aliens
and crashed UFOs.. Then what? You would use the exact same logic to
tear down the testimony. You would probably claim that the witnesses
testimony was "unbelievable" based on whatever factors you use to
gauge 'believability'.
Tell me Bob, exactly what indicates each increment on the scale from
Bob Imrie's Belief Scale
<--- unbelievable----|-------|------|------|------believable---->
0 10
Please explain how you arrived at the conclusion of 0 unbelievability?
Russ Grossman
This morning I read something in the Colorado Springs
"Gazzette Telegraph" that the government was coming
clean about Roswell and now says that the alien bodies
were rubber dummies dropped from a weather ballon to test
public/military response to such an incident or some
such reason. I dropped into this news conference today
to see what others ahev said about this report.
Am I the first one here to report about or read this
wire story?
Russ
Scott A. Munro
>This morning I read something in the Colorado Springs
>"Gazzette Telegraph" that the government was coming
>clean about Roswell and now says that the alien bodies
>were rubber dummies dropped from a weather ballon to test
>public/military response to such an incident or some
>such reason. I dropped into this news conference today
>to see what others ahev said about this report.
It's not a matter of "coming clean." This report, as I understand it,
will not supersede the Mogul explanation, but expand upon it.
It's possible that _some_ of the "alien bodies" witnesses may be
remembering these dummies. Of course, others (e.g., James "Show Me the
Money and I'll Sign Anything" Ragsdale) are simply lying.
I think we should probably wait for the report before coming to any
final judgment. An unusual act for ufology, I know. . . .
Josh Olaf
>This morning I read something in the Colorado Springs
>"Gazzette Telegraph" that the government was coming
>clean about Roswell and now says that the alien bodies
>were rubber dummies dropped from a weather ballon to test
>public/military response to such an incident or some
>such reason. I dropped into this news conference today
>to see what others ahev said about this report.
>
>Am I the first one here to report about or read this
>wire story?
>
>Russ
Thanks for the post. Wow, what a jam-packed month this has been.
First the Chen troll rears its ugly heads, and now the military is
heaping mounds of predisposed saucer debunking onto the unsuspecting
public.
Rubber dummies dropped from a weather baloon? If one, single gullible
person believes this hilarious cover story, they deserve to be
debunked on sight.
Of course, the military only tells the truth, so this version of the
Roswell cover-up HAS to be the real, correct one, right?
This is the worst counter-intelligence program in the history of the
Air Force. If they are going to do it right, they should just give
the job to the CHEN gang.
Otherwise, the 80% of Americans polled by CNN who believe that the
govt. is hiding evidence of ET contact is going to rise to 100%.
What a _total coincidence_ that the MK-CHEN/COINTEL-PRO has arrived
on Usenet around the same time as the latest Roswell debunking....what
a coincidence. I guess we can chalk that up to synchronicity, right?
Wrong.
Of course, the real 'dummies' are TEAM DEBUNKER, and anyone else who
would buy into the military's blatant effort, taken directly from the
CIA's own handbook for propaganda dissemination.
Sherilyn
[ss, apu]
In article <33a9a1cf...@news.sfo.com>, Josh Olaf
<jo...@hotmail.com> writes
...
>
>Of course, the real 'dummies' are TEAM DEBUNKER, and anyone else who
>would buy into the military's blatant effort, taken directly from the
>CIA's own handbook for propaganda dissemination.
An impressive effort by Mr Olaf, almost unaffected by the fact that
there is NO evidence, zero, nada, zilch, none, that there was a flying
saucer crash at Roswell in 1947. Every single lead followed on this
subject has led to a dead end.
After a long investigation, Kent Jeffrey, IRI, MUFON, CUFOS writes:
Any complete and reasonable response by those who still contend that a
UFO crashed at Roswell in 1947 will need to directly address the points
below, each of which would have to be a true statement if such a crash
occurred:
A machine with unimaginable technological sophistication and consequent
incredible reliability would have simply broken down and crashed.
The only known wreckage from this sophisticated vehicle, capable of
interstellar travel, would have consisted solely of a few short beams,
pieces of foil-like material, and small pieces of thin plastic-like
material.
By incredible coincidence, the material from the crashed spaceship would
have very closely resembled the material left by the radar reflectors
from a balloon array that went down in the same general area a few weeks
earlier.
Despite the fact that this would have been the most spectacular event in
recorded history, and despite the fact that word was already out that
something had happened (because of Lt. Haut's press release), there was
absolutely no contemporary discussion or talk about such an earthshaking
event among the pilots and navigators of the close-knit 509th Bomb
Group.
West Point graduate and retired general Thomas Dubose, would have to
have lied nine times in an interview when he stated that the debris
(definitely that from an ML-307 radar reflector) shown in the pictures
in Ramey's office was not substituted material and was the "real debris"
recovered from the ranch northwest of Roswell.
Major General C. P. Cabell, Director of Intelligence for the Air Force
at the Pentagon, who prepared a report on the unidentified flying object
situation for the Secretary of Defense, astoundingly, would have been
preparing the report totally ignorant of the fact that the Air Force was
in possession of a crashed flying saucer.
Three retired Air Force colonels, all former top officials at the
Foreign Technology Division at Wright Patterson Air Force base would
have been lying to me -- unnecessarily wasting inordinate amounts of
their own personal time in a protracted game of charades.
--
Sherilyn
For the Snark _was_ a Boojum, you see.
Scott A. Munro
On Thu, 19 Jun 1997 21:29:54 GMT, jo...@hotmail.com (Josh Olaf) wrote:
>
>Rubber dummies dropped from a weather baloon? If one, single gullible
>person believes this hilarious cover story, they deserve to be
>debunked on sight.
Yeah! Waiting to read the report before attacking it would just waste
valuable time.
Sherilyn
[ss, apu]
In article <33A981...@mail.dec.com>, Russ Grossman
<gros...@mail.dec.com> writes
>This morning I read something in the Colorado Springs
>"Gazzette Telegraph" that the government was coming
>clean about Roswell and now says that the alien bodies
>were rubber dummies dropped from a weather ballon to test
>public/military response to such an incident or some
>such reason. I dropped into this news conference today
>to see what others ahev said about this report.
>
>Am I the first one here to report about or read this
>wire story?
>
government to have admitted it earlier. I don't know for sure, but I'll
go out on a limb and say this is probably a hoax and the announcement
will not materialize. It may just be a publicity puff for the Corso
book.
[If this turns out to be the case, I'll definitely have to go in for the
Randi Challenge! :)]
Sherilyn
`Other maps are such shapes with their islands and capes!
But we've got our brave captain to thank.'
(So the crew would protest) `that he's brought us the best,
A perfect and absolute blank!'
http://staff.navisoft.com/gww/nonsense/Snark.html
Josh Olaf
In article <33A9FC...@texas.net>, Col says...
>
>> Rubber dummies dropped from a weather baloon? If one, single gullible
>> person believes this hilarious cover story, they deserve to be
>> debunked on sight.
>
>
>
>On the one hand, we have the story that the military wanted to test the
>response of the American people to a flying saucer story. We have proof
>that the Soviets at the time were very interested in how public
>communications were affected by "flying saucer" sightings. The US Army
>Air Corps decides to test the response by staging a crash and throwing
>in some dummies.
No, using Occam's Razor, we are faced with the possibility that
according to the USAF, UFOs exist as high performance, disk shaped
objects. You, Col Klink, are unnecessarily multiplying entities
needlessly when you claim that the USAF not only 'staged' a UFO crash,
but threw in some fake dummies to boot. You expect us to believe that
this is the most economical explanation!
>On the other hand, we have the possibility that real life space men
>piloted flying saucers from light years away, traversing the cosmos in a
>sophisticated navigational fete. They have an incredibly advanced
>technology that allows them to do so. Then they crash in the middle of
>nowhere in New Mexico.
You, Col Klink, are being intellectually dishonest by interpreting who
or what is in control of 'flying saucers' when in reality, there is no
such evidence.
You seem to find it necessary to multiply and interpret your space man
hypothesis, against the very evidence presented by the USAF! For the
sake of honesty and accuracy, I think it is safe to say that your
interpretation of events is your own biased version. For some reason,
like most of the other debunkers on these groups, you have a deep
emotional investment in the outcome of this investigation, and that
blinds you even to the most simple application of Occam's Razor.
>
>Using Occam's Razor, of course we have to accept the spaceman story....
>
>Col Klink
Your spaceman story is really your own personal strawman, ready for
you to pull out and knock down in a moment's notice. When you decide
to take a look at the actual evidence, let me know. Until then, feel
free to wallow in your tepid pool of intellectual dishonesty.
Josh Olaf
In article <33A9FC...@texas.net>, Col says...
>On the other hand, we have the possibility that real life space men
>piloted flying saucers from light years away,
Why light years away? Who said that? For all you know, there could
be a fleet of generation ships parked on the other side of the sun,
waiting for the perfect opportunity to invade! :)
> traversing the cosmos in a
>sophisticated navigational fete.
Uh, in a spaceship? Wow, that's real sophisticated...I don't think
that's ever been proposed.
>They have an incredibly advanced
>technology that allows them to do so.
You really seem to have the inside scoop here. Tell us more.
> Then they crash in the middle of
> nowhere in New Mexico.
You mean Roswell? Well, we don't know all the facts, yet, but that is
a possible explanation. For some reason, the USAF is doing all they
can to prevent people from even *thinking* that this is one possible
explanation.
And yet you claim in a previous post that the USAF wanted to see what
would happen if they staged a fake crash, complete with alien
'dummies'.
Since the ETH is too 'unbelievable' and 'far-out' for you to consider
as one possible explanation, you argue that it is far more likely
that the USAF faked an alien crash than it is for a *real* crash to
have taken place.
Josh Olaf
In article <33AA83...@texas.net>, Col says...
>
>> Josh Olaf wrote:
>>
>> >On the other hand, we have the possibility that real life space men
>> >piloted flying saucers from light years away,
>>
>> Why light years away? Who said that? For all you know, there could
>> be a fleet of generation ships parked on the other side of the sun,
>> waiting for the perfect opportunity to invade! :)
>>
>> > traversing the cosmos in a
>> >sophisticated navigational fete.
>>
>> Uh, in a spaceship? Wow, that's real sophisticated...I don't think
>> that's ever been proposed.
>>
>> >They have an incredibly advanced
>> >technology that allows them to do so.
>>
>> You really seem to have the inside scoop here. Tell us more.
>
>question here.
>
>
>
>> > Then they crash in the middle of
>> > nowhere in New Mexico.
>>
>> You mean Roswell?
>
It didn't? You mean no one in Roswell saw an object flying out of the
south-east on July 2, 1947?
>It took a cowboy riding in the wilderness to find the sight.
Mac Brazel's ranch, located 75 miles north-west of the town.
>> Well, we don't know all the facts, yet, but that is
>> a possible explanation. For some reason, the USAF is doing all they
>> can to prevent people from even *thinking* that this is one possible
>> explanation.
>
>If that were true, why did they announce they had found a saucer? Seems
>strange to aver the very thing you want to *prevent people from even
>*thinking* that this is one possible explanation *.
Maybe because the army actually found a flying disk and was being
honest about their find before COC took over and implemented a
possible cover-up. Then, before the press conference six days *after*
the find by Brazel, the crash debris was switched and replaced in
order to promote the 'weather balloon' theory which has since been
discredited by the USAF themselves and replaced with Project Mogul.
How many times is the USAF going to continue to switch and replace
the evidence?
>> And yet you claim in a previous post that the USAF wanted to see what
>> would happen if they staged a fake crash, complete with alien
>> 'dummies'.
>
>You have me confused with someone else. This is the first time I have
>referred to Roswell.
Nice dodge, but unfortunately for your memory and argument, you are
just plain wrong.
In message ID <33A9FC...@texas.net> Col Klink said:
>We have proof that the Soviets at the time were very interested in how public
>communications were affected by "flying saucer" sightings. The US Army
>Air Corps decides to test the response by staging a crash and throwing
>in some dummies.
Is your memory refreshed? Good. So, you claimed in a previous post
that the USAF wanted to see what would happen if they staged a fake
crash, complete with alien 'dummies'.
Of course ou claim hat your comments are not related to Roswell, so by
your own words, you ADMIT that your argument is not a good explanation
for the Roswell crash debris.
You have succeeded in contradicting your own words, Col Klink.
Congratulations.
>> Since the ETH is too 'unbelievable' and 'far-out' for you to consider
>> as one possible explanation, you argue that it is far more likely
>> that the USAF faked an alien crash than it is for a *real* crash to
>> have taken place.
>
>I did not say it was too fantastic. I am saying that of the two
>possibilities, I pick the one there is direct evidence for
Evidence? What evidence? You mean the evidence that was
switched and replaced by the USAF's own admission in 1994?
That evidence? Which evidence?
>. It is a fact
>that governments were testing the public reaction to UFO sightings as
>they applied to communications systems at the time.
Great! That gives my side more evidence. Thanks.
Now, why do you think the gov. was testing public reaction to UFO
sightings if UFOs didn't exist?
Jason Mathews
Josh Olaf wrote in article <33a9a1cf...@news.sfo.com>...
>Of course, the real 'dummies' are TEAM DEBUNKER, and anyone else who
>would buy into the military's blatant effort, taken directly from the
>CIA's own handbook for propaganda dissemination.
Really? I must have missed this handbook. Which one is it?
Jason Mathews
Troy Dawson wrote in article ...
>> Where is the proof that the *ship(s)* were struck by lightening? Any
>
>eh? Ever try to do formation flying in thunderstorm?
Ya know, this has always seemed a bit inconsistent to me.
A spacecraft, terribly advanced, was downed by a bolt of lighting
near Roswell. Or crashed because of a bad downdraft. Take your pick.
If such a craft was THAT unworthy for atmosphere, it would have
never entered it. These things, according to popular UFO belief,
can ionize the air for supersonic travel, carry powerful
gravitic or magnetic drives to perform aerobatics to hundreds of
gees of acceleration...
But some bad weather made one crash?
Formation flying in thunderstorms...feh! If it was interstellar craft
and couldn't handle bad atmospheric conditions, then how can they cruise
at Mach 3+ or whatever? How could they turn so quickly? Wind shear effects
pushed it into the ground near Roswell?
No consistency at all.
Troy Dawson
> > Rubber dummies dropped from a weather baloon? If one, single gullible
> > person believes this hilarious cover story, they deserve to be
> > debunked on sight.
>
>
> Well lets see.
>
> On the one hand, we have the story that the military wanted to test the
> response of the American people to a flying saucer story. We have proof
> that the Soviets at the time were very interested in how public
> communications were affected by "flying saucer" sightings. The US Army
> Air Corps decides to test the response by staging a crash and throwing
> in some dummies.
I'm waiting for Weaver's attempt of connecting witness testimony
A with event B. Appealing to 'fuzzy memory' ain't gonna cut it.
> On the other hand, we have the possibility that real life space men
> piloted flying saucers from light years away, traversing the cosmos in a
space jalopies sounds better, IMHO.
> sophisticated navigational fete. They have an incredibly advanced
sophisticated for us, perhaps *literally* child's play for Them.
> technology that allows them to do so. Then they crash in the middle of
> nowhere in New Mexico.
during a thunderstorm, near Los Alamos & Roswell.
> Using Occam's Razor, of course we have to accept the spaceman story....
use whatever you want, as long as your brain is engaged...
=td=
--
:::Delete the -bounce for e-mail replies:::
Troy Dawson
> > Well, we don't know all the facts, yet, but that is
> > a possible explanation. For some reason, the USAF is doing all they
> > can to prevent people from even *thinking* that this is one possible
> > explanation.
>
> If that were true, why did they announce they had found a saucer? Seems
> strange to aver the very thing you want to *prevent people from even
> *thinking* that this is one possible explanation *.
You've got to distinguish between 'they' -- as in the faceless USAF
counterintel offices (a thankless job) -- and Col Blanchard, USAAF,
an (apparently) honest Joe who (from the quotes) thought he was doing
the Right Thing by bringing the press into the loop.
Lt Haut, the PIO who wrote the press release, has just recently said:
(paraphrasing) during a staff meeting the Monday after the incident,
Col Blanchard said, 'we sure blew that one.'
As I find it *inconceivable* that Blanchard & Marcel would fail
to instantly recognize pieces from a common weather balloon, I am left with
the judgement that Blanchard had realized / been made cognizant of
the national security issues involved with his disclosure.
It is quite damning to the weather balloon proponents that Blanchard's
command did not withdraw their own press release.
Troy Dawson
> > > technology that allows them to do so. Then they crash in the middle of
> > > nowhere in New Mexico.
> >
> > during a thunderstorm, near Los Alamos & Roswell.
>
> Your use of the word *near* stretches it out of its recognizable shape.
nearness is a function of time, not space, my friend.
> Where is the proof that the *ship(s)* were struck by lightening? Any
eh? Ever try to do formation flying in thunderstorm?
> > > Using Occam's Razor, of course we have to accept the spaceman story....
> >
> > use whatever you want, as long as your brain is engaged...
>
> I gather that given a choice between the prosaic and the fantastic, you
> routinely select the fantastic. Are you interested in a bridge I have
> for sale in Brooklyn? It has leprechauns on it ;).
Either the Marcels (Sr & Jr) and the Brazels (Sr & Jr) were/are lying,
or they found what they said they found.
I find sufficient corrobative evidence that lends support to their
claims, and see nothing but faulty logic & smear tactics from the
'prosaic crowd'.
Or should that be Prozaic Crowd?
Sherilyn
In article <33aa0404...@news.sirius.com>, "jo...@hotmail.com"
<?@?.?> writes
...
>we are faced with the possibility that
>according to the USAF, UFOs exist as high performance, disk shaped
>objects.
We are faced with the possibility that Josh is just recycling old wives
tales and innuendo... :)
--
Sherilyn
For the Snark was a Boojum, you see.
Troy Dawson
> Troy Dawson wrote in article ...
>
> >> Where is the proof that the *ship(s)* were struck by lightening? Any
> >
> >eh? Ever try to do formation flying in thunderstorm?
>
> Ya know, this has always seemed a bit inconsistent to me.
>
> A spacecraft, terribly advanced, was downed by a bolt of lighting
> near Roswell. Or crashed because of a bad downdraft. Take your pick.
I agree. But the fact that they're not crashing every day
does indicate that (if they exist) they're not as fragile as you
are supposing.
It *is* odd that one would crash at the very beginning of the
US wave -- except that foo-fighter reports predate Roswell by
4 years, so any statistical arguments about the non-stochastic
nature of this crash should take that 4 year's span into account.
> If such a craft was THAT unworthy for atmosphere, it would have
> never entered it.
Too many assumptions. We don't know where it came from,
or how it got here.
> These things, according to popular UFO belief,
> can ionize the air for supersonic travel, carry powerful
> gravitic or magnetic drives to perform aerobatics to hundreds of
> gees of acceleration...
Hundreds of gees of *apparent* acceleration. We don't know
what actual stresses would be applied to the airframe.
Perhaps 0.
> But some bad weather made one crash?
Shit happens, even to aliens. Read some H.G. Wells.
> Formation flying in thunderstorms...feh! If it was interstellar craft
> and couldn't handle bad atmospheric conditions, then how can they cruise
> at Mach 3+ or whatever? How could they turn so quickly? Wind shear effects
> pushed it into the ground near Roswell?
It happened once, then the Intergalactic Aviation Administration
tightened up the rules on formation flying.
> No consistency at all.
Nothing is consistent about this world but inconsistency.
Deal with it.
Troy Dawson
Order ISBN 0-87666-885-2 from your controller; it's also in
the secret sections of most Wall Marts and K-Marts. It's got
a bright green cover.
Troy Dawson
In article <33AB0C...@texas.net>, d...@texas.net wrote:
> > Troy Dawson wrote:
> > > > during a thunderstorm, near Los Alamos & Roswell.
> > >
> > > Your use of the word *near* stretches it out of its recognizable shape.
> >
> > nearness is a function of time, not space, my friend.
>
> Then, buddy, why did you write the statement:
>
> ***during a thunderstorm, near Los Alamos & Roswell.***
>
> This suggests a spatial relationship, not a diminsion of time. I dont
> say "Its 9 Los Alamos o'clock", or "its a quarter past Roswell", do you?
^ahem hypothetical aliens able to travel (say) Mach 6 at the drop
of the hat would consider the Los Alamos to be *quite* near Roswell.
Just as nowadays two towns 20 miles away are considered near, but
in the time of my grandfather's day it took all day to
walk from one to the other, so I doubt if anybody thought of them
as 'near' each other, just 'closer'.
anyway, assuming the aliens found something of interest in
Los Alamos, Roswell and the Foster Ranch are (to them) definitely
"near" Los Alamos.
> > > Where is the proof that the *ship(s)* were struck by lightening? Any
> >
> > eh? Ever try to do formation flying in thunderstorm?
>
> 1) Are you saying there were occupants?
no, just that UFO's, as a unknown phenomenon, have been repeatedly
observed flying in formation.
> 2) If they were smart enough to get here, why were they not smart enough
> to maneuver properly during a storm? Other planets in our own solar
> system have storms. Certainly in the world(s) where other advanced life
> forms exist, they also have atmosphere and storms.
So far, we have exactly 1 press release detailing the recover
of a crashed flying disk. No one in this forum is arguing that
saucer crashes are common -- just not impossible.
One crash every 50 years seems about right, actually.
> > Either the Marcels (Sr & Jr) and the Brazels (Sr & Jr) were/are lying,
> > or they found what they said they found.
>
> This statement oversimplifies the options tremendously. There are many
> shades of grey between these people lying and an assessment that there
> are space creatures crashed in the middle of nowhere in New Mexico.
I agree. But the choice is between Brazel & Marcel found something
known -- and are lying -- and they found something unknown.
Mogul #4 falls into the first category.
Marcel Sr had the training and the *responsibility* to identify
the debris. He thought it was unknown.
His commander (apparently) approved a press release to this effect.
His commander's CO was (allegedly) ordered by a national military
command to call his debunking press conference.
The successors to this national command maintain to this day that
nothing unknown crashed at the Foster Ranch (or its environs).
The truth gradient in any organization declines the higher
one goes up the hieararchy, thank you.
> > I find sufficient corrobative evidence that lends support to their
> > claims, and see nothing but faulty logic & smear tactics from the
> > 'prosaic crowd'.
>
> Well, you will have to provide evidence of the smear tactics. I
> certainly have not smeared anyone.
No, I appreciate your reasoned approach to this.
> The subject of this newsgroup is skepticism.
I am skeptical too, believe it or not. Just not so skeptical
that my brain is frozen solid.
> Perhaps those who are offended by alternate points of view
> would be more comfortable in alt.mind.made.up.
I like Roswell because it is more of a philosophical debate than
a debate on history or politics.
Tachyon
Josh Olaf wrote:
>
[...Massive discretionary edit...]
This thread is futile. The Roswell incident has been hashed and
rehashed beyond all usefulness. The pool of factual data available on
this incident is incredibly small, yet people insist on aggressive
speculation and extrapolation to the point of absurdity.
THERE IS INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT ANY OPINION ON THIS INCIDENT.
Stating that the evidence clearly points one way or another is
delusionary. The Roswell incident will never be resolved based on the
current pool of evidence, due mostly to a lack of information. No
amount of scrutiny will overcome this fundamental problem.
Time would be better spent on cases that are potentially resolvable.
-Tachyon
Marc Fisher
Troy Dawson wrote:
> One crash every 50 years seems about right, actually.
While physical evidence is virtually non-existent (pick your reasons for
that fact), there have many numerous *unsubstantiated* reports of
crashes in the past 50 years.
I don't think a race's technology level has a great deal to do with
reliability. We've found that out, ourselves - as our military
equipment has become more sophisticated and complicated, we've also
experienced a degradation in reliability and service life. There are
always the random vagaries of nature (weather, meteorites, radiation,
etc.) that can put a kink in even the best technology.
> I like Roswell because it is more of a philosophical debate than
> a debate on history or politics.
Good post, Troy. And, unfortunately, since any physical evidence that
may have existed is denied to us, all we have left is speculation,
philosophical debate and eyewitnesses. The first is easy, the second is
merely an exercise, and the third is a subjective issue of credibility
and belief.
Josh Olaf
In article <33AC46...@exadyne.com>, Tachyon says...
>
>Josh Olaf wrote:
>>
>[...Massive discretionary edit...]
Thanks.
>This thread is futile.
I disagree. This thread started with Imrie debunking Roswell, with the
help of Jeffries, who for some reason, cannot imagine that the Air
Force would be lying to him. Ha!
>The Roswell incident has been hashed and
>rehashed beyond all usefulness.
No it hasn't. We still don't know what really happened. And until we
do, people will talk.
>The pool of factual data available on
>this incident is incredibly small,
Or being hidden from public consumption.
>yet people insist on aggressive
>speculation and extrapolation to the point of absurdity.
>THERE IS INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT ANY OPINION ON THIS INCIDENT.
Do you feel better now? I would also like to add, there is
insufficient evidence to support any opinion about anything related to
something we don't have direct physical evidence to back up our claims
with in any given situation where physical evidence is required to
back up a an opinion about any given subject.
>Stating that the evidence clearly points one way or another is
>delusionary.
Only the self-rightous debunkers state that opinion.
>The Roswell incident will never be resolved based on the
>current pool of evidence, due mostly to a lack of information. No
>amount of scrutiny will overcome this fundamental problem.
Once could say that about any mystery, enigma, or lack of knowledge.
Does that mean we should just forget about it? Perhaps we should take
the CIA's Robertson Panel to heart, and examine the psychological
aspects of the phenomenon more in depth. Maybe then, we will realize
why the FOIA doesn't guarantee us the right to access the information
that is still being suppressed in the interest of 'national security'.
>Time would be better spent on cases that are potentially resolvable.
Like for example?
Tachyon
> >rehashed beyond all usefulness.
>
> No it hasn't. We still don't know what really happened. And until we
> do, people will talk.
Talking is pointless if you don't have sufficient evidence. We will
never know what happened based on the current evidence. Talk all you
want, but don't claim that your hypothesis is an absolutely supportable
position.
> >The pool of factual data available on
> >this incident is incredibly small,
>
> Or being hidden from public consumption.
Possibly, but this doesn't change the current situation. Until such
time as significant additional evidence is put forth, this is a
limitation which cannot be avoided.
> Do you feel better now? I would also like to add, there is
> insufficient evidence to support any opinion about anything related to
> something we don't have direct physical evidence to back up our claims
> with in any given situation where physical evidence is required to
> back up a an opinion about any given subject.
Awkward sentence. Physical evidence is what makes opinion (more or
less) a fact. The more physical evidence you have the better. Until
such a time as significant physical evidence exists, the hypothesis
must be assumed to be false. This applies to any hypothesis. When
comparing unproven hypotheses, one must take into consideration the
evidence available for each hypothesis. In the case of Roswell, you
have two major competing theories. One involves an Air Force project,
and the other involves ET types. We have very strong physical evidence
that the Air Force exists. We do not have equally strong evidence that
ETs exist. Therefore one must conclude with regards to Roswell (until
further evidence is available) that the Air Force is the likely cause,
whether we like the answer or not, or whether this fits our hypothesis
or not. Neither of these hypotheses is proven, but one is clearly
stronger than the other. To insist that a weaker hypothesis is "better"
is simply irrational.
> >Stating that the evidence clearly points one way or another is
> >delusionary.
>
> Only the self-rightous debunkers state that opinion.
Your interpretation. Most "debunkers" state that the ETH is a weak
hypothesis in the face of the solid evidence available. Stronger, more
probable hypotheses exist without inventing additional factors. The
belief system of most "debunkers" has a tendency to align with logically
strongest of the current hypotheses.
> >The Roswell incident will never be resolved based on the
> >current pool of evidence, due mostly to a lack of information. No
> >amount of scrutiny will overcome this fundamental problem.
>
> Once could say that about any mystery, enigma, or lack of knowledge.
> Does that mean we should just forget about it?
No, it means you need to make an effort to acquire more hard evidence.
This is the way things are done. Science is about the pursuit of hard
evidence, not speculation. Speculation is easy; getting hard evidence
requires determination and intelligence. Everyone here has spent a lot
of time on the speculation part. Now it is time to get some hard
evidence to support the speculation.
> Perhaps we should take
> the CIA's Robertson Panel to heart, and examine the psychological
> aspects of the phenomenon more in depth. Maybe then, we will realize
> why the FOIA doesn't guarantee us the right to access the information
> that is still being suppressed in the interest of 'national security'.
"National security" means not letting just any yokel browse the designs
of our most sophisticated weapons technologies to prove or disprove his
pet hypothesis, whatever it may be. A lot of intelligence data is
classified long after it is useless because the nature of the data gives
a big clue as to how it was collected. Since many intelligence
gathering assets remain valid long after the intelligence that is
gathered using them is useless, this is necessary to maintain the
usefulness of the intelligence assets.
> >Time would be better spent on cases that are potentially resolvable.
>
> Like for example?
I am not aware of any case with adequate evidence at this time, but am
willing to listen.
-Tachyon
deskmerc
Troy Dawson wrote in article ...
>I agree. But the fact that they're not crashing every day
>does indicate that (if they exist) they're not as fragile as you
>are supposing.
I can't entirely agree with that. Too many asumptions are being
made to bolster a particular hypothesis.
It's the same logic a four year old uses to explain the actions
of an invisible friend.
>It *is* odd that one would crash at the very beginning of the
>US wave -- except that foo-fighter reports predate Roswell by
>4 years, so any statistical arguments about the non-stochastic
>nature of this crash should take that 4 year's span into account.
Why stop there? Crashed airships at Aurora come to mind. Not all
unexplained crafts are of the saucer variety...we have wheels in
the sky and giant powered blimp like structures that have drunken
crews, singing all night and stealing cattle.
>> If such a craft was THAT unworthy for atmosphere, it would have
>> never entered it.
>
>Too many assumptions. We don't know where it came from,
>or how it got here.
Yes, too many assumptions. I can agree with that wholeheartedly.
>Hundreds of gees of *apparent* acceleration. We don't know
>what actual stresses would be applied to the airframe.
>
>Perhaps 0.
Pure supposition and a circular argument. How can they make
high gee turns? Some sort of inertial dampener. Evidence of
these inertial systems? High gee turns.
>> But some bad weather made one crash?
>
>Shit happens, even to aliens. Read some H.G. Wells.
Well's wrote about FICTIONAL Martians, using what he thought
were good methods of advanced technology. It's certainly not a
textbook on extraterrestrial capabilities.
>It happened once, then the Intergalactic Aviation Administration
>tightened up the rules on formation flying.
You'd think they would have issued a recall for the Sport Saucer 4000.
Faulty handling in the atmosphere of a backwater planet with
calm weather compared to other places.
>> No consistency at all.
>
>Nothing is consistent about this world but inconsistency.
>
>Deal with it.
You'd be suprised at how consistent the world really is.
People are inconsistent, not the universe.
Robert Imrie, DVM
Tachyon wrote:
>
> Josh Olaf wrote:
> >
> [...Massive discretionary edit...]
> rehashed beyond all usefulness. The pool of factual data available on
> this incident is incredibly small, yet people insist on aggressive
> speculation and extrapolation to the point of absurdity.
> THERE IS INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT ANY OPINION ON THIS INCIDENT.
> current pool of evidence, due mostly to a lack of information. No
> amount of scrutiny will overcome this fundamental problem.
If, when you use the words "Roswell Incident," you are referring to the
recovery of debris from the Mogul Balloon train known to have been lost
over the area just days earlier, I agree with the last sentence. On the
other hand, evidence for the existence of Project Mogul (and the NYU
Balloon project) is overwhelming and conclusive. It's also clear that
sworn witness testimony specifically mentions "foil, sticks, tape,
rubber" and other mundane materials consistent with Mogul balloon
debris. "Crashed aliens" is, at least in this case, a "solution" in
search of a "mystery." The matter has been resolved beyond any
reasonable doubt.
--
Bob Imrie,
Volunteer counselor for the fantasy-prone.
"A space ship made of sticks, and foil, and floral tape? Oh, my!"
...
Josh Olaf
In article <33AC68...@exadyne.com>, Tachyon says...
>> >rehashed beyond all usefulness.
>>
>> do, people will talk.
>
>
>Talking is pointless if you don't have sufficient evidence.
Really? Then I suppose you should tell that to all the Philosophy
departments in every University around the globe. Heck, send them all
a global e-mail letting them know that you have hereby determined that
they should no longer talk about things for which they have no
evidence. Please get back to me on this, as I am interested in the
responses you will receive.
>We will
>never know what happened based on the current evidence. Talk all you
>want, but don't claim that your hypothesis is an absolutely supportable
>position.
You will of course, point out where I said this. Unfortuantely for
you, you won't be able to find this imaginary position you claim that
I support. I have gone on public record countless times stating that
my hypothesis is not supportable based on the available evidence.
Where were you?
>> >The pool of factual data available on
>> >this incident is incredibly small,
>>
>> Or being hidden from public consumption.
>
>Possibly, but this doesn't change the current situation. Until such
>time as significant additional evidence is put forth, this is a
>limitation which cannot be avoided.
I have gone on record stating this MANY times.
Where were you?
>> Do you feel better now? I would also like to add, there is
>> insufficient evidence to support any opinion about anything related to
>> something we don't have direct physical evidence to back up our claims
>> with in any given situation where physical evidence is required to
>> back up a an opinion about any given subject.
>
>
>Awkward sentence. Physical evidence is what makes opinion (more or
>less) a fact.
More or less true, but I could prove this statement wrong if I had
some more time. ( I don't have time right now.)
>The more physical evidence you have the better. Until
>such a time as significant physical evidence exists, the hypothesis
>must be assumed to be false.
Of course. I am quite aware of this. I don't think the debunkers
are, however.
>This applies to any hypothesis. When
>comparing unproven hypotheses, one must take into consideration the
>evidence available for each hypothesis. In the case of Roswell, you
>have two major competing theories. One involves an Air Force project,
>and the other involves ET types. We have very strong physical evidence
>that the Air Force exists. We do not have equally strong evidence that
>ETs exist.
Depends on what your criteria for strong evidence is, but I can agree
with you here. But that point is debatable.
>Therefore one must conclude with regards to Roswell (until
>further evidence is available) that the Air Force is the likely cause,
>whether we like the answer or not, or whether this fits our hypothesis
>or not.
This is true, if you accept your criteria for evidence.
> Neither of these hypotheses is proven, but one is clearly
>stronger than the other. To insist that a weaker hypothesis is "better"
>is simply irrational.
Please point out where I stated that a weaker hypothesis is better.
You can't. Why are you arguing with straw men?
>> >Stating that the evidence clearly points one way or another is
>> >delusionary.
>>
>> Only the self-rightous debunkers state that opinion.
>
>
>Your interpretation.
No, you misunderstand. Self-rightous debunkers state
that the evidence points one way REGARDLESS of which hypothesis is
currently accepted as the "strongest". Examples? The Benwaters case,
Socorro, the list goes on. In reality, the evidence doesn't
necessarily point to a stronger argument, nor does the "solid evidence
available" necessarily point one way or another. Reality can be
fuzzy, and hypotheses must be pushed to one side or another by the
belief system of the claimant, not the evidence alone.
>Most "debunkers" state that the ETH is a weak
>hypothesis in the face of the solid evidence available. Stronger, more
>probable hypotheses exist without inventing additional factors. The
>belief system of most "debunkers" has a tendency to align with logically
>strongest of the current hypotheses.
That's false. See above. I will argue this point.
>> >The Roswell incident will never be resolved based on the
>> >current pool of evidence, due mostly to a lack of information. No
>> >amount of scrutiny will overcome this fundamental problem.
>>
>> Once could say that about any mystery, enigma, or lack of knowledge.
>> Does that mean we should just forget about it?
>
>
>No, it means you need to make an effort to acquire more hard evidence.
>This is the way things are done.
I'm quite aware of that fact, thank you very much for your support.
>Science is about the pursuit of hard
>evidence, not speculation. Speculation is easy; getting hard evidence
>requires determination and intelligence. Everyone here has spent a lot
>of time on the speculation part. Now it is time to get some hard
>evidence to support the speculation.
I agree, but what if the evidence is not attainable?
>> Perhaps we should take
>> the CIA's Robertson Panel to heart, and examine the psychological
>> aspects of the phenomenon more in depth. Maybe then, we will realize
>> why the FOIA doesn't guarantee us the right to access the information
>> that is still being suppressed in the interest of 'national security'.
>
>
>"National security" means not letting just any yokel browse the designs
>of our most sophisticated weapons technologies to prove or disprove his
>pet hypothesis, whatever it may be.
Wrong. In the case of the Robertson panel report, national security
means not letting society fall-apart due to the effects of UFO
propaganda, foreign or domestic, or the possibility of a real-live
sitiuation causing societal chaos.
>A lot of intelligence data is
>classified long after it is useless because the nature of the data gives
>a big clue as to how it was collected.
Another reason you conveinently neglect to mention is the fact that
the military has the best means of detection at their disposal. The
technology is in the hands of the military, not your average
scientist.
>Since many intelligence
>gathering assets remain valid long after the intelligence that is
>gathered using them is useless, this is necessary to maintain the
>usefulness of the intelligence assets.
True.
>> >Time would be better spent on cases that are potentially resolvable.
>>
Troy Dawson
> Balloon project) is overwhelming and conclusive. It's also clear that
> sworn witness testimony specifically mentions "foil, sticks, tape,
> rubber" and other mundane materials consistent with Mogul balloon
> debris. "Crashed aliens" is, at least in this case, a "solution" in
> search of a "mystery." The matter has been resolved beyond any
> reasonable doubt.
>
> --
> Bob Imrie,
>
> Volunteer counselor for the fantasy-prone.
> "A space ship made of sticks, and foil, and floral tape? Oh, my!"
Explain why:
a) Brazel was detained for a week after the crash
b) Marcel stopped by his house to show his family the debris
c) Col Weaver failed to interview Lt Haut for his 1994 report.
Nick Humphries
On Sat, 21 Jun 1997 22:19:59 GMT, "jo...@hotmail.com" (Josh Olaf)
wrote:
>In article <33AC46...@exadyne.com>, Tachyon says...
>>The Roswell incident has been hashed and
>>rehashed beyond all usefulness.
>
>No it hasn't.
Ahem... The story has been investigated and reinvestigated so many
times by so many people that the various accounts contradict each
other leaving the reader confused as to which version to beleive. Add
those people who hopped onto the Roswell bandwagon for fame and money
and we have _no_ useful data _whatsoever_.
Nick Humphries, ni...@the-den.clara.net, at your service
If the Truth is Out There, what's In Here?
*** NOTICE NEW E-MAIL - YOU SPAM, YOU DIE! ***
Tachyon
Josh Olaf wrote:
>
> Tachyon wrote:
> >
> >Science is about the pursuit of hard
> >evidence, not speculation. Speculation is easy; getting hard evidence
> >requires determination and intelligence. Everyone here has spent a lot
> >of time on the speculation part. Now it is time to get some hard
> >evidence to support the speculation.
>
> I agree, but what if the evidence is not attainable?
The answer is obvious. If evidence is not attainable, then you can
never prove your hypothesis. Unattainability of evidence is more or
less equivalent to disproving a hypothesis. At best, this would leave
you with a currently unverifiable hypothesis which may or may not be
proven at a later time.
> >"National security" means not letting just any yokel browse the designs
> >of our most sophisticated weapons technologies to prove or disprove his
> >pet hypothesis, whatever it may be.
>
> Wrong. In the case of the Robertson panel report, national security
> means not letting society fall-apart due to the effects of UFO
> propaganda, foreign or domestic, or the possibility of a real-live
> sitiuation causing societal chaos.
This is a "believer" party line which not only talks around the
assertion, but is utterly absurd to begin with. The Robertson panel
report was more concerned with the potential that paranoid UFO zealots
could be subverted by foreign countries ( USSR in that era ) to do harm
against the US government.
Judging from what I have seen on this list over the years, their concern
with the mental stability of some UFO fanatics may have been
well-founded.
> >A lot of intelligence data is
> >classified long after it is useless because the nature of the data gives
> >a big clue as to how it was collected.
>
> Another reason you conveinently neglect to mention is the fact that
> the military has the best means of detection at their disposal. The
> technology is in the hands of the military, not your average
> scientist.
>
Civilians develop the technology and sell it to the military. The
military has a very limited R&D branch which is primarily devoted to
mundane things like testing new field gear. The "average scientist" is
in fact the creator and developer of virtually all military
technologies. Military sensor technology is not classified. In
general, most anyone can buy the same sensor technologies that the
military uses. What is classified is the processing algorithms that are
used to give the sensors their military purpose. For example, you can
buy off the shelf the most advanced infrared sensor technologies the
military uses. What you cannot purchase is the guidance algorithms that
allow the sensors to hit their target.
-Tachyon
Josh Olaf
In article <33ad6cf7...@news.clara.net>,
ni...@emailme.at.address.below says...
>
>On Sat, 21 Jun 1997 22:19:59 GMT, "jo...@hotmail.com" (Josh Olaf)
>wrote:
>
>>In article <33AC46...@exadyne.com>, Tachyon says...
>
>>>The Roswell incident has been hashed and
>>>rehashed beyond all usefulness.
>>
>>No it hasn't.
>
>Ahem... The story has been investigated and reinvestigated so many
>times by so many people that the various accounts contradict each
>other leaving the reader confused as to which version to beleive.
Isn't that one of the side-effects of counter-intelligence? That
doesn't mean people should give up, as you would like, it seems.
>Add those people who hopped onto the Roswell bandwagon for fame and money
>and we have _no_ useful data _whatsoever_.
In your opinion, the Roswell investigation should not continue to be
investigated because you say it is hard to follow since the Roswell
investigation is composed of contradicting accounts, which include
stories from people who "hopped onto the Roswell bandwagon for fame
and money" and as a result, in your opinion, there is a lack of useful
data.
Shouldn't all contradicting accounts be filtered and sifted in order
to produce the best and most reliable useful data?
The Roswell investigation should continue to be investigated by
eliminating contradicting accounts through a filtering process which
will produce useful data for further investigation.
Nick Humphries
On Mon, 23 Jun 1997 01:07:47 GMT, jo...@hotmail.com (Josh Olaf) wrote:
>In article <33ad6cf7...@news.clara.net>,
>ni...@emailme.at.address.below says...
>>
>>On Sat, 21 Jun 1997 22:19:59 GMT, "jo...@hotmail.com" (Josh Olaf)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In article <33AC46...@exadyne.com>, Tachyon says...
>>
>>>>The Roswell incident has been hashed and
>>>>rehashed beyond all usefulness.
>>>
>>>No it hasn't.
>>
>>Ahem... The story has been investigated and reinvestigated so many
>>times by so many people that the various accounts contradict each
>>other leaving the reader confused as to which version to beleive.
>
>Isn't that one of the side-effects of counter-intelligence? That
>doesn't mean people should give up, as you would like, it seems.
Counter-intelligence? I'm talking about investigations by Randle,
Freidman et al - each one has their own story. Of course, if you're
suggesting that these people are agents spreading disinformation then
I couldn't possibly comment.
>>Add those people who hopped onto the Roswell bandwagon for fame and money
>>and we have _no_ useful data _whatsoever_.
>
>In your opinion, the Roswell investigation should not continue to be
>investigated because you say it is hard to follow since the Roswell
>investigation is composed of contradicting accounts, which include
>stories from people who "hopped onto the Roswell bandwagon for fame
>and money" and as a result, in your opinion, there is a lack of useful
>data.
>
>Shouldn't all contradicting accounts be filtered and sifted in order
>to produce the best and most reliable useful data?
You think Randle, Freidman et al haven't been doing this over the past
20 or so years? After all that time, and all that investigation, we
_still_ have so much contradictory data, investigators squabbling with
themselves over what happened, and still the reader doesn't know what
to think - they end up picking and choosing various accounts from
various investigators which will inevitably contradict with other
investigations. We're getting nowhere, and we will never know what
happened.
>The Roswell investigation should continue to be investigated by
>eliminating contradicting accounts through a filtering process which
>will produce useful data for further investigation.
In an ideal world, yes, I agree. But we're dealing with _so_ many
investigators that if we left out all the contradicting accounts, we'd
have nothing left.
Loren King
Josh Olaf <jo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> This is the worst counter-intelligence program in the history
> of the Air Force. ... Otherwise, the 80% of Americans polled
> by CNN who believe that the govt. is hiding evidence of ET
> contact is going to rise to 100%.
Isn't it more likely that the military was (and probably still is)
obscuring evidence of: (a) the sorry state of early weapons research and
testing after WWII, (b) a lack of military confidence in their ability
to defend US airspace at the dawn of a very uncertain period in US
foreign relations, or (c) unconstitutional uses of troops, hardware and
territory?
I know this isn't as sexy and alluring as the "alien conspiracy"
explanation, but it fits better with what we know about the
U.S. military's occasional tendency to shun oversight and
accountability, and with what we know about how complex bureaucracies
treat information (i.e. inefficiently, and often with more regard for
their own public image than for the rights and well-being of private
citizens).
Just a thought.
Loren
--------------------------------------
Loren King lk...@mit.edu
http://web.mit.edu/lking/www/home.html
Eric Scott
Nick Humphries wrote:
>
> On Mon, 23 Jun 1997 01:07:47 GMT, jo...@hotmail.com (Josh Olaf) wrote:
>
> >In article <33ad6cf7...@news.clara.net>,
> >ni...@emailme.at.address.below says...
> >>
> >>On Sat, 21 Jun 1997 22:19:59 GMT, "jo...@hotmail.com" (Josh Olaf)
> >>wrote:
> >>
> >>>In article <33AC46...@exadyne.com>, Tachyon says...
> >>
> >>>>The Roswell incident has been hashed and
> >>>>rehashed beyond all usefulness.
> >>>
> >>>No it hasn't.
> >>
> >The Roswell investigation should continue to be investigated by
> >eliminating contradicting accounts through a filtering process which
> >will produce useful data for further investigation.
>
If this is a dead issue, why the hell is USAF still beating it with a
stick. Their press release stating it was crashed parachute dummies that
landed on Roswell seems to me to be so obviously stupid that there are
two reasons for it:
1) USAF is essentially run by complete morons, who don't know when
they've completed a cover-up.
2) USAF is trying to promote the controversy. Why, I'm not sure. Is it a
red herring? Are they trying to keep people interested so that there
attention is kept for other, more important agendas? Or do they want
people to keep interested so that they will find out the truth, or be
ready for it when it comes out.
By the way, refutations I've heard on the press release, are as follows:
The crash dummy idea does not agree with the evidence for two reasons:
1) CUFOS (I believe that was the org I heard respond on CBC radio)
states that parachute dummies were not used un testing before 1955.
2) The key witness accounts state that the bodies were definitely not
human, down to no thumb, and the well known head physiology we know as
grays. It does not follow that any test dummy, in order to test out
forces upon a human body, would make a dummy that is non human in
structure.
Funny thing, even Phil Klass said that USAF should not have put out this
story. HeeHee
>
> Nick Humphries, ni...@the-den.clara.net, at your service
> If the Truth is Out There, what's In Here?
> *** NOTICE NEW E-MAIL - YOU SPAM, YOU DIE! ***
--
Response address is: esc...@rci.rogers.com (I hate junk mail)
An open eye, an open mind, but above all, a working brain!
You are one with the universe...
Robert Imrie, DVM
Troy Dawson wrote:
(Troy -- rather tellingly, I think -- chose to snip the first part
of the following paragraph.)
> > [If, when you use the words "Roswell Incident," you are referring to the
> > recovery of debris from the Mogul Balloon train known to have been lost
> > over the area just days earlier, I agree with the last sentence. On the
> > other hand, evidence for the existence of Project Mogul (and the NYU]
> > Balloon project) is overwhelming and conclusive. It's also clear that
> > sworn witness testimony specifically mentions "foil, sticks, tape,
> > rubber" and other mundane materials consistent with Mogul balloon
> > debris. "Crashed aliens" is, at least in this case, a "solution" in
> > search of a "mystery." The matter has been resolved beyond any
> > reasonable doubt.
> Explain why:
> a) Brazel was detained for a week after the crash
> b) Marcel stopped by his house to show his family the debris
> c) Col Weaver failed to interview Lt Haut for his 1994 report.
You go first.
--
Bob Imrie,
Volunteer counselor for the fantasy-prone.
"A space ship made of sticks, and foil, and floral tape? Oh, my!"
.
Jon
> > > [If, when you use the words "Roswell Incident," you are referring to
the
> > > recovery of debris from the Mogul Balloon train known to have been
lost
> > > over the area just days earlier, I agree with the last sentence. On
the
> > > other hand, evidence for the existence of Project Mogul (and the NYU]
> > > Balloon project) is overwhelming and conclusive. It's also clear
that
> > > sworn witness testimony specifically mentions "foil, sticks, tape,
> > > rubber" and other mundane materials consistent with Mogul balloon
> > > debris. "Crashed aliens" is, at least in this case, a "solution" in
> > > search of a "mystery." The matter has been resolved beyond any
> > > reasonable doubt.
>
> > Explain why:
>
> > a) Brazel was detained for a week after the crash
>
> > b) Marcel stopped by his house to show his family the debris
>
> > c) Col Weaver failed to interview Lt Haut for his 1994 report.
>
> You go first.
>
> --
> Bob Imrie,
>
> Volunteer counselor for the fantasy-prone.
>
> "A space ship made of sticks, and foil, and floral tape? Oh, my!"
>
This is just a thought but perhaps both stories could be correct on some
level. Perhaps the craft that eyewitnesses claim to have seen on the
ground could have collided into the Mogul balloon train that the Air Force
claims to be the source of the debris, and brought both to the ground.
A half truth is better than a lie any day.
Troy Dawson
In article <33B161...@texas.net>, d...@texas.net wrote:
[snipped context restored]
[bob dvm]:
> > > On the
> > > other hand, evidence for the existence of Project Mogul (and the NYU]
> > > Balloon project) is overwhelming and conclusive. It's also clear that
> > > sworn witness testimony specifically mentions "foil, sticks, tape,
> > > rubber" and other mundane materials consistent with Mogul balloon
> > > debris. "Crashed aliens" is, at least in this case, a "solution" in
> > > search of a "mystery." The matter has been resolved beyond any
> > > reasonable doubt.
[troy]:
> > > Explain why:
> >
> > > a) Brazel was detained for a week after the crash
> >
> > > b) Marcel stopped by his house to show his family the debris
> >
> > > c) Col Weaver failed to interview Lt Haut for his 1994 report.
> >
> > You go first.
[col klink]:
> Eww, good move, Bob. I like how you subltly put the onus on those who
> should properly have to answer those questions.
Stunted appreciation of the scientific method, Col.
Bob is a proponent of the Mogul hypothesis.
My 3 main problems with Mogul are listed above.
If Bob DVM fails to address these questions, then don't fault me
for not going along with his pet theory.
> I am not saying they can
> not answer tham, but I am saying they are the ones with the
> responsibility.
wrong. The above items (if they are indeed factual) are problems with
the Mogul hypothesis, or indicate dubious bona fides wrt the Air Force
OSI investigation thereof.
Troy Dawson
Here's Bob DVM's assertion:
> > > > > On the
> > > > > other hand, evidence for the existence of Project Mogul (and the NYU]
> > > > > Balloon project) is overwhelming and conclusive...The matter has
> > > > > been resolved beyond any reasonable doubt.
Here's my challenge to that assertion:
> > > > > Explain why:
> > > >
> > > > > a) Brazel was detained for a week after the crash
> > > >
> > > > > b) Marcel stopped by his house to show his family the debris
> > > >
> > > > > c) Col Weaver failed to interview Lt Haut for his 1994 report.
Here's Bob DVM's dodge:
> > > > You go first.
Here's Col Klink's cheers from the peanut gallery:
> > > Eww, good move, Bob. I like how you subltly put the onus on those who
> > > should properly have to answer those questions.
Here's my reply:
> > Stunted appreciation of the scientific method, Col.
> >
> > Bob is a proponent of the Mogul hypothesis.
> >
> > My 3 main problems with Mogul are listed above.
> >
> > If Bob DVM fails to address these questions, then don't fault me
> > for not going along with his pet theory.
In article <33B1DB...@texas.net>, Col Klink fired back:
> In Science, it is incumbant on the person making an assertion to prove
> said assertion.
Correctamundo.
Bob DVM is **making the assertion** that the the debris recovered from
the Foster ranch was from a Mogul balloon train.
ergo, if he can't answer the above challenges, then his hypothesis
loses its "resolved beyond a reasonable doubt" property (if indeed
the above are 'reasonable doubts').
> If you think there are little green men visiting the Earth, the ball is
> in your court.
To defend *his* hypothesis? ? ? ?
I challenge any other pseudo-skeptic on this group to support
Klink's inverted view of science (the verb).
hint to the good Col: knocking down Mogul *in no way* strengthens
my pet "crashed space jalopy" theory.
philip de cadenet
Tachyon,
Unfortunately, you are not taking into consideration Stanton T.
Friedmans 31 years on the case.
Phil in England.
Hugh Young
3) Somebody in the USAF has a sense of humour. They just want to watch
UFOlogists twisting in the wind.
>Funny thing, even Phil Klass said that USAF should not have put out this
>story. HeeHee
Yes, even I, as sceptical as anyone, wondered why the hell do the USAF even
CARE enough what happened 50 years ago to issue a statement?
But remember, with the cold war over, they have to keep themselves employed,
somehow, anyhow.
--
Hugh Young, Pukerua Bay, Nuclear-free Aotearoa / NEW ZEALAND
Charles Buckley
In article <252awgu6...@young.wn.planet.gen.nz>,
Hugh Young <hu...@young.wn.planet.gen.nz> wrote:
>In <33B155...@rci.rogers> Eric Scott <esc...@rci.rogers> wrote:
>
>Yes, even I, as sceptical as anyone, wondered why the hell do the USAF even
>CARE enough what happened 50 years ago to issue a statement?
>
Huh? The reason is simple - Congressional pressure to release complete
study of the conspiracy theory.
Tachyon
philip de cadenet wrote:
>
> Tachyon,
> Unfortunately, you are not taking into consideration Stanton T.
> Friedmans 31 years on the case.
>
Spend as much time as you like. There is no correlation between time
spent and proof. I could spend 50 years proving the existence of elves
and still come up short. With insufficient evidence, you will never be
able to prove your position.
-Tachyon
Robert Imrie, DVM
Troy Dawson wrote:
> > Here is your retort which proves nothing (yet again):
> > > Correctamundo.
> > > Bob DVM is **making the assertion** that the the debris recovered from
> > > the Foster ranch was from a Mogul balloon train.
Nope. I'm merely pointing out the facts. Mogul existed. The
details regarding flight #4 are known. They put a Mogul Balloon
train, with its two dozen balloons, hardened balsa sticks and foil
radar reflectors, radiosonde, battery pack, aluminum fittings and
so on at precisely the right place and the right time. Since you're
claiming the alleged Roswell incident was the result of space
aliens crashing their space ship on the Foster ranch, it's
incumbent upon you to rule out the vastly more parsimonious and
credible possibility that Mac Brazel simply stumbled onto the debris
of a Mogul balloon train.
> > > ergo, if he can't answer the above challenges, then his hypothesis
> > > loses its "resolved beyond a reasonable doubt" property (if indeed
> > > the above are 'reasonable doubts').
Nope. I don't have to "answer" nothin'. Let's not forget: You
are the one making the extraordinary claim here, not me.
> > > > If you think there are little green men visiting the Earth, the ball is
> > > > in your court.
> > > To defend *his* hypothesis? ? ? ?
I have no hypothesis. I see no evidence suggesting there is a Roswell
"mystery" in need of a "solution."
> > > I challenge any other pseudo-skeptic on this group to support
> > > Klink's inverted view of science (the verb).
You are either confused or misinformed.
> > Lets see, you think we are visites by space people, but scientifically
> > we are supposed to prove a negative. Real Scientific there, Mr Wizard!!
> What I think is completely extraneous to Mogul being supported by
> the available evidence or not.
I believe the word you're looking for is "irrelevant" rather than
"extraneous." In any case, are you claiming that Project Mogul
and the New York University Constant-Level Balloon Project didn't
exist? This would constitute yet another extraordinary claim!
> Proving Mogul is *not* proving a negative, Col Klink.
> > > hint to the good Col: knocking down Mogul *in no way* strengthens
> > > my pet "crashed space jalopy" theory.
I agree.
> > Thanks for the admission on your part of no evidence. And it also does
> > not prove there are little green men, either.
Take heart, Troy. Once you come up with unambiguous and compelling
physical evidence required to support your Roswell space alien claims,
the Mogul balloon train crash known to have taken place at the right
time and right general location will be forgotten by everyone.
"Evidence rules."
Jim Rogers
Troy Dawson wrote:
> [bob dvm]:
> > > > On the
> > > > other hand, evidence for the existence of Project Mogul (and the NYU]
> > > > sworn witness testimony specifically mentions "foil, sticks, tape,
> > > > rubber" and other mundane materials consistent with Mogul balloon
> > > > debris. "Crashed aliens" is, at least in this case, a "solution" in
> > > > reasonable doubt.
> [troy]:
> > > > Explain why:
> > >
> > > > a) Brazel was detained for a week after the crash
> > >
> > > > b) Marcel stopped by his house to show his family the debris
> > >
> > > > c) Col Weaver failed to interview Lt Haut for his 1994 report.
> > >
...
> Bob is a proponent of the Mogul hypothesis.
>
> My 3 main problems with Mogul are listed above.
a) Brazel was causing them unrecorded "problems," such as demanding that
he be allowed to take his "flying saucer parts" in for the reward that
was being offered. Just a guess, of course. The offered reward is a
known fact, however (as "known" as these other items, at least), as is
the fact that Brazel was a dirt-poor rancher who could use the money.
b) Marcel didn't know what the weird stuff was; he'd never seen balloon
radar reflectors before.
c) Who knows; maybe he couldn't find him or didn't know he'd be helpful.
> ... The above items (if they are indeed factual) are problems with
> the Mogul hypothesis, or indicate dubious bona fides wrt the Air Force
> OSI investigation thereof.
This is the best you can do? All three are circumstantial, one is asking
why something _didn't_ happen, and we have no way of knowing what the
actual circumstances were. The Mogul hypothesis does not require that
these three putative facts be otherwise, so I don't see what the big
problem is that they present.
Jim
Troy Dawson
> Here is your retort which proves nothing (yet again):
>
> > Correctamundo.
> >
> > Bob DVM is **making the assertion** that the the debris recovered from
> > the Foster ranch was from a Mogul balloon train.
> >
> > loses its "resolved beyond a reasonable doubt" property (if indeed
> > the above are 'reasonable doubts').
> >
> > > in your court.
> >
> > To defend *his* hypothesis? ? ? ?
> >
> > Klink's inverted view of science (the verb).
>
> we are supposed to prove a negative. Real Scientific there, Mr Wizard!!
What I think is completely extraneous to Mogul being supported by
the available evidence or not.
Proving Mogul is *not* proving a negative, Col Klink.
> > hint to the good Col: knocking down Mogul *in no way* strengthens
> > my pet "crashed space jalopy" theory.
>
> Thanks for the admission on your part of no evidence. And it also does
> not prove there are little green men, either.
nss.
Troy Dawson
In article <5ovfa1$g...@q.seanet.com>, "Robert Imrie, DVM" <aleonis@{nospam}aleonis.seanet.com> wrote:
> Troy Dawson wrote:
>
> > > Here is your retort which proves nothing (yet again):
>
> > > > Correctamundo.
>
> > > > Bob DVM is **making the assertion** that the the debris recovered from
> > > > the Foster ranch was from a Mogul balloon train.
>
> Nope. I'm merely pointing out the facts. Mogul existed.
From your post that started this subthread:
> Balloon project) is overwhelming and conclusive. It's also clear that
> sworn witness testimony specifically mentions "foil, sticks, tape,
> rubber" and other mundane materials consistent with Mogul balloon
> debris. "Crashed aliens" is, at least in this case, a "solution" in
> search of a "mystery." The matter has been resolved beyond any
> reasonable doubt.
The last statement, if I am not mistaken, is an assertion that
Mogul can account for *all* the Foster Ranch debris, 'beyond
a reasonable doubt'.
Do you dispute this?
> Since you're
> claiming the alleged Roswell incident was the result of space
> aliens crashing their space ship on the Foster ranch, it's
this is not my claim, Bob DVM. My claim is that the Foster Ranch
debris was not of any known manufacture.
> incumbent upon you to rule out the vastly more parsimonious and
> credible possibility that Mac Brazel simply stumbled onto the debris
> of a Mogul balloon train.
Easily done; Brazel, having recovered previous balloon groundings on
the ranch, and Major Marcel, as an experience crash investigator for
the 509th Bombing Group, would *not* have mistaken Mogul debris for
something other than a mundane balloon crash.
Major Marcel:
"...it was not a weather balloon, nor an aircraft, nor a missile. It
was something else, which we didn't know what it was."
> Nope. I don't have to "answer" nothin'. Let's not forget: You
> are the one making the extraordinary claim here, not me.
So you wish to retract your "The matter has been resolved beyond any
reasonable doubt" statement?
> You are either confused or misinformed.
Perhaps both, but let's stick to the issues, shall we.
> > > Lets see, you think we are visites by space people, but scientifically
> > > we are supposed to prove a negative. Real Scientific there, Mr Wizard!!
>
> > What I think is completely extraneous to Mogul being supported by
> > the available evidence or not.
>
> I believe the word you're looking for is "irrelevant" rather than
> "extraneous."
Sorry, I just took the first word in the thesaurus.
> Take heart, Troy. Once you come up with unambiguous and compelling
> physical evidence required to support your Roswell space alien claims,
> the Mogul balloon train crash known to have taken place at the right
> time and right general location will be forgotten by everyone.
My 'pet theory' is 'space aliens', but my only claim is that Major
Marcel saw what he said he saw.
> "Evidence rules."
Agree. Too bad the evidence is apparently in this really big warehouse...
Schmoo
> >Yes, even I, as sceptical as anyone, wondered why the hell do the USAF even
> >CARE enough what happened 50 years ago to issue a statement?
> >
>
> Huh? The reason is simple - Congressional pressure to release complete
> study of the conspiracy theory.
denied by a government then you know it is true. No government will let
on that they have recovered alien technology because it could be useful
in reseach into new and advanced way of living or destroying oursleves.
In a recent article in the Australian TIME magazine entitlled "The
rosswell files" the author tells of some schools of thought that beleive
that computer chips, a-bombs and particle ray guns are all a result of
retrived alien technology. That's a good point that could be used
againsta government body as to why they would deny such a thing.
schmoo
Robert Imrie, DVM
Troy Dawson wrote:
> "Robert Imrie, DVM" wrote:
> > Troy Dawson wrote:
> > > > Here is your retort which proves nothing (yet again):
> > > > > Correctamundo.
> > > > > Bob DVM is **making the assertion** that the the debris recovered from
> > > > > the Foster ranch was from a Mogul balloon train.
> > Nope. I'm merely pointing out the facts. Mogul existed.
> From your post that started this subthread:
Said post did not "start this subthread."
> > [If, when you use the words "Roswell Incident," you are referring to the
> > recovery of debris from the Mogul Balloon train known to have been lost
> > over the area just days earlier, I agree with the last sentence. On the
> > other hand, evidence for the existence of Project Mogul (and the NYU]
> > Balloon project) is overwhelming and conclusive. It's also clear that
> > sworn witness testimony specifically mentions "foil, sticks, tape,
> > rubber" and other mundane materials consistent with Mogul balloon
> > debris. "Crashed aliens" is, at least in this case, a "solution" in
> > search of a "mystery." The matter has been resolved beyond any
> > reasonable doubt.
> The last statement, if I am not mistaken, is an assertion that
> Mogul can account for *all* the Foster Ranch debris, 'beyond
> a reasonable doubt'.
> Do you dispute this?
Yes.
> > Since you're
> > claiming the alleged Roswell incident was the result of space
> > aliens crashing their space ship on the Foster ranch, it's
> > [incumbent upon you to rule out the vastly more parsimonious and
> > credible possibility that Mac Brazel simply stumbled onto the debris
> > of a Mogul balloon train.]
> this is not my claim, Bob DVM. My claim is that the Foster Ranch
> debris was not of any known manufacture.
Prove it.
> > ...incumbent upon you to rule out the vastly more parsimonious and
> > credible possibility that Mac Brazel simply stumbled onto the debris
> > of a Mogul balloon train.
> Easily done; Brazel, having recovered previous balloon groundings on
> the ranch, and Major Marcel, as an experience crash investigator for
> the 509th Bombing Group, would *not* have mistaken Mogul debris for
> something other than a mundane balloon crash.
Nope. Herein lies your problem. You are basing your argument (and
your thinking) on a false assumption. The road to Fantasy Land is
paved with the claims of folks who "couldn't have been mistaken." No
one is immune from misperception, misidentification, self-deception,
or delusion.
> Major Marcel:
> "...it was not a weather balloon, nor an aircraft, nor a missile. It
> was something else, which we didn't know what it was."
This is an unsubstantiated claim. It carries no weight in the
effort to establish that an alien space ship crashed at Roswell.
> > Nope. I don't have to "answer" nothin'. Let's not forget: You
> > are the one making the extraordinary claim here, not me.
> So you wish to retract your "The matter has been resolved beyond any
> reasonable doubt" statement?
Nope.
> > You are either confused or misinformed.
> Perhaps both, but let's stick to the issues, shall we.
Agreed. I believe you were about to prove the Foster ranch debris
was manufactured by some agency you can't identify. Please proceed.
> My 'pet theory' is 'space aliens', but my only claim is that Major
> Marcel saw what he said he saw.
Excellent. Prove it.
> > "Evidence rules."
> Agree. Too bad the evidence is apparently in this really big warehouse...
:-)
Mitchell Coffey
Tachyon wrote in article <33AC68...@exadyne.com>...
>Josh Olaf wrote:
>>
snip
>
>> Perhaps we should take
>> the CIA's Robertson Panel to heart, and examine the psychological
>> aspects of the phenomenon more in depth. Maybe then, we will realize
>> why the FOIA doesn't guarantee us the right to access the information
>> that is still being suppressed in the interest of 'national security'.
>
>
>"National security" means not letting just any yokel browse the designs
>of our most sophisticated weapons technologies to prove or disprove his
>pet hypothesis, whatever it may be. A lot of intelligence data is
>classified long after it is useless because the nature of the data gives
>a big clue as to how it was collected. Since many intelligence
>gathering assets remain valid long after the intelligence that is
>gathered using them is useless, this is necessary to maintain the
>usefulness of the intelligence assets.
>
>
snip
>-Tachyon
Tach,
Having worked in the US intelligence community at one time, I might add
some additional reasons why "a lot of intelligence data is classified long
after it is useless." To begin with, this may happen because, in some
instances, keeping information classified stands to benefit one's career.
Also, there are people in the intelligence community who are pretty much
against declassifying anything. And sometimes there is material that
remains classified FOR NO REASON WHATSOEVER. Never assume that classified
material is regularly reviewed to see if it is justified to keep it
classified. In short, not too much should be read into the continued
classification of any particular set of information.
--
Mitchell Coffey
mco...@grci.com.
****************************************************
I read a book on cognitive dissonance once,
but it only proved my point.
Avital Pilpel
Troy Dawson wrote:
>
> In article <5ovfa1$g...@q.seanet.com>, "Robert Imrie, DVM" <aleonis@{nospam}aleonis.seanet.com> wrote:
>
> > Troy Dawson wrote:
> >
> > > > Here is your retort which proves nothing (yet again):
> >
> > > > > Correctamundo.
> >
> > > > > Bob DVM is **making the assertion** that the the debris recovered from
> > > > > the Foster ranch was from a Mogul balloon train.
> >
> > Nope. I'm merely pointing out the facts. Mogul existed.
>
> From your post that started this subthread:
>
> > sworn witness testimony specifically mentions "foil, sticks, tape,
> > rubber" and other mundane materials consistent with Mogul balloon
> > debris. "Crashed aliens" is, at least in this case, a "solution" in
> > search of a "mystery." The matter has been resolved beyond any
> > reasonable doubt.
>
> The last statement, if I am not mistaken, is an assertion that
> Mogul can account for *all* the Foster Ranch debris, 'beyond
> a reasonable doubt'.
>
> Do you dispute this?
>
> > claiming the alleged Roswell incident was the result of space
> > aliens crashing their space ship on the Foster ranch, it's
>
> debris was not of any known manufacture.
>
Oh, Dear. Here we go again. Say I claim that my car is made by ford, and you
claim it is actually made by "no known manufacturer" (with the clear
implication that it is made by aliens). Well, I bring the hood, and it fits
with the hood of a ford Taurus, model 92. Then I bring the steering wheel,
and lo and behold, it too has "ford" written on it.
Now, you do not contradict this evidence - but you claim that I didn't bring
the *seats*, and therefore it since it is still *possible* that they were
manufactured by some unknown being, and therefoire that it is *probable* that
this is what had happened; then, you take all the evidence that it is a ford -
the hood and steering wheel - and say "since you didn't bring the seats, you
must be hiding something, and the hood and steering wheel are a fake!!!".
Would you be convinced of someone who made such a claim about your car? Of
course not. but this is exactly the type of "evidence" the UFO buffs "give"
for rosewell.
when I claim my car is a ford, this is quite an ordinary claim. This
claim requires some proof, but surely not an extraordinary one. the Mogul
baloon explanation has quite satisfactory evidence to explain the crash, and
no evidence was ever shown to contradict it.
The *only* thing the UFO buffs have going for them is that nobody took the
trouble to analyze *every possible piece of the wreck*, and that the mogul
explanation does not *logically exclude* all other possibilities. so what?
If I see a ford parked in a garage, do I bother to look under the hood and
send a bolt to an anlysis in order to make *absolutley sure* that it is a real
ford, and not an alien-made mock-up made of titanium? Is this very fact *any*
'proof' whatsoever of the _very_ extraordinay claim that it is an alien
mock-up?
We have here two explanations: One that fits all the facts, requires no
extraordinary assumptions, and is supported by lots of independant, relaible
evidence.
The other makes an amazing claims, has no evidence that is reliable
whatsoever, and its only "support" is that the oter explanation was not proved
to *logically* exclude all other possibilities. But that is never the case,
in _any_ explanation! And that is no support whatsoevcer to the UFO
hypothesis. Essentially, the UFO buffs' claim is that an UFO is *logically*
possible, therefore it *could* have been an UFO, therefore it *was* a UFO,
complete with governemnt coverup.
But by the same logic, it is *logically possible* that your family is a bunch
of clones, therefroe they *could* be clones, therefore they *are* clones and
everybody is hiding the awful truth from you...
Now, where do we put people who reach this admittedly perfectly _logically
possible_ conclusion???
Avital Pilpel.
=====================================
The majority is never right.
-Lazarus Long
=====================================
George Fergus
[The following is a teletype message from the Dallas, TX, FBI office to
the Cincinati,
OH, FBI office regarding the event at Roswell. The "xx" means it was
scratched out,
"??" means I couldn't read it. The following material is from: _The
Roswell Report:
A Historical Perspective_, George M. Eberhart editor, 1991 the J. Allen
Hynek Center
for UFO Studies. ISBN 0-929343-59-X.]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FBI DALLAS 7-8-47 6-17 PM
DIRECTOR AND SAC, CINCINNATI URGENT
FLYING DISC, INFORMATION CONCERNING. MAJOR CURTAN, HEADQUARTERS
EIGHTH AIR FORCE, TELEPHONICALLY ADVISED THIS OFFICE THAT AN OBJECT
PURPORTING TO BE A FLYING DISC WAS RE COVERED NEAR ROSWELL, NEW
MEXICO, THIS DATE. THE DISC IS HEXAGONAL IN SHAPE AND WAS SUSPENDED
FROM A BALLON BY A CABLE, WHICH BALLON WAS APPROXIMATELY TWENTY
FEET IN DIAMETER. MAJOR CURTAN FURTHER ADVISED THAT THE OBJECT FOUND
RESEMBLES A HIGH ALTITUDE WEATHER BALLOON WITH A RADAR
REFLECTOR, BUT THAT TELEPHONIC CONVERSATION BETWEEN THEIR OFFICE
AND WRIGHT FIELD HAD NOT xxxxxxxxxx BORNE OUT THIS BELIEF. DISC AND
BALLOON BEING TRANSPORTED TO WRIGHT FIELD BY SPECIAL PLANE FOR EXAMIN
INFORMATION PROVIDED THIS OFFICE BECAUSE OF NATIONAL INTEREST IN CASE
xxxx AND FACT THAT NATIONAL BROADCASTING COMPANY, ASSOCIATED PRESS, A
OTHERS ATTEMPTING TO BREAK STORY OF LOCATION OF DISC TODAY. MAJOR
CURTAN ADVISED WOULD REQUEST WRIGHT FIELD TO ADVISE CINCINNATI
OFFICE RESULTS OF EXAMINATION. NO FURTHER INVESTIGATION BEING
CONDUCTED.
WYLY
END
CXXXX ACK IN ORDER
WA ?? FBI CI MJW
BPI HS
S-32 PM O
O-22 PM OM FBI WASH DC VH
----------------------------------------------------------------------
* Origin: *** Odyssey UFO Echo *** Cullman, Alabama 1-205-739-1469
Col Klink
> Mitchell Coffey wrote:
> Having worked in the US intelligence community at one time, I might add
> some additional reasons why "a lot of intelligence data is classified long
> after it is useless." To begin with, this may happen because, in some
> instances, keeping information classified stands to benefit one's career.
> Also, there are people in the intelligence community who are pretty much
> against declassifying anything. And sometimes there is material that
> remains classified FOR NO REASON WHATSOEVER. Never assume that classified
> material is regularly reviewed to see if it is justified to keep it
> classified. In short, not too much should be read into the continued
> classification of any particular set of information.
Exactly. Part of it is sheer laziness, part is the volumes of data that
has been collected. All declassified data must first be reviewed for not
only the content of the information, but the possibilities of security
problems vis-a-vis other data in other sources. Who wants to perform
this odious job?
The whole picture of any situation is rarely revealed in reading one
letter or report. Reams of paper are used in fleshing out any subject,
and for good reason. The government does not write up reports for the
publishing of best sellers. Reports have specific audiences, and are
constructed with this in mind.
Anyone read the entire Warren Report? 26 Volumes? Welcome to the world
of government documents!!!
Col Klink
George Fergus
Troy Dawson wrote:
> > incumbent upon you to rule out the vastly more parsimonious and
> > credible possibility that Mac Brazel simply stumbled onto the debris
> > of a Mogul balloon train.
>
> the ranch, and Major Marcel, as an experience crash investigator for
> the 509th Bombing Group, would *not* have mistaken Mogul debris for
> something other than a mundane balloon crash.
Normal weather balloons of the type that might have landed in the area
of Mac Brazel's ranch, or been seen by Major Marcel, might not have
radar
targets attached to them. Anyone who was not familiar with these would
certainly describe the debris from a radar target as something quite
different from a simple "weather balloon". Note that Captain Sheridan
Cavitt, who accompanied Marcel to the Brazel ranch, has always stated
that it looked like a weather balloon to him. Note that after the
debris reached Ft. Worth weather officer Irving Newton identified it as
coming from a balloon and a radar target, particularly because he had
seen such devices used as bombing aids during the war.
In a 1989 interview (quoted in Randle & Schmitt's "The Truth About the
UFO Crash at Roswell") Newton recalls "The major [Newton didn't know
Marcel] kept pointing to portions of the balloon to ask if I thought it
would be found on a regular balloon. [Newton said he had the impression
the major was trying to save face and not appear to be a fool who
couldn't
tell the difference between a normal balloon and something from outer
space.]"
From Newton's affidavit for the 1994 Air Force report: "...while I was
examining the debris, Major Marcel was picking up pieces of the target
sticks and trying to convince me that some notations on the sticks were
alien writings. There were figures on the sticks, lavender or pink in
color, appeared to be weather faded markings, with no rhyme or reason
(sic). He did not convince me that these were alien writings."
Col Klink
Avital:
Very good post. The points of logic you point out are coherent and
rational.
For myself, the population of stars in the Universe leads me to believe
that there are pretty good odds that there is life out there. I would
frankly be surprised if we were alone in the cosmos.
If we are being visited by those from another place, then I have yet to
see the evidence for it. Vague claims that the evidence resides in
warehouses *somewhere* is an admission of no evidence at all. I could
claim there were five headed purple unicorns in a warehouse somewhere,
no one could disprove my assertion due to the shell game I could play
with which warehouse the evidence resides in. More like three card
Monte, since the evidence does not exist.
For those who accept on faith such evidence exists, I can only say
*buyer beware*. Such a habit is liable to spill over into their lives in
a manner that could prove detrimental to their security, both physical
and economic.
Smoke and mirror proofs are no proof at all. Woulda coulda shoulda does
not cut it. The very tiresome *governmental coverup* tactic is so
threadbare, it no longer clothes the nakedness of superstition, as it
once did. Paranoia is no substitute for rational debate.
For those who believe in Roswell as a representation of visits from
extraterrestrials based on the thin bits and pieces of data that was
gathered, this is your choice. Just be consistent in your acceptance
level of proofs when the fantastic assertions come back at you.
Col Klink
bob tarantino
[snip]
Avital Pilpel wrote:
[snip]
> The *only* thing the UFO buffs have going for them is that nobody took the
> trouble to analyze *every possible piece of the wreck*, and that the mogul
> explanation does not *logically exclude* all other possibilities. so what?
> If I see a ford parked in a garage, do I bother to look under the hood and
> send a bolt to an anlysis in order to make *absolutley sure* that it is a real
> ford, and not an alien-made mock-up made of titanium? Is this very fact *any*
> 'proof' whatsoever of the _very_ extraordinay claim that it is an alien
> mock-up?
>
> We have here two explanations: One that fits all the facts, requires no
> extraordinary assumptions, and is supported by lots of independant, relaible
> evidence.
>
> The other makes an amazing claims, has no evidence that is reliable
> whatsoever, and its only "support" is that the oter explanation was not proved
> to *logically* exclude all other possibilities. But that is never the case,
> in _any_ explanation! And that is no support whatsoevcer to the UFO
> hypothesis. Essentially, the UFO buffs' claim is that an UFO is *logically*
> possible, therefore it *could* have been an UFO, therefore it *was* a UFO,
> complete with governemnt coverup.
>
> But by the same logic, it is *logically possible* that your family is a bunch
> of clones, therefroe they *could* be clones, therefore they *are* clones and
> everybody is hiding the awful truth from you...
>
> Now, where do we put people who reach this admittedly perfectly _logically
> possible_ conclusion???
>>>>>>>>
Let me get this straight (50 years later...) a mogul balloon crashed, and Brazel thought
it was a spaceship. At or near the same time, in the same vicinity, test dummies
crashed down on the balloon wreckage (that weren't yet tested) and were mistaken for
aliens. [how'm I doin] The Army was fooled by balloon wreckage, so they released the
press coverage the first day saying it was a "flying disk". Then realizing their
mistake reported the weather balloon story. Fifty years later, we are given a theory,
that parachute dummies AKA "sierra sam" that was tested in the 1950s was "probably" to
blame for the stories of alien bodies eventhough the Roswell crash happened in 1947.
Ya know, I don't think the Air Force needed to do this. I realize that the 50th
aniversary was coming up and all, but a lot of people were quite satisfied with the
mogul story. Don't you think? Then again, maybe they did need to do this.
-bob tarantino
#######################
A skeptic is someone who, when he sees the handwriting on the wall, claims it is a
forgery." -Morris Bender
Earle Jones
In article <5p0jsj$n...@q.seanet.com>, "Robert Imrie, DVM"
<aleonis@{nospam}aleonis.seanet.com> wrote:
>Troy Dawson wrote:
[.....]
"It is easier to believe in irrational terrestrials
than in rational extraterrestrials."
B. Oliver
__
__/\_\
/\_\/_/
\/_/\_\ earle
\/_/ jones
Col Klink
> Isn't it more likely that the military was (and probably still is)
> obscuring evidence of: (a) the sorry state of early weapons research and
> testing after WWII,
Well, I wouldnt term it sorry, exactly, but certainly the military
wishes always to avoid discussions of their embarrassments.
there was a lot of missile research that wern on with Von Braun and
other German scientists. Plus, we were developing <sarcasm on> bigger
and better <sarcasm off> nuclear weapons.
> (b) a lack of military confidence in their ability
> to defend US airspace at the dawn of a very uncertain period in US
> foreign relations,
This fact you bring up is covered in Carl Sagan's book *The Demon
Haunted World*. The Southwest is/was the soft underbelly of American
defense. And it was/is a vulnerable spot.
> or (c) unconstitutional uses of troops, hardware and
> territory?
>
> I know this isn't as sexy and alluring as the "alien conspiracy"
> explanation, but it fits better with what we know about the
> U.S. military's occasional tendency to shun oversight and
> accountability, and with what we know about how complex bureaucracies
> treat information (i.e. inefficiently, and often with more regard for
> their own public image than for the rights and well-being of private
> citizens).
>
> Just a thought.
It is the likely explanation. But face it, it is fun to believe in
little green men.
Col Klink
J.B. Bandow
From rmans...@hwcn.org Fri Jun 27 08:58:17 1997
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 06:07:14 -0400 (EDT)
From: Rick Mansfield <rmans...@hwcn.org>
To: Bradleius <band...@muss.cis.mcmaster.ca>
Subject: (fwd) Hard to believe... (fwd)
ROSWELL, N.M. (AP) -- Today, the United States Air Force issued a
long-awaited report about the "Roswell Incident" in which some people
claim that software from Microsoft functioned correctly in Roswell, New
Mexico in 1947. As expected, the government's 261-page report denied that
there had ever been any evidence that this had ever happened, despite
eyewitness reports to the contrary. The report claims that what witnesses
actually saw was an experimental Macintosh running a variation of Unix, or
perhaps an experimental Unix machine using a form of the MacOS.
Although the official Air Force position is that this is their final
report on the matter, long-time Microsoft devotees are not satisfied. "We
know it really happened," said Gil Bates, spokesman for a group of
Microsoft enthusiasts who call themselves "The .exe-files". The group's
claim of having seen Windows run without crashing is tainted by the
revelation earlier this year that some members had falsified evidence by
doctoring output from standard Unix utilities and passing it off as
authentic Windows data files.
--
Selected by Jim Griffith. MAIL your joke to fu...@clari.net.
Attribute the joke's source if at all possible. A Daemon will auto-reply.
Do you know about rec.humor.funny.reruns? It has all the best jokes from
the archives of this group. RHF does only new material.
See also at http://comedy.clari.net/rhf
--
Troy Dawson
In article <5p0jsj$n...@q.seanet.com>, "Robert Imrie, DVM" <aleonis@{nospam}aleonis.seanet.com> wrote:
> Troy Dawson wrote:
>
> > "Robert Imrie, DVM" wrote:
>
> > > Troy Dawson wrote:
>
> > > > > Here is your retort which proves nothing (yet again):
>
> > > > > > Correctamundo.
>
> > > > > > Bob DVM is **making the assertion** that the the debris recovered from
> > > > > > the Foster ranch was from a Mogul balloon train.
>
> > > Nope. I'm merely pointing out the facts. Mogul existed.
>
> > From your post that started this subthread:
>
> Said post did not "start this subthread."
Obfuscation would work better if you added x-no archive on
your reader header prefs, bob.
those playing at home, with more time than sense, can follow
this particularly pathetic subthread arc from bob dvm's
response to tachyon by searching for 'correctamundo' on
dejanews, and walking the article headers back.
> > > [If, when you use the words "Roswell Incident," you are referring to the
> > > recovery of debris from the Mogul Balloon train known to have been lost
[blah^3 (best said in the Peanut's teacher voice)]
> > > debris. "Crashed aliens" is, at least in this case, a "solution" in
> > > search of a "mystery." The matter has been resolved beyond any
> > > reasonable doubt.
>
> > The last statement, if I am not mistaken, is an assertion that
> > Mogul can account for *all* the Foster Ranch debris, 'beyond
> > a reasonable doubt'.
>
> > Do you dispute this?
>
> Yes.
So just how do you reach 'the matter has been resolved beyond
a reasonable doubt, if you *don't* assert that Mogul can account
for all of the Foster Ranch debris? I'm getting horribly confused
here.
> > > Since you're
> > > claiming the alleged Roswell incident was the result of space
> > > aliens crashing their space ship on the Foster ranch, it's
> > > [incumbent upon you to rule out the vastly more parsimonious and
> > > credible possibility that Mac Brazel simply stumbled onto the debris
> > > of a Mogul balloon train.]
>
> > this is not my claim, Bob DVM. My claim is that the Foster Ranch
> > debris was not of any known manufacture.
>
> Prove it.
Not tonight bob, I've got a headache.
> > > ...incumbent upon you to rule out the vastly more parsimonious and
> > > credible possibility that Mac Brazel simply stumbled onto the debris
> > > of a Mogul balloon train.
>
> > Easily done; Brazel, having recovered previous balloon groundings on
> > the ranch, and Major Marcel, as an experience crash investigator for
> > the 509th Bombing Group, would *not* have mistaken Mogul debris for
> > something other than a mundane balloon crash.
>
> Nope. Herein lies your problem. You are basing your argument (and
> your thinking) on a false assumption. The road to Fantasy Land is
> paved with the claims of folks who "couldn't have been mistaken." No
> one is immune from misperception, misidentification, self-deception,
> or delusion.
I agree. My belief in Major Marcel is *not* 100%. More like 99.44%.
> > Major Marcel:
>
> > "...it was not a weather balloon, nor an aircraft, nor a missile. It
> > was something else, which we didn't know what it was."
>
> This is an unsubstantiated claim. It carries no weight in the
> effort to establish that an alien space ship crashed at Roswell.
>
> > > Nope. I don't have to "answer" nothin'. Let's not forget: You
> > > are the one making the extraordinary claim here, not me.
>
> > So you wish to retract your "The matter has been resolved beyond any
> > reasonable doubt" statement?
>
> Nope.
Ok.
> > > You are either confused or misinformed.
>
> > Perhaps both, but let's stick to the issues, shall we.
>
> Agreed. I believe you were about to prove the Foster ranch debris
> was manufactured by some agency you can't identify. Please proceed.
We could do this with 20-Questions if you like.
I'll start:
Q1: Was it an animal, vegetable or mineral?
> > My 'pet theory' is 'space aliens', but my only claim is that Major
> > Marcel saw what he said he saw.
>
> Excellent. Prove it.
I wish *I* were getting paid for this...
Troy Dawson
> > > Since you're
> > > claiming the alleged Roswell incident was the result of space
> > > aliens crashing their space ship on the Foster ranch, it's
> >
> > this is not my claim, Bob DVM. My claim is that the Foster Ranch
> > debris was not of any known manufacture.
> >
>
> Oh, Dear. Here we go again. Say I claim that my car is made by ford, and you
> claim it is actually made by "no known manufacturer" (with the clear
> implication that it is made by aliens). Well, I bring the hood, and it fits
> with the hood of a ford Taurus, model 92. Then I bring the steering wheel,
> and lo and behold, it too has "ford" written on it.
This is fine -- now go show me the debris recovered from the Foster ranch.
I'll give you a hint: the photos in Ramey's office ain't it.
> Now, you do not contradict this evidence - but you claim that I didn't bring
> the *seats*, and therefore it since it is still *possible* that they were
> manufactured by some unknown being, and therefoire that it is *probable* that
> this is what had happened; then, you take all the evidence that it is a ford -
> the hood and steering wheel - and say "since you didn't bring the seats, you
> must be hiding something, and the hood and steering wheel are a fake!!!".
none such argument from this Believer. I look at what Marcel said about your car:
thin metal that couldn't be dented with a sledgehammer, and come to the following
conclusions:
a) Marcel is lying
or:
b) you don't have a Ford Taurus (but maybe a Saturn :))
> when I claim my car is a ford, this is quite an ordinary claim. This
> claim requires some proof, but surely not an extraordinary one. the Mogul
> baloon explanation has quite satisfactory evidence to explain the crash, and
> no evidence was ever shown to contradict it.
Mogul would match your car on the Foster ranch (after being pitched out of an
orbitting C-130) *much* better than what the witnesses say they found (Cavitt
& a Brazel's daughter aside).
> We have here two explanations: One that fits all the facts, requires no
> extraordinary assumptions, and is supported by lots of independant, relaible
> evidence.
If Mogul fit all the facts, do you think I'd be arguing here???
These 3, plus dozens more, are significant problems with the Mogul theory:
> > a) Brazel was detained for a week after the crash
>
> > b) Marcel stopped by his house to show his family the debris
>
> > c) Col Weaver failed to interview Lt Haut for his 1994 report.
(the last one just illustrates how weak the AFOSI 'investigative' effort
really was ('course, now with the 'dummy' time-compression theory, such
illustrative efforts on my part may not be so necessary)).
> The other makes an amazing claims, has no evidence that is reliable
Twining, Exon, DuBose, Blanchard, Schulgen. Those are just the Generals.
> whatsoever, and its only "support" is that the oter explanation was not proved
> to *logically* exclude all other possibilities. But that is never the case,
I don't need Mogul to exclude anything. It just has to have *some* sort
of consistency with the known facts.
It is a *very* parsiminous explanation; its only problem is that it's *too* parsiminous.
> in _any_ explanation! And that is no support whatsoevcer to the UFO
> hypothesis. Essentially, the UFO buffs' claim is that an UFO is *logically*
> possible, therefore it *could* have been an UFO, therefore it *was* a UFO,
> complete with governemnt coverup.
I claim:
Marcel recovered something of unknown manufacture at the Foster ranch, his CO
decided to release news of this to the press, and after that the higher
echelons decided that this sort of thing had grave national security
implications, and put a lid on it.
I believe the available facts support this position quite nicely, thank you.
> =====================================
> The majority is never right.
>
> -Lazarus Long
> =====================================
It saddens me that you could have read such a wonderful book & not learned
how to think.
Troy Dawson
> [The following is a teletype message from the Dallas, TX, FBI office to
> the Cincinati,
> OH, FBI office regarding the event at Roswell. The "xx" means it was
> scratched out,
> "??" means I couldn't read it. The following material is from: _The
> Roswell Report:
> A Historical Perspective_, George M. Eberhart editor, 1991 the J. Allen
> Hynek Center
> for UFO Studies. ISBN 0-929343-59-X.]
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> FBI DALLAS 7-8-47 6-17 PM
>
> DIRECTOR AND SAC, CINCINNATI URGENT
>
> FLYING DISC, INFORMATION CONCERNING. MAJOR CURTAN, HEADQUARTERS
>
> EIGHTH AIR FORCE, TELEPHONICALLY ADVISED THIS OFFICE THAT AN OBJECT
>
> PURPORTING TO BE A FLYING DISC WAS RE COVERED NEAR ROSWELL, NEW
>
Hoover is on record whinging how the Air Force was snowing him
on its flying disk investigation.
Troy Dawson
> For those who believe in Roswell as a representation of visits from
> extraterrestrials based on the thin bits and pieces of data that was
> gathered, this is your choice. Just be consistent in your acceptance
> level of proofs when the fantastic assertions come back at you.
>
> Col Klink
very good advice.
Troy Dawson
In article <33B419...@areaplg2.corp.mot.com>, George Fergus <fer...@areaplg2.corp.mot.com> wrote:
> Troy Dawson wrote:
> > > incumbent upon you to rule out the vastly more parsimonious and
> > > credible possibility that Mac Brazel simply stumbled onto the debris
> > > of a Mogul balloon train.
> >
> > Easily done; Brazel, having recovered previous balloon groundings on
> > the ranch, and Major Marcel, as an experience crash investigator for
> > the 509th Bombing Group, would *not* have mistaken Mogul debris for
> > something other than a mundane balloon crash.
>
> Normal weather balloons of the type that might have landed in the area
> of Mac Brazel's ranch, or been seen by Major Marcel, might not have
> radar
> targets attached to them. Anyone who was not familiar with these would
> certainly describe the debris from a radar target as something quite
> different from a simple "weather balloon".
Ahh, so you don't think pieces from a busted radiosonde fooled
Marcel & Blanchard, but rather those mysterious Mogul radar target?
Which part of radar targets couldn't be broken with a large hammer?
> Note that Captain Sheridan
> Cavitt, who accompanied Marcel to the Brazel ranch, has always stated
> that it looked like a weather balloon to him.
Note that Captain Cavitt, the BG's CIC [Counter Intel] man, has
apparently stated that he never went to the ranch, blah blah blah.
To save time, I'll just paste a random thread on Cavitt:
=== begin random repost ===
>>DR- Cavitt was unaware of the Mogul hypothesis when interviewed and was obviously
>>DR- making his story conform to the old 1947 weather balloon cover story.
>Perhaps it's obvious to you, but it isn't necessarily so obvious to the
>rest of us.
Let's see. Alleged Mogul balloon 600 feet tall, 23 balloons, multiple radar
targets. Cavitt, 20 square foot crash (Cavitt's affidavit). Apparently Imrie
with his gigantic "scientific" brain can't see the obvious discrepancy.
> Can you rule out the possibility that, if Cavitt was
>genuinely unaware of the existence of Mogul (which seems highly likely)
>he might have thought the Roswell debris was, indeed, the result of a
>downed weather balloon?
Cavitt described a tiny amount of debris and said it was consistent with what
was shown in Ramey's office. And I recall somebody named Robert Imrie, DVM
practically calling people liars not too long ago for referring to the giant
multiballoon arrays as "a Mogul balloon." So make up your mind Imrie. Was it a
big Mogul crash with debris blown or dragged all over the place to keep it
consistent with Schreiber and Brazel's story (not to mention Marcel, Brazel Jr.,
Payne, and Adair), or Cavitt's tiny balloon crash?
=== end repost ===
Given Cavitt's lack of consistency with his stories, I find his credibility...
lacking.
> Note that after the
> debris reached Ft. Worth weather officer Irving Newton identified it as
> coming from a balloon and a radar target, particularly because he had
> seen such devices used as bombing aids during the war.
First you're going to have to establish that what Newton was describing
was the Roswell debris, and not the weather balloon that was
scrounged up for the reporters.
> In a 1989 interview (quoted in Randle & Schmitt's "The Truth About the
> UFO Crash at Roswell") Newton recalls "The major [Newton didn't know
> Marcel] kept pointing to portions of the balloon to ask if I thought it
> would be found on a regular balloon. [Newton said he had the impression
> the major was trying to save face and not appear to be a fool who
> couldn't
> tell the difference between a normal balloon and something from outer
> space.]"
The events in Ramey's office are indeed mysterious. Further investigation
is necessary. If Newton could remember whether Marcel was pointing
to debris on Ramey's desk, or the debris on the floor of the office,
then we would know exactly *which* debris Marcel thought was extraordinary.
> From Newton's affidavit for the 1994 Air Force report: "...while I was
> examining the debris, Major Marcel was picking up pieces of the target
> sticks and trying to convince me that some notations on the sticks were
> alien writings. There were figures on the sticks, lavender or pink in
> color, appeared to be weather faded markings, with no rhyme or reason
> (sic). He did not convince me that these were alien writings."
from Rudiak's excellent witness summary (posted last year, search on
'Compiled by Rudiak' on www.dejanews.com to find):
W/O IRVING NEWTON
(Newton was the weather officer called in to identify the crash
debris at Gen. Ramey's press conference on July 8, 1947. Several
people, including Marcel and Ramey's chief of staff Gen. Thomas
Dubose, say Newton never saw the real crash debris, which allegedly
was swapped with a tattered weather balloon and Rawin foil radar
target)
(B&M, questioning Newton in July 1979 Interview)
Q. But wouldn't the people at Roswell have been able to identify a
balloon on their own?
A. They certainly should have. It was a regular Rawin sonde. They
must have seen hundreds of them.
Q. Can you describe the fabric? Was it easy to tear?
A. Certainly. You would have to be careful not to tear it. The
metal involved was like an extremely thin Alcoa wrap. It was very
flimsy.
Sherilyn
In article <td-280697...@ppp45-max01-tyo.twics.com>, Troy Dawson
<t...@twics-bounce.com> writes
>
>> For those who believe in Roswell as a representation of visits from
>> extraterrestrials based on the thin bits and pieces of data that was
>> gathered, this is your choice. Just be consistent in your acceptance
>> level of proofs when the fantastic assertions come back at you.
>>
>> Col Klink
>
>very good advice.
>
--
Sherilyn
T...@astro.net
In article <33B420...@texas.net>, dkw...@texas.net wrote:
>Avital:
>
>Very good post. The points of logic you point out are coherent and
>rational.
>
>For myself, the population of stars in the Universe leads me to believe
>that there are pretty good odds that there is life out there. I would
>frankly be surprised if we were alone in the cosmos.
>
>If we are being visited by those from another place, then I have yet to
>see the evidence for it. Vague claims that the evidence resides in
>warehouses *somewhere* is an admission of no evidence at all. I could
>claim there were five headed purple unicorns in a warehouse somewhere,
>no one could disprove my assertion due to the shell game I could play
>with which warehouse the evidence resides in. More like three card
>Monte, since the evidence does not exist.
>
>For those who accept on faith such evidence exists, I can only say
>*buyer beware*. Such a habit is liable to spill over into their lives in
>a manner that could prove detrimental to their security, both physical
>and economic.
>
>Smoke and mirror proofs are no proof at all. Woulda coulda shoulda does
>not cut it. The very tiresome *governmental coverup* tactic is so
>threadbare, it no longer clothes the nakedness of superstition, as it
>once did. Paranoia is no substitute for rational debate.
>
>extraterrestrials based on the thin bits and pieces of data that was
>gathered, this is your choice. Just be consistent in your acceptance
>level of proofs when the fantastic assertions come back at you.
>
>Col Klink
Wow! 2 rational people! Nice job both of you. Couldn't agree more.
Tom
E-mail me at the address below, not with the above address.
That address is to help stop junk e-mail!
Tom Randall Amateur Radio - KB2SMS
tran...@mhv.net Mt. Beacon Amateur Radio Club /ARRL/10-10
Member: AAVSO Solar Division
My Astronomy/Ham radio site: http://www1.mhv.net/~trandall/welcome.html
Saturn: 97SLm Si/Gr AC AU+ SW NG ML
Opinions herein are mine and may not be that of MHV.NET!
Fred Goodwin
In article <33B155...@rci.rogers>, Eric Scott <esc...@rci.rogers> wrote:
>If this is a dead issue, why the hell is USAF still beating it with a
>stick.
Because they were asked to -- they aren't bringing it up again just for
the hell of it!
The fact that you ask indicates you are not aware that it was UFO
believers in government cover-ups who wrote NM Representative Stephen
Schwiff, asking him to investigate their charges of a government
cover-up that prompted the USAF's first report (Wash Post, 1-14-94).
Schwiff asked the GAO to search for documents evidencing government
procedures for investigating aircraft crashes, in particular any
documents regarding the purported crash near Roswell in 1947. The GAO
in turn asked the Air Force.
When the Air Force released its documents and Mogul information in
July, 1994, the believers' reactions could have been anticipated: "The
report is unacceptable and in any event fails to discuss the recovery of
alien bodies".
Hence the latest release of government documents.
>Their press release stating it was crashed parachute dummies that
>landed on Roswell seems to me to be so obviously stupid that there are
>two reasons for it:
>1) USAF is essentially run by complete morons, who don't know when
>they've completed a cover-up.
>2) USAF is trying to promote the controversy. Why, I'm not sure. Is it a
>red herring? Are they trying to keep people interested so that there
>attention is kept for other, more important agendas? Or do they want
>people to keep interested so that they will find out the truth, or be
>ready for it when it comes out.
Man, in the eyes of believers, the Air Force simply cannot win -- had
they never released anything, they would be damned for continuing a
cover-up. When they *do* release materials, they are accused of a red
herring. What in the world would you have them do?
>By the way, refutations I've heard on the press release, are as follows:
>The crash dummy idea does not agree with the evidence for two reasons:
>1) CUFOS (I believe that was the org I heard respond on CBC radio)
>states that parachute dummies were not used un testing before 1955.
The newspaper accounts I've read say the same thing -- but no one in the
government is claiming the test dummies were used in 1947. The theory
is that witnesses might have seen dummies in the mid-to-late 50s, and
with the passage of time and recent focus on the Roswell incident,
gotten their dates mixed up.
AFAIK, the Roswell aliens were not even mentioned in most UFO books
before the 1980 book by Berlitz; e.g., I don't recall it being in
Edwards' "Flying Saucers: Serious Business" published in the mid 60s.
>2) The key witness accounts state that the bodies were definitely not
>human, down to no thumb, and the well known head physiology we know as
>grays. It does not follow that any test dummy, in order to test out
>forces upon a human body, would make a dummy that is non human in
>structure.
Has anyone (in particular, believers) ever wondered why there were no
contemporaneous reports of the "aliens"? Unlike the timely (and
*published*) reports of the foil-like debris, the first report of the
"aliens" was by Jim Ragsdale in Randle's 1992 book.
Given it took 45 years for the "revelation" to come out, isn't it
possible that if Ragsdale really saw something, he might've gotten his
dates and "facts" mixed-up just a bit to coincide with the notariety of
the Roswell incident?
>Funny thing, even Phil Klass said that USAF should not have put out this
>story.
Not because it wasn't credible -- rather he knew it would not convince
any of the believers. Clearly, he was right.
--
To reply to me, please delete NOSPAM from my email address.
========================================================================
* Fred Goodwin, CMA, SBC-Technology Resources fgoo...@eden.com.NOSPAM *
* Opinions are my own, not SBC-TRI fgoo...@tri.sbc.com.NOSPAM *
* 9505 Arboretum, 9th Floor Dallas Cowboys Training Camp Page *
* Austin, TX 78759 http://www.eden.com/~fgoodwin/cowboys.htm *
========================================================================
Josh Olaf
In article <5p3g9e$jsv$2...@news.mhv.net>, T...@astro.net says...
>
>In article <33B420...@texas.net>, dkw...@texas.net wrote:
>>Avital:
>>
>>Very good post. The points of logic you point out are coherent and
>>rational.
>>
>>For myself, the population of stars in the Universe leads me to believe
>>that there are pretty good odds that there is life out there. I would
>>frankly be surprised if we were alone in the cosmos.
>>
>>If we are being visited by those from another place, then I have yet to
>>see the evidence for it. Vague claims that the evidence resides in
>>warehouses *somewhere* is an admission of no evidence at all. I could
>>claim there were five headed purple unicorns in a warehouse somewhere,
>>no one could disprove my assertion due to the shell game I could play
>>with which warehouse the evidence resides in. More like three card
>>Monte, since the evidence does not exist.
>>
>>For those who accept on faith such evidence exists, I can only say
>>*buyer beware*. Such a habit is liable to spill over into their lives in
>>a manner that could prove detrimental to their security, both physical
>>and economic.
>>
>>Smoke and mirror proofs are no proof at all. Woulda coulda shoulda does
>>not cut it. The very tiresome *governmental coverup* tactic is so
>>threadbare, it no longer clothes the nakedness of superstition, as it
>>once did. Paranoia is no substitute for rational debate.
Yawn. What a longwinded recitation of worthless comments. You will
of course provide substantiation that a "governmental coverup" does
not exists in relation to the subject of UFOs. You claim it is a
made-up tactic. The evidence, however, points to a cover-up,
regardless of whatever meaningless posts you make on this subject.
As for your comments regarding paranoia, this topic has been brought
up time and time again by the debunkers as a SUBSTITUTE for rational
debate. Sorry, Klink, but it looks like you lost this war too.
>>For those who believe in Roswell as a representation of visits from
>>extraterrestrials based on the thin bits and pieces of data that was
>>gathered, this is your choice. Just be consistent in your acceptance
>>level of proofs when the fantastic assertions come back at you.
>>
>>Col Klink
Klink, you just contradictied yourself again. You're getting to be
the "doublethink" leader-hero on these groups.
First of all, these "fantastic assertions" that you speak of are
non-existent and meaningless like the rest of your rhetoric.
In fact, the only absurd and fantastic assertions that have been made,
are the prosaic and mundane explanations for UFOs that have been
rammed down the publics throat by verified debunkers like you, who
wish that all debate on this subject would stop immediately.
> Wow! 2 rational people! Nice job both of you. Couldn't agree more.
>
>Tom
Rational? You've got to be kidding!
Unfortunately, Col Klink still doesn't know the difference between
evidence and proof, nor does Klink have any idea that he has been
contradicting himself on this subject for quite some time.
Col Klink is as rational as Ted Bundy on steroids.
Col Klink
Olaf, you grow tiresome with your aimless ramble. If you have something
to say, then for God's sake, say it. What is that silence I hear?
Olaf, once again you have your head where another portion of your
anatomy is supposed to be. It is for YOU to prove that there IS what you
assert is going on. I say there are no 5 headed purple unicorns. I will
not spend my time proving something I do not believe exists. If you say
they do exist, the proof is for YOU to provide. Talk to any 5th grade
science student, and they can explain this to you. Don't eat their
play-doh while they do so. Enough said.
> You claim it is a
> made-up tactic. The evidence, however, points to a cover-up,
> regardless of whatever meaningless posts you make on this subject.
Olaf's Dodge of the evidence, Take 504: Where is your proof of this?
Your saying it does not make it so. If you would post it, I would see
it. I dont have time to read all your drivel, the few posts I have seen
are devoid of this proof. If you are going to post to my posts, provide
your damned evidence. Otherwise, lose again. (If this was a fight, they
would have stopped it long ago due to the pounding you are taking).
> As for your comments regarding paranoia, this topic has been brought
> up time and time again by the debunkers as a SUBSTITUTE for rational
> debate. Sorry, Klink, but it looks like you lost this war too.
I don't think I have lost at all. And I am not a debunker. I am only
telling it like it is and that seems to be a problem for you. And I see
more people agreeing with me than with you.
> >>For those who believe in Roswell as a representation of visits from
> >>extraterrestrials based on the thin bits and pieces of data that was
> >>gathered, this is your choice. Just be consistent in your acceptance
> >>level of proofs when the fantastic assertions come back at you.
> >>
> >>Col Klink
>
> Klink, you just contradictied yourself again. You're getting to be
> the "doublethink" leader-hero on these groups.
Olaf, I will try to explain this so that even YOU can understand this. I
realize I can't use hand puppets over the Net to help you, but see if
you can follow here:
I do think there may be other civilizations. I think there is a GOOD
possibilty that there are more advanced civilizations than ours. I DO
NOT think Roswell represents evidence that we are being visited by such
*people*. More advanced means that they would have a good idea about how
to navigate in an atmosphere that has storms. I do not think such
intelligent *people* would be dropping out of the sky in droves, as I
have seen in this NG.
Debunk that.
> First of all, these "fantastic assertions" that you speak of are
> non-existent and meaningless like the rest of your rhetoric.
Then why do you respond, if these fantastic assertions do not exist? Why
are you the champion of that which does not exist (In more ways than one
;-})?
> In fact, the only absurd and fantastic assertions that have been made,
> are the prosaic and mundane explanations for UFOs that have been
> rammed down the publics throat by verified debunkers like you, who
> wish that all debate on this subject would stop immediately.
1) I am not a debunker. Read my post again and you will notice I have
said:
For myself, the population of stars in the Universe leads me to believe
that there are pretty good odds that there is life out there. I would
frankly be surprised if we were alone in the cosmos.
Now, is that the language of a debunker?
2) I don't wish the debate would stop. Provide *evidence* that I have
done so. Oops, there is that dirty "e" word, again!!! I like a good
debate, unfortunately I have stepped in the droppings of your (for lack
of a better word) *logic* (???!!!). I am open minded and have asked
SEVERAL times for evidence, all I see are posts of the nature you
provide here. You know, worthless.
> > Wow! 2 rational people! Nice job both of you. Couldn't agree more.
> >
> >Tom
>
> Rational? You've got to be kidding!
No, he knows the truth when he sees it. You ought to be around such
people more, maybe it will rub off on you. I guess it kind of burns your
ego to hear that someone else agrees with a rational point of view. Keep
trying, maybe one day you will know the feeling.
> Unfortunately, Col Klink still doesn't know the difference between
> evidence and proof, nor does Klink have any idea that he has been
> contradicting himself on this subject for quite some time.
>
> Col Klink is as rational as Ted Bundy on steroids.
Notice that there is no PROOF in anything you have written in this post.
Now who does not know what proof or evidence is? And where is the
contradiction I have made, which you have no *proof* of (oops, there is
that "p" word again)?
In fact, let's back up a step. Please provide *evidence* that you are a
rational person (I haven't seen enough to convict you here of that
charge). Oh, I know, the goverment is covering it up (with a stamp) by
storing it in some warehouse.
Col Klink
Mike Broussard
George Fergus wrote:
> Troy Dawson wrote:
> > > incumbent upon you to rule out the vastly more parsimonious and
> > > credible possibility that Mac Brazel simply stumbled onto the
> debris
> > > of a Mogul balloon train.
> >
> > Easily done; Brazel, having recovered previous balloon groundings on
>
> > the ranch, and Major Marcel, as an experience crash investigator for
>
> > the 509th Bombing Group, would *not* have mistaken Mogul debris for
> > something other than a mundane balloon crash.
>
> Normal weather balloons of the type that might have landed in the area
>
> of Mac Brazel's ranch, or been seen by Major Marcel, might not have
> radar
> targets attached to them. Anyone who was not familiar with these
> would
> certainly describe the debris from a radar target as something quite
> different from a simple "weather balloon".
Radar targets were used quite extensively with normal weather balloons,
which is what Irving Newton testified to at the time.
The Air Force's June 4 date for the balloon launch that was supposedly
found by Mac Brazel was only vaguely remembered by one of the surviving
balloon engineers, Prof. C.B. Moore. It was not even logged, although
other failed launches were. There is even the strong possibility that
this June 4 launch didn't even carry Rawin targets, thus eliminating the
possibility that the "foil-like" debris found by Brazel at the Foster
Ranch could have come from Mogul. Also, the Army Air Force originally
claimed that the launch occurred on June 14, which meshed with Brazel's
revised "testimony" in the July 9, 1947 "Roswell Daily Record," which
coincidently was after he was debriefed by military personnel.
Even if there were Rawin targets on this launch, an investigator (R. A.
Galganski, IUR, Mar/Apr 1995) has found that the debris field size that
the primary witnesses saw couldn't have been generated by a Mogul of the
type that is claimed to have crashed. The surface area of the balloons
and radar targets, if any, just couldn't cover the area that Major
Marcel and other witnesses claimed to see.
> Note that Captain Sheridan
> Cavitt, who accompanied Marcel to the Brazel ranch, has always stated
> that it looked like a weather balloon to him.
But, unfortunately, his testimony didn't support the Mogul balloon
theory because he claimed the debris was only about 20 sq/ft in area.
Too bad he wasn't debriefed on the new Mogul balloon story before he
gave his most recent testimony.
> Note that after the
> debris reached Ft. Worth weather officer Irving Newton identified it
> as
> coming from a balloon and a radar target, particularly because he had
> seen such devices used as bombing aids during the war.
They were also used at every base in the U.S. for determing wind
speeds. They were common.
> In a 1989 interview (quoted in Randle & Schmitt's "The Truth About the
>
> UFO Crash at Roswell") Newton recalls "The major [Newton didn't know
> Marcel] kept pointing to portions of the balloon to ask if I thought
> it
> would be found on a regular balloon. [Newton said he had the
> impression
> the major was trying to save face and not appear to be a fool who
> couldn't
> tell the difference between a normal balloon and something from outer
> space.]"
>
> From Newton's affidavit for the 1994 Air Force report: "...while I was
>
> examining the debris, Major Marcel was picking up pieces of the target
>
> sticks and trying to convince me that some notations on the sticks
> were
> alien writings. There were figures on the sticks, lavender or pink in
>
> color, appeared to be weather faded markings, with no rhyme or reason
> (sic). He did not convince me that these were alien writings."
The claim that it was actually Major Marcel who Newton spoke of above is
somewhat in doubt. You didn't quote the part in the R/S book about
that, now did you? Newton has also changed his story from his original
one when he was first interviewed about the incident. That's too bad,
as it makes him look like he is embellishing his story!
Regards...
--
Mike Broussard, CNE | http://www.usimicro.com
USI / MicroAge Computers | Business: (318) 235-1234
http://www.1stnet.com/~mikeb | Fax: (318) 234-1447
Gary Jones
In article <33B4AF...@terrigal.net.au>, Schmoo
<sch...@terrigal.net.au> wrote
>I beleieve you should not beleive anything untill it has been officially
>denied by a government then you know it is true.
This is the perverse logic that makes is so pointless debating with many
UFO nuts. This paranoid position is utterly unassailable: conflicting
evidence, or lack of evidence, are conveniently interpreted as being due
to a cover-up. I can't decide whether this is a sign of mental illness
or simple stupidity.
I'm not normaly this blunt, but there was a TV show about "UFOs" last
night that I found deeply depressing. There were some brave-hearted
people trying to provide a voice of reason in an insane world. Having
heard compelling reasons not to accept outlandish claims without further
evidence, people responded by clinging to their delusional beliefs. No
wonder so few scientists bother trying to put the rationalist case to
the public. The world has gone utterly mad.
--
Gary Jones <ga...@bohr.demon.co.uk>
PGP public key available from servers
Key ID: 6AFBEAA1
Key fingerprint: FF F0 6C 8A AC 42 1D 63 20 F3 AE 22 6C E1 79 83
Colin Dooley
Col Klink wrote:
>
> Avital:
>
> Very good post. The points of logic you point out are coherent and
> rational.
>
> For myself, the population of stars in the Universe leads me to believe
> that there are pretty good odds that there is life out there. I would
> frankly be surprised if we were alone in the cosmos.
>
Agreed.
> If we are being visited by those from another place, then I have yet to
> see the evidence for it. Vague claims that the evidence resides in
> warehouses *somewhere* is an admission of no evidence at all. I could
> claim there were five headed purple unicorns in a warehouse somewhere,
> no one could disprove my assertion due to the shell game I could play
> with which warehouse the evidence resides in. More like three card
> Monte, since the evidence does not exist.
>
Just wanted to add that "UFOs" have only really existed since man
learned to fly.
There are a few ancient writings which mention strange lights in the
sky, but I don't think there can be more that five in the whole
of history. Then suddenly, since the 1940's, we seem to have
half a dozen every week....
Pretty strange coincidence, huh?
Also, I would like any UFO believer to explain why aliens would
bother to develop all this amazing technology, fly thousands of
light years across space to our insignificant little planet, then
just flash a few lights in the sky and go home again?
Does this seem to make *any* sense whatsoever?
I myself am not ruling out aliens, but they are waaaaayyyy down
at the bottom of my list of possibilities.
--
<\___/> | SEAL Team 6 Waco cryptographic Khaddafi Hussein
/ O O \ | Semtex Uzi fissionable AK-47 Legion of Doom
\_____/ FTB. | [Hello to all my fans in domestic surveillance]
Josh Olaf
In article <33B592...@texas.net>, Col says...
>
>Olaf, you grow tiresome with your aimless ramble.
Ad hominem #1. The voice of rationality speaks!
>If you have something
>to say, then for God's sake, say it. What is that silence I hear?
The silence that you hear, Klink, is the sound of your own rebuttal.
Empty, hollow, silent.
[snip]
>> >>Smoke and mirror proofs are no proof at all. Woulda coulda shoulda does
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> >>not cut it. The very tiresome *governmental coverup* tactic is so
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> >>threadbare, it no longer clothes the nakedness of superstition, as it
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> >>once did. Paranoia is no substitute for rational debate.
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>
>> Yawn. What a longwinded recitation of worthless comments. You will
>> of course provide substantiation that a "governmental coverup" does
>> not exists in relation to the subject of UFOs.
>
>Olaf, once again you have your head where another portion of your
>anatomy is supposed to be.
Ad hominem #2.
>It is for YOU to prove that there IS what you
>assert is going on.
Looks like they let Klink out of the nut house early. Listen "Col" or
whatever your name is, YOU claimed that a government cover-up does
not exist since YOU asserted that any mention of this fact, equates
to a "tactic". Therefore, it is up to YOU to prove what YOU assert to
be going on, namely, your assertion that any claims regarding a UFO
cover-up are simply "tactics" by proponents.
> I say there are no 5 headed purple unicorns. I will
>not spend my time proving something I do not believe exists. If you say
>they do exist, the proof is for YOU to provide.
Sorry Klink, but YOU have asserted the following:
Col. Klink's Faulty Assertions (CKFA)
1. UFO evidence = Smoke & Mirrors
2. Cover-up = tactics by proponents = superstition!
3. Paranoia = Lack of debate/ lack of UFO claims
It is up to YOU to prove your assertions.
>Talk to any 5th grade
>science student, and they can explain this to you. Don't eat their
>play-doh while they do so. Enough said.
Obviously, you failed to advance past the 5th grade.
>> You claim it is a
>> made-up tactic. The evidence, however, points to a cover-up,
>> regardless of whatever meaningless posts you make on this subject.
>
>Olaf's Dodge of the evidence, Take 504: Where is your proof of this?
Sorry, Klink. You made the assertion. Where is your proof of this?
Refer to (CFKA) #1-3.
>Your saying it does not make it so. If you would post it, I would see
>it. I dont have time to read all your drivel, the few posts I have seen
>are devoid of this proof.
Sorry, Klink. You made the assertion. Where is your proof of this?
Refer to (CFKA) #1-3.
Looks like someone needs to explain to you the difference between
evidence and proof, since you are confused again.
>If you are going to post to my posts, provide
>your damned evidence.
Sorry, Klink. You made the assertion(s). Where is your proof of
this? Refer to (CFKA) #1-3.
>Otherwise, lose again. (If this was a fight, they
>would have stopped it long ago due to the pounding you are taking).
HA! Luser...
>> As for your comments regarding paranoia, this topic has been brought
>> up time and time again by the debunkers as a SUBSTITUTE for rational
>> debate. Sorry, Klink, but it looks like you lost this war too.
>
>I don't think I have lost at all. And I am not a debunker. I am only
>telling it like it is and that seems to be a problem for you. And I see
>more people agreeing with me than with you.
Sorry, Klink. You made the assertion. Where is your proof of this?
Refer to (CFKA) #1-3.
>> >>For those who believe in Roswell as a representation of visits from
>> >>extraterrestrials based on the thin bits and pieces of data that was
>> >>gathered, this is your choice. Just be consistent in your acceptance
>> >>level of proofs when the fantastic assertions come back at you.
>> >>
>> >>Col Klink
>>
>> Klink, you just contradictied yourself again. You're getting to be
>> the "doublethink" leader-hero on these groups.
>
>Olaf, I will try to explain this so that even YOU can understand this. I
>realize I can't use hand puppets over the Net to help you, but see if
>you can follow here:
>I do think there may be other civilizations. I think there is a GOOD
>possibilty that there are more advanced civilizations than ours. I DO
>NOT think Roswell represents evidence that we are being visited by such
>*people*. More advanced means that they would have a good idea about how
>to navigate in an atmosphere that has storms. I do not think such
>intelligent *people* would be dropping out of the sky in droves, as I
>have seen in this NG.
>
>Debunk that.
Sorry, Klink. You made the assertion. Where is your proof of this?
Refer to (CFKA) #1-3.
>
>
>> First of all, these "fantastic assertions" that you speak of are
>> non-existent and meaningless like the rest of your rhetoric.
>
>Then why do you respond, if these fantastic assertions do not exist? Why
>are you the champion of that which does not exist (In more ways than one
>;-})?
Sorry, Klink. You made the assertion. Where is your proof of this?
Refer to (CFKA) #1-3.
>> In fact, the only absurd and fantastic assertions that have been made,
>> are the prosaic and mundane explanations for UFOs that have been
>> rammed down the publics throat by verified debunkers like you, who
>> wish that all debate on this subject would stop immediately.
>
>1) I am not a debunker. Read my post again and you will notice I have
>said:
>
>For myself, the population of stars in the Universe leads me to believe
>that there are pretty good odds that there is life out there. I would
>frankly be surprised if we were alone in the cosmos.
>
>Now, is that the language of a debunker?
Sorry, Klink. You made the assertion. Where is your proof of this?
Refer to (CFKA) #1-3.
>2) I don't wish the debate would stop. Provide *evidence* that I have
>done so. Oops, there is that dirty "e" word, again!!! I like a good
>debate, unfortunately I have stepped in the droppings of your (for lack
>of a better word) *logic* (???!!!). I am open minded and have asked
>SEVERAL times for evidence, all I see are posts of the nature you
>provide here. You know, worthless.
[snip]
>> Unfortunately, Col Klink still doesn't know the difference between
>> evidence and proof, nor does Klink have any idea that he has been
>> contradicting himself on this subject for quite some time.
>>
>> Col Klink is as rational as Ted Bundy on steroids.
>
>Notice that there is no PROOF in anything you have written in this post.
>Now who does not know what proof or evidence is? And where is the
>contradiction I have made, which you have no *proof* of (oops, there is
>that "p" word again)?
>
>In fact, let's back up a step. Please provide *evidence* that you are a
>rational person (I haven't seen enough to convict you here of that
>charge). Oh, I know, the goverment is covering it up (with a stamp) by
>storing it in some warehouse.
>
>Col Klink
Sorry, Klink. You made the assertion(s). Where is your proof of
this? Refer to (CFKA) #1-3.
Col Klink
Just as I thoought. Another post without proof.
Class, do you have any questions? I believe I have proved my case about
Olaf.
I never said this. Your assertion here can only be termed a lie.
> 2. Cover-up = tactics by proponents = superstition!
Proponents of what?
> 3. Paranoia = Lack of debate/ lack of UFO claims
>
> It is up to YOU to prove your assertions.
What the hell are you talking about?
> >Talk to any 5th grade
> >science student, and they can explain this to you. Don't eat their
> >play-doh while they do so. Enough said.
>
> Obviously, you failed to advance past the 5th grade.
How is that obvious? The fact that you never made it past 2nd grade does
not allow you to speculate.
>
> >> You claim it is a
> >> made-up tactic. The evidence, however, points to a cover-up,
> >> regardless of whatever meaningless posts you make on this subject.
> >
> >Olaf's Dodge of the evidence, Take 504: Where is your proof of this?
>
> Sorry, Klink. You made the assertion. Where is your proof of this?
> Refer to (CFKA) #1-3.
My assertion of what, Brainiac?
>
> >Your saying it does not make it so. If you would post it, I would see
> >it. I dont have time to read all your drivel, the few posts I have seen
> >are devoid of this proof.
>
> Sorry, Klink. You made the assertion. Where is your proof of this?
> Refer to (CFKA) #1-3.
I have made the assertion that every post you have made to mine HAS NO
EVIDEV+NCE posted with it of ant of your assertions. Provide the
reference number of such a post.
> Looks like someone needs to explain to you the difference between
> evidence and proof, since you are confused again.
>
> >If you are going to post to my posts, provide
> >your damned evidence.
>
> Sorry, Klink. You made the assertion(s). Where is your proof of
> this? Refer to (CFKA) #1-3.
No proof of aliens. No proof. No evidence. Olaf believes in aliens.
Fine.
Col Klink
Col Klink
> Gary Jones wrote:
>
> Schmoo wrote
> >I beleieve you should not beleive anything untill it has been officially
> >denied by a government then you know it is true.
>
> This is the perverse logic that makes is so pointless debating with many
> UFO nuts. This paranoid position is utterly unassailable: conflicting
> evidence, or lack of evidence, are conveniently interpreted as being due
> to a cover-up. I can't decide whether this is a sign of mental illness
> or simple stupidity.
Lack of education, lack of integrity of some, lack of caring about the
truth, boredom with the reality of things as they are, lack of something
better to do; these are a few of the reasons I see.
> I'm not normaly this blunt, but there was a TV show about "UFOs" last
> night that I found deeply depressing. There were some brave-hearted
> people trying to provide a voice of reason in an insane world.
I have been interested in UFOs since 5th grade, and read everything I
could get my hands on while in school. I even wrote my high school theme
paper on the subject. I wanted to believe there was such a thing. But
after years and years of exposure to the subject, I began to realize
that there was no evidence that pointed out that UFOs were flying
saucers from another planet. Hell, even how flying saucers got their
name is an example of how the story gets screwed up, Kenneth Arnold
never called what he saw such a name, he was describing the behavior of
how the *objects* behaved.
At some point you have to make a choice of whether to believe in these
things as alien or not. I choose to believe FOR LACK OF EVIDENCE that
these things that are seen are NOT alien. That is NOT to say such
evidence may manifest itself one day.
> Having
> heard compelling reasons not to accept outlandish claims without further
> evidence, people responded by clinging to their delusional beliefs. No
> wonder so few scientists bother trying to put the rationalist case to
> the public. The world has gone utterly mad.
I would not let the few crackpots speak for the majority. They are
vocal, but a little (and I mean LITTLE) discussion with them soon
reveals the lack of logic employed by such people, and the conversation
devolves into ad hominem on their part. It is easy to show up the
crackpots.
There is an element of believers who I dont think are crackpots, they
are more restrained in their assertions. It is to them that a rational
discourse can be directed and an interesting conversation can be
persued.
Col Klink
Fred Goodwin
>Yawn. What a longwinded recitation of worthless comments. You will
>of course provide substantiation that a "governmental coverup" does
>made-up tactic. The evidence, however, points to a cover-up,
>regardless of whatever meaningless posts you make on this subject.
Though I have no dog in this fight, this comment cannot pass
unchallenged. You are aware, of course, that it is *impossible* to
prove there is no "cover-up"? The government can produce tons of
documents and sworn testimony that no cover-up exists, yet believers
will never be convinced.
Since the skeptical side has repeatedly said just what it would take to
convince them, can the "believers" say just exactly what it would take
to convince *them* no cover-up exists? If the reply is "Nothing -- we
*know* a cover-up exists!", then I'd say the discussion has left the
realm of rational debate and turns strictly on emotion and unadulterated
belief.
Col Klink
Robert Dinse wrote:
>
> In article <33B1DB...@texas.net>, Col Klink <d...@texas.net> writes:
> > If you think there are little green men visiting the Earth, the ball is
> > in your court.
> >
> > Col Klink
>
> Likewise, if you think the project Mogul explanation is valid, the
> ball is in your court, prove your assertion.
I do not assert it was Mogul, and have not at any time. The strawman is
now removed.
The only time I ever referred to what was at Roswell was to make a
satirical comparison between highly technical aliens crashing, and the
possibility that the military staged the whole thing. Neither extreme is
my point of view.
Anyone who is under the impression I have stated the debris was Mogul
has read in more than I have said.
The ball goes back over the net.
Col Klink
Col Klink
> Fred Goodwin wrote:
>
> >Yawn. What a longwinded recitation of worthless comments. You will
> >of course provide substantiation that a "governmental coverup" does
> >not exists in relation to the subject of UFOs. You claim it is a
> >made-up tactic. The evidence, however, points to a cover-up,
> >regardless of whatever meaningless posts you make on this subject.
> Though I have no dog in this fight, this comment cannot pass
> unchallenged. You are aware, of course, that it is *impossible* to
> prove there is no "cover-up"? The government can produce tons of
> documents and sworn testimony that no cover-up exists, yet believers
> will never be convinced.
This is what the true believers count on; that no one will notice the
point you just made. The intellectual shell game they play with logic
only seems to make it difficult for them. This is justice to me, he who
tries to deceive only ends up being deceived by their very own tactics.
They are beyond help, sadly they did not provide the antidote to the fog
that they have created around their *minds*.
> Since the skeptical side has repeatedly said just what it would take to
> convince them, can the "believers" say just exactly what it would take
> to convince *them* no cover-up exists? If the reply is "Nothing -- we
> *know* a cover-up exists!", then I'd say the discussion has left the
> realm of rational debate and turns strictly on emotion and unadulterated
> belief.
Fred,
Great points. A knockout blow to the true believer position, and by a
disinterested observer. Of course Fred, now you will be knoighted as a
*debunker* by the true believers, since you have proven to have your own
opinion which is contrary to theirs. I have noticed that there are
certain elements that seem to think that if they can prove whatever
wreckage that existed in the range near Roswell was not Mogul, then IT
MUST BE ALIENS. What a crock. There are thousands of shades of grey
between the extremes.
And notice the lack of a proof included with true believer posts. This
speaks louder than their ad hominem diatribe.
True believers, the scoreboard is looking worse and worse for you. It is
obvious the intelligent, rational people have decided that Roswell is
not an alien event. I define intelligent and rational as those who post
reasons (not necessarily ones I agree with, just any reasons), such as
Fred has here. You could take a lesson from him and post your reasons
for believing in Roswell aliens, but then again they would have to exist
(both the aliens, and good reasons), wouldn't they?
Col Klink
Robert Dinse
In article <33B1DB...@texas.net>, Col Klink <d...@texas.net> writes:
> If you think there are little green men visiting the Earth, the ball is
> in your court.
>
> Col Klink
Likewise, if you think the project Mogul explanation is valid, the
ball is in your court, prove your assertion.
--
-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
Eskimo North: More Unix, Usenet, Internet for Less $$ (206)For-Ever Eskimo.Com
Free two-week trial, login as "new". For more info email: nan...@eskimo.com
Josh Olaf
On Sun, 29 Jun 1997 00:36:03 -0500, Col Klink <dkw...@texas.net>
wrote:
>Just as I thoought. Another post without proof.
>
>Class, do you have any questions? I believe I have proved my case about
>Olaf.
You spelled "Klass" wrong.
Josh Olaf
On Sun, 29 Jun 1997 11:56:42 -0500, Col Klink <dkw...@texas.net>
wrote:
>> Gary Jones wrote:
>>
>> Schmoo wrote
>> >I beleieve you should not beleive anything untill it has been officially
>> >denied by a government then you know it is true.
>>
>> This is the perverse logic that makes is so pointless debating with many
>> UFO nuts. This paranoid position is utterly unassailable: conflicting
>> evidence, or lack of evidence, are conveniently interpreted as being due
>> to a cover-up. I can't decide whether this is a sign of mental illness
>> or simple stupidity.
>
>Lack of education, lack of integrity of some, lack of caring about the
>truth, boredom with the reality of things as they are, lack of something
>better to do; these are a few of the reasons I see.
Klink, your strawman is falling apart. The subject of this post is
CRASHED SAUCER at Roswell, not "Why UFO theorists are evil and should
be put up against a wall and shot".
>> I'm not normaly this blunt, but there was a TV show about "UFOs" last
>> night that I found deeply depressing. There were some brave-hearted
>> people trying to provide a voice of reason in an insane world.
>
[long snip]
>At some point you have to make a choice of whether to believe in these
>things as alien or not. I choose to believe FOR LACK OF EVIDENCE that
>these things that are seen are NOT alien. That is NOT to say such
>evidence may manifest itself one day.
And who said that UFOs must be alien? Klink and his strawman, that's
who. Happy, like two peas in a pod.
>> Having
>> heard compelling reasons not to accept outlandish claims without further
>> evidence, people responded by clinging to their delusional beliefs. No
>> wonder so few scientists bother trying to put the rationalist case to
>> the public. The world has gone utterly mad.
>
>I would not let the few crackpots speak for the majority.
Actually, you represent the majority of crackpots on these groups.
Josh Olaf
On Sat, 28 Jun 1997 17:36:48 -0500, Col Klink <dkw...@texas.net>
wrote:
>In fact, let's back up a step. Please provide *evidence* that you are a
>rational person (I haven't seen enough to convict you here of that
>charge). Oh, I know, the goverment is covering it up (with a stamp) by
>storing it in some warehouse.
Please stay on topic, Klink. The subject is CRASHED SAUCER at
Roswell, not "Josh Olaf".
Col Klink
> Josh Olaf wrote:
>
> On Sun, 29 Jun 1997 11:56:42 -0500, Col Klink <dkw...@texas.net>
> wrote:
>
> >> Gary Jones wrote:
> >>
> >> Schmoo wrote
> >> >I beleieve you should not beleive anything untill it has been officially
> >> >denied by a government then you know it is true.
> >>
> >> This is the perverse logic that makes is so pointless debating with many
> >> UFO nuts. This paranoid position is utterly unassailable: conflicting
> >> evidence, or lack of evidence, are conveniently interpreted as being due
> >> to a cover-up. I can't decide whether this is a sign of mental illness
> >> or simple stupidity.
> >
> >Lack of education, lack of integrity of some, lack of caring about the
> >truth, boredom with the reality of things as they are, lack of something
> >better to do; these are a few of the reasons I see.
>
> Klink, your strawman is falling apart. The subject of this post is
> CRASHED SAUCER at Roswell, not "Why UFO theorists are evil and should
> be put up against a wall and shot".
Whatever you want to think is fine by me Olaf. Why would I care?
>
> >> I'm not normaly this blunt, but there was a TV show about "UFOs" last
> >> night that I found deeply depressing. There were some brave-hearted
> >> people trying to provide a voice of reason in an insane world.
> >
>
> [long snip]
>
> >At some point you have to make a choice of whether to believe in these
> >things as alien or not. I choose to believe FOR LACK OF EVIDENCE that
> >these things that are seen are NOT alien. That is NOT to say such
> >evidence may manifest itself one day.
>
> And who said that UFOs must be alien? Klink and his strawman, that's
> who. Happy, like two peas in a pod.
Whatever you want to think is fine by me Olaf. Why would I care?
> >> Having
> >> heard compelling reasons not to accept outlandish claims without further
> >> evidence, people responded by clinging to their delusional beliefs. No
> >> wonder so few scientists bother trying to put the rationalist case to
> >> the public. The world has gone utterly mad.
> >
> >I would not let the few crackpots speak for the majority.
>
> Actually, you represent the majority of crackpots on these groups.
Whatever you want to think is fine by me Olaf. Why would I care?
Col Klink
Col Klink
Josh Olaf wrote:
>
> On Sat, 28 Jun 1997 17:36:48 -0500, Col Klink <dkw...@texas.net>
> wrote:
>
> >In fact, let's back up a step. Please provide *evidence* that you are a
> >rational person (I haven't seen enough to convict you here of that
> >charge). Oh, I know, the goverment is covering it up (with a stamp) by
> >storing it in some warehouse.
>
> Roswell, not "Josh Olaf".
Whatever you want to think is fine by me Olaf. Why would I care?
Col Klink
Col Klink
Josh Olaf wrote:
>
> On Sun, 29 Jun 1997 00:36:03 -0500, Col Klink <dkw...@texas.net>
> wrote:
>
> >Just as I thoought. Another post without proof.
> >
> >Class, do you have any questions? I believe I have proved my case about
> >Olaf.
>
> You spelled "Klass" wrong.
Whatever you want to think is fine by me Olaf. Why would I care?
Col Klink
Fred Goodwin
>I have been interested in UFOs since 5th grade, and read everything I
>could get my hands on while in school. I even wrote my high school theme
>paper on the subject. I wanted to believe there was such a thing. But
>after years and years of exposure to the subject, I began to realize
>that there was no evidence that pointed out that UFOs were flying
>saucers from another planet. Hell, even how flying saucers got their
>name is an example of how the story gets screwed up, Kenneth Arnold
>never called what he saw such a name, he was describing the behavior of
>how the *objects* behaved.
Very similar to my own experience. I remember reading F. Edwards'
"Flying Saucers -- Serious Business" as an enrapt grade schooler. I
wanted to believe in UFOs and wanted to see one so badly. Interest in
UFOs led me to eventually get interested in astronomy and space flight,
which eventually led to a college degree in physics. It was around that
time that I realised there was no credible evidence for the UFOs I
wanted so desperately to be real.
>At some point you have to make a choice of whether to believe in these
>things as alien or not. I choose to believe FOR LACK OF EVIDENCE that
>these things that are seen are NOT alien. That is NOT to say such
>evidence may manifest itself one day.
I still have hope that extraterrestrial life will be discovered in my
lifetime, but I doubt seriously that alien craft will ever be found here
on earth before I leave it.
>There is an element of believers who I dont think are crackpots, they
>are more restrained in their assertions. It is to them that a rational
>discourse can be directed and an interesting conversation can be
>persued.
Who would those folks be? There's a guy named Troy Dawson (I think he
is a believer?) who seems to be fairly even-handed in his debates with
skeptics. Others?