Here's the article:

http://www.s-t.com/daily/07-99/07-11-99/c01lo084.htm

Take note of the Roswell comments he made. He does sound very similar to you, Tim.

You're right, I do see the glass as completely empty. My glass is reserved for scientific evidence only. If I didn't do that, I don't know what my criteria would be. I'm interested in what your criteria are that you think that there is some water level in the glass.

Ah, the word you wanted is simian. I thought you might have been referring to some sort of symbiotic or sympatric biological relationship and couldn't see what you were getting at. Thanks for the compliment.

__________________
If you can't dazzle 'em with dexterity, baffle 'em with BS.

I seem to recall the introduction to the Zeller story, I think I read this a year or two ago.

Anyway, I think Zeller is a guy with an open mind, and I see nothing wrong with that. Does he think like a person who is bent on only looking at scientific evidence? No, and in my opinion thats a good thing.

As far as I'm concerned such limited thinking can stiffel the subject just as easy as the nuts who believe everything about this very questionable phenomenia.

A couple things as I'm out the door:

"?How is saying "I don't know what you will do or say..." an attempt at being a psychic? Don't the psychics say the opposite?"

Personally, I don't believe in psychics, but you sure do seem to be comffy with telling other people you don't know what they would do or say in a given situation. If thats not an atempt at being a psychic I don't know what is!!!

What I'm saying is you have a habit of jumping to conclusions about people.

'You sure do seem to be comffy with telling other people you don't know, what they would do or say in a given situation.'

It needed a break in the middle.

And I have to say here that in reading some of the other discussions between you and other posters on this BB it seems to be a very popular accusation about you.

"Oh, I thought the world wide web was a reliable source. Silly me."

I know my statment of never believing anything I read on the web is an overstatment, but you are kidding here, right?

For instance, when I looked into Planet X I found this site, Bad Astronomy. Before I even asked Phil Plait if I could quote him in the article I wrote on it I looked into him at Sonoma State. Theres just to much disinformation on the web! Everyone is a doctor, or a lawyer, or an exspert, what ever. You just can't believe it.

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Like I have said more then once, I DON"T BELIEVE ANYTHING I READ ON THE WEB!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Wow, that's a rather strong statement."

Yup, sure is, but thats the way I see it.

__________________
"Propaganda must not serve the truth, especially insofar as it might bring out something favorable for the opponent" -Adolf Hitler

What is the criteria if the evidence isn't scientific? (I ask for the third time).

Stifling ignorance in the defense of truth is something I happen to agree with.

Talk about amphibole. While I agree with your statement without the break, I disagree with your statement with the break. I don't know how you make a judgement against the evidence for psychics but then make a judgement that there might be credible evidence for ETUFOs (like my new acronym? It saves time and space). I really don't know. I can't see how that is jumping to a conclusion... You say you have an "open mind" about ETUFOs, but do you appear not to have an "open mind" about psychics. That, to me, is a contradiction that I'd like you to explain to me.

Why, Tim, do you want to make things personal? I'm simply interested in the facts and what the other person is advocating. That's all. If you think I've misrepresented you, I encourage you to pipe up. However, I call 'em like I see 'em, and I welcome and encourage people to correct me.

Again, this goes back to the type of argument that I often get into with IDers over whether they're creationists in disguise. They claim that I'm jumping to conclusions when I am simply saying that they are basing their opinions on things other than science, just like their creationist bretheran. Similarly, I feel like you are saying I'm jumping to conclusions about you when I say you are basing your opinions on things other than science. You don't want to be put in the same category as the lunatics who have a hard time thinking. I understand that. However, you need to differentiate yourself then. I have told you what my criteria are for evaluating evidence but you are strangely silent on the subject.

Yes. Of course. That's why I stick to science whenever I'm interested in the facts of the matter. For history, and personal accounts, though, there's nothing better than someone's personal webpage for you to get a feeling for what they personally believe. I suppose some people are intentionally lying or misleading or facetious, but for the most part, people are very straightforward about what they think on the world wide web. That's one of the nice things about this medium. It's hard to get into an intimate conversation with someone in person over politics or religion for most people, but on the world wide web, the annonymity that is afforded means that a lot of the hidden prejudices and beliefs that aren't discussed can be brought to the surface. That's the beauty of it.

So you drove down to Sonoma State and asked around about him? I'm confused? Why couldn't you just go to the Sonoma State website and look it up? Are you THAT paranoid about the web that you won't trust ANYTHING that's posted on it?

When I am looking for a resource I know which sites are reliable and which sites are generally bad news. If you're after science or accurate history, there's no place better than accreditted research institutions and laboratories. I know which ones are accreditted and I assume you do too. That means I implicitly trust those sites to give me decent information. There are other sites too that I can evaluate for myself (since I have an education) and can come to my own conclusions about. I wish I could have read ufowatchdog and seen what they were about. I might have liked it, who knows?

That's true. Everyone is an "expert", but it doesn't take much to discover what kind of "expert" they are. How many people at major accreditted astronomical and aeronautical research laboratories take stock in the ETUFO idea? I'll give you a rough estimate: almost none. (I say almost, because there's always a few who slip through the cracks). That's a powerful statement.

But ultimately, that last statement is meaningless. Ideas rise or fall on their own merits, not on the weight of authority. The advantage to knowing that someone has been hired by an accreditted institution is that you know that there is some accountability, but that's all you know. You need to evaluate their claims for yourself. That's what I do. If that's the way you approach things then the internet is a fine resource. Some evidence is documented and properly cited with an easily verifiable thesis or proposition. Others are speculative. The best resources are clear about this. The poorer ones tend to "sit on the fence" as I was describing above.

I'm not concerned with "what else" Rense might believe; I posted the link only because it has the article from the Washington Post. The first link was more important in making the point - Did you miss it? Did you see the sources for those statements? The link seems rather objective in its presentation of "evidence," no?
Are you really convinced it was only "atmospheric phenomena" after reading those various accounts? If so, wow.

Oh well, I've been called gullible too [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

"And by evidence, I am very clear. I want an observation."

"Does putting "bad things" in quotes make physical evidence? I don't care what happened to the airline pilots."

"People who may seem to have a lot of credibility can have problems with themselves."

"Stifling ignorance in the defense of truth is something I happen to agree with."

So do I! However, I don't believe you are interested in stifling only ignorance. I believe you wish to stifel anyone who does not present evidence in what you consider to be a neat and tiddy package that will fit what seems to be a very narrow minded criteria. In other words anyone who you do not agree with, or for that matter, agree with their methods.

Anyone who would offer anything as unsientific, but admissable, as a personal testimony is subject to unsubstanceated generalized remarks in regards to character. Even if it is with providing little if any foundation for it.

Piont in case:
"People who may seem to have a lot of credibility can have problems with themselves."

Second request:
And just what could those problems be, doctor? Mental, emotional, gullibility? Or perhaps they just don't think like you do? Or maybe, just maybe, they were there and you wern't!

Just so you understand the question:
I am asking you to tell me what those "problems with themselves" are?

Please include your criteria, education and any experiance you rely on to reach this conclusion...okay, thanks!

And don't forget the people I mentioned in my remark that your statement was in regards to: Maj. Jesse Marcel, Lt.Col. Phil Corso, Col. Gordon Cooper.

These people are relative to the question because it could be implied that you may have been refering to one or more of them. If you are unaware of any of them having "problems with themselves," please include this in your answer...okay, thanks!

In case you forgot heres the statement I made:
Would respected military officers, (Maj. Jesse Marcel, Lt.Col. Phil Corso, Col. Gordon Cooper and others), come forward with claims of UFO/Alien visitations, crashs, etc., if this was a complete and total fabrication?

"Why, Tim, do you want to make things personal?"

You are welcome to make this anything you like, I believe I have already given my rational on what or who can offend me. Perhaps you would like to share yours?

Moreover, like you, I call 'em like I see 'em.

Out of time, I should be back tomorrow.

__________________
"Propaganda must not serve the truth, especially insofar as it might bring out something favorable for the opponent" -Adolf Hitler

Tim ---

One) I do not pretend to be a diagonstician of anybody. I don't know why anyone would say anything but if they believed it to be true, but I know that some people are misled, excitable, vindictive, deranged, or simply communicating what they perceived happened. I really don't care about personal testimony: it is subject to human error. That's too high an error in order to accept things as true or not. Rather, one deals with physical evidence when one wonders. Therefore, there is absolutely no grounds for me to question the faculties or the motivations behind the various military officers you name. They are simply human beings like the rest of us, subject to the same "problems" that we all face, including you and I.

Two) What doesn't have the same threshhold of problems is physical evidence. Let me give you an example.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/15/nyregion/15FISH.html

This is a story of a talking fish. Two fish merchants heard it talk in Hebrew. Whether they actually heard something is very much up for debate. However, I would say that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. They cannot produce any scientific evidence to support their claim, so I summarily dismiss it.

Just in case you think that extraordinary evidence is impossible to come by, here's an extraordinary claim that actually HAS extraordinary evidence:

http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a4_086.html

It appears that chickens have and do live for many days with their heads cut off. Granted, it requires just the right conditions (the brain stemp must not be severed and the jugular has to clot well), but this particular claim has the evidence.

"I do not pretend to be a diagonstician of anybody. I don't know why anyone would say anything but if they believed it to be true, but I know that some people are misled, excitable, vindictive, deranged, or simply communicating what they perceived happened."

Agreed! And in this subject you can get a lot of this, as I have said before. And we all do have troubles, no matter how large or small.

I'm sure statistics can show us a percentage of even the most rational, and balanced people suffering from some kind of condition or another. But I don't think it is rational to lump ALL of the most credibile people into this catagory:
"People who may seem to have a lot of credibility can have problems with themselves."

Thats what I think.
---------------------------------------

"So you drove down to Sonoma State and asked around about him? I'm confused."

Wonderfull invention out now, it's called a telephone. Try it sometime.

GTG, man getting ready to move sucks!

And can anyone give me any insight on a new P.C.?

__________________
"Propaganda must not serve the truth, especially insofar as it might bring out something favorable for the opponent" -Adolf Hitler

Hmm... You didn't trust the Sonoma State website? Why's that? Why is the telephone a better source?

I think you may be missing the point. It's not that I understand the reasons behind these folks, it's that I don't consider human testimony by itself to be adequate evidence for extraordinary claims EVER. Same with the talking fish story and with the headless chicken story. I'm not going to simply accept the testimony of an individual if the claims are extraordinary. There needs to be some physical evidence that is documented, studied, and mundanely non-controversial (e.g. a live headless chicken).

So I must ask, Tim, after two pages of wrangling, where is the scientific evidence? Can you give me what I ask? Do you think I'm being unreasonably demanding in my criteria for what would constitute evidence for this extraordinary claim, and, if so, what is your criteria?

http://www.rense.com/general31/ufofilepart1.pdf
http://www.rense.com/general31/ufofilepart2.pdf
http://www.rense.com/general31/ufofilepart3.pdf
http://www.rense.com/general31/ufofilepart4.pdf
http://www.rense.com/general31/ufofilepart5.pdf

This is the official investigation in the Rendlesham UFO case, that ultimately was closed as "unknown". On the first PDF, go to page 3 for the original report.

This meets all the criteria you specified, except that the observers were the US military and not "a scientifc group or amateur astronomer or an air traffic controller". That should not be an issue, right?

I know all about the debunking theory saying that they saw a tractor or a lighthouse. That's what you will find when you Google on it. Read the actual observations on the report on page 3, and explain how a tractor or lighthouse can accomplish all of this.

Regarding Roswell, one only needs to read the initial press release to contradict everything that was subsequently said. Furthermore, check out page 34 of this PDF for an interesting FBI memorandum regarding a statement from an Air Force investigator.
http://foia.fbi.gov/ufo/ufo8.pdf

HankSolo ---
Every last piece of evidence you presented is simply mythology and nothing more. If you have read about the failed observation by "googling" for the subject and still cannot see how it works, then that's YOUR problem, not the evidences. You need to point to something in particular, not just plop documents in our face. In particular, there is not a stone left unturned from those reports in at least two of the books I cited above. If you have issue with the science behind those books then by all means come forward and say it. However, all you have done right now is play into nonsense paranoia games and reconfirmed for me that you have a faulty baloney detector.

Moreover the Rosewell press-release you mention is totally sensationalized. There's nothing scientific about it. Period.

Hank, you've succeeded well in proving my point that all we have to go on is things that aren't scientific evidence. You would do well to read the books I cited above. It seems you've been spending too much time with lunatics and ignoramuses.

I'm not sure if you're reading my posts correctly. "Googling" will bring up some debunkings of the Rendelsham case. But rather than someone posting a link that says "the Rendelsham UFO was a tractor", I want to see how this tractor caused the stated observations by the Air Force Base commander. The Air Force did their work in documenting their observations, conducting a search of the area, and recording increased radioactivity levels inside the 3 depressions that they found and at the center point of the 3 depressions. Further investigation by the MOD resulted in the case being determined as unknown. So unless we say that the Air Force personnel were lying, what could explain their observations?

Furthermore, since the David Jacobs book was published in 1975, and you state the other as 1969, I don't see how they could have left no stone unturned regarding a 1981 report. Unless of course, you believe in psychic phenomena?

The Roswell press release is not sensationalized. How so? It is rather matter-of-fact, and says that a flying disk has crashed. Plain and simple, and to the point. I'll post it as soon as I find it.

We'll wait for that one. In any case, what I'm demanding is evidence and what you've provided me (as is becoming typical with you) is sensationalized reinterpretation.

Moreover, where's the ET aspect?

Still haven't found a specific link to verify the exact text, but all accounts say that at around 2:26pm on July 8 the statement released on an AP wire was "The Army Air Forces here today announced a flying disk had been found". I don't think that this press release is being denied by JS, is it? And it definitely isn't sensational, is it?

This means that Air Force personnel had about 24 hours to investigate what had "exploded" over the debris field, leaving debris scattered over an area 3/4 of a mile long. That's some balloon. Yet these trained Air Force officers still came to the conclusion that it was a "flying disc", and were sure enough that they made a press release. We can't deny these facts. It is not paranoia to say that their initial statements and their subsequent statement contradict each other very much. If you choose to believe a balloon caused this confusion, that's your choice.

Here is Jesse Marcel Sr's statement:

Whatever it was had to have exploded in the air above ground level. It had disintegrated before it hit the ground. The wreckage was scattered over an area of about three quarters of a mile long and several hundred feet wide.

...nothing actually hit the ground, bounced on the ground. It was something that must have exploded above ground and fell...scattered all over. Just like you'd explode something above the ground and just fall to the ground... It was traveling from north-east to south-west, it was in that pattern, you could tell where it started and where it ended by how it thinned out.

As I have pointed out many times before, there is no hard evidence to support ETUFO's. There is no proof. However, there is a lot of residual evidence and eyewitness testimony. That is enough to convict people in a court of law, and that is enough for many people to decide that there is indeed something extraordinary, possibly extra-terrestrial, happening in our skies. Without the need for a spaceship in a museum.

JS:
It's fine if that is not enough evidence for a person who demands physical evidence, and you are free to debate any evidence you feel is suspect. But I am tired of your attitude. I have a high tolerance for your type of posts, and I think I have shown great restraint in not ripping you. Perhaps that is the "Princeton" attitude that I hear so much about. I think it is fair to say that others feel the same based on what I am reading, so I don't feel it's my fault. I have enjoyed reading your insights, but I will simply ignore you if you continue your demeaning and/or insulting posts. I find it very hard to believe that someone as seemingly smart as you cannot write in a non-abusive and non-confrontational style. And if that is the case, you have a tough future ahead of you.

There is no physical proof nor photographic evidence for the existence of "UFOs" (alien spacecraft in Earth's atmosphere,) despite sky observations over the years by many amateur and professional astronomers, as well as many millions of people outdoors with cameras throughout the history of photography. Not one single convincing picture of a UFO. (There are "convincing" pictures of fake UFOs.)

UFO believers can offer "eyewitness testimony" and much anecdotal evidence by numerous people of many diverse professions. When this evidence is reduced by revealing common misinterpretations of natural phenomenon, there always remains a small percentage that "cannot be explained." However, this is basically true for any statistic, and the statement that it "cannot be explained" does not equal: "therefore UFOs are real." In the interests of scientific accuracy, "Ufologists" should also include "eyewitness testimony" or anecdotal evidence by numerous people of many diverse professions -- for the non-existence of UFOs.

UFOs are never presented as crude or simple, but always miraculous - (such as being able to move at tremendous speed in the atmosphere without making a sonic boom, or appearing and disappearing miraculously.) This is attributed (without proof,) to "advanced alien technology." We human beings are often implied to be somewhat simplistic do-nothings who owe all our modern technologies to "back engineering" and/or the influence of friendly-though-secret aliens, or even crashed alien spaceships. However, a study of human engineering and technology, past through present, reveals that we did everything for better or worse, without alien influence. In my opinion, the "miraculous" nature of "UFOs" is a modern manifestation of the mythic traditions of Angels, Gods, and Spirits, dressed in modern technological costumes.

This is not to say that alien lifeforms don't exist somewhere in the universe, nor am I saying that they don't have alien technology. Just that there is no evidence or history for them here on Earth.

The Army Air Forces here today announced a flying disk had been found".

At the time in 1947, no one even really knew what a flying disk was and they did not yet refer to Extraterrestrial Spacecraft. The terminology was used as it was described by Mac Brazel.
In any event, this was retracted shortly thereafter by the AF.


what had "exploded" over the debris field, leaving debris scattered over an area 3/4 of a mile long. That's some balloon.

Considering the NYU experiment Ballon train #4 was several hundred feet long with multiple balloons and rawin targets, yep thats some balloon.

Yet these trained Air Force officers still came to the conclusion that it was a "flying disc",
Neither of them trained in accident investigation or with research ballons of this type. Its not beyond the realm of possibility they made a mistake in the classification. At any rate "Flying disc" was first used by Brazel, NOT the AF.

We can't deny these facts.
The only fact we can't deny is that a press release was issued and later retracted.

It is not paranoia to say that their initial statements and their subsequent statement contradict each other very much.
No, its not, but as they examined what was found, and realised the ordinary nature of the debris, a change of story is based on new evidence.

If you choose to believe a balloon caused this confusion, that's your choice.
Yes I do. Such ballon trains were highly experimental and not at all what meteorologists used for weather observations. Since niether of the two responding officers was a Meterorologist, neither really understood what was there that DID relate to WX ballons i.e. the rawin targets.

Here is Jesse Marcel Sr's statement:

Snipped for brevity. What he describes is not inconsistent with the balloon train launched by the NYU scientists several weeks before. Ruptured ballons held together (menaing in sequence) with string and shredded rawin targets that hit brush and pulled apart by the wind. They are only made of foil and alsa wood attached with tape so it would come apart under minimal stress.
I'll digress for a moment and ask this: Since Maj. Marcel ascribed wondrous strength properties to this stuff, how is it that the object exploded with enough force to demolish bits of this wondrous stuff, yet leave such a small pile and no shock wave evidence in the surrounding brush.


As I have pointed out many times before, there is no hard evidence to support ETUFO's. There is no proof.

True. Not a scrap.

That is enough to convict people in a court of law, and that is enough for many people to decide that there is indeed something extraordinary, possibly extra-terrestrial, happening in our skies.

But it is NOT enough to be scientific. Courts can do many things, even outrageous ones. The results do NOT give us new knowledge about any science. The extraordinary part can be resolved merely by a lack of knowledge about ordinary but quite fascinating phenomena, extraordinary to observe, but ordinary in its explanation. The other half of the possibility equation is possibly not extraterrestrial.

I have gone in the course of my life to being UFO paranoid in my early youth, to a researching beleiver in my teens to my current state of skeptic requiring some really extraordinary proof. My standards for which are quite high. Nothing out there in the UFO research community is compelling. Show me the saucer.

Thanks for the reply Waarthog. While I have read about the experimental ballon train, it was still made of aluminum foil, tape, string and balsa wood, and not something that Air Force officers are going to identify as a flying disc. Regardless of who came up with that description first, it is what was written, approved, and released at 2:26pm that day, after they had a whole day to examine the wreckage.

You have an excellent point regarding the shock wave from an explosion, but I have not read any investigation into this. But according to the FBI report detailing the evidence as found by an Air Force investigator, there is no doubt about what was found. We're not talking about some ordinary citizen seeking fame and fortune. We're talking about an Air Force investigator giving this information to an FBI SA, and the subsequent memo to the Director of the FBI.

It is a sensationalized press release because of the context of what a "flying disk found" implied in the minds of the general public. Horribly managed by all accounts. It was not only clearly a balloon, the flight plan has been shown to coincide exactly with what was supposedly the mysteriously found UFO. There is no coverup, it's all fabrication from an overly excited ETUFO public that got let down sadly.

Residual evidence that does not lead to a scientific conclusion of extraterrestrial origin. Therefore it only goes to show that there is no proof.

This is not a court of law, this is scientific fact. People have been hung who were innocent. Juries are fallible. Absolutely.

That's also why people believe in psychics and in zetatalk. Same rationale. It's faulty and, frankly, ignorant.

You don't have the right to be tired of my attitude since you yourself said you have no way of evaluating whether someone is right or wrong. I might as well be right for all you care.

Please, don't show restraint, let it all out.

All I ask for is proof. If you can't provide that, it is your problem, not mine. The truth hurts sometimes.

I find it hard to believe that people continue to insist they know about things that they clearly don't. As long as we're going to trade opinions, I find both you and A. DIM to be full of hot air. I know many others agree with me as well. That's neither here nor there because it's not what I think of you that matters. It's what the facts show. And the facts show this claim is without grounds.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: JS Princeton on 2003-03-17 22:37 ]</font>

Or identify as anything else. Are we to presume that just as the Cold War is ramping up and tensions over the Soviet nuclear program are running higher than ever that the Air Force is just going to come out and say "Oh, that debris? It's from a secret program to monitor Commie A-bomb tests, why don't you come on by and take some snapshots?"
I'm a little surprised that so many people seem to think that the military would not keep things secret if they weren't of alien origin. While we're sort of on the topic, let me recommend that everyone read Chris Buckley's book Little Green Men, it's VERY funny.


Edited for late night punctuation errors _________________
If you can't dazzle 'em with dexterity, baffle 'em with BS.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Dickenmeyer on 2003-03-17 22:55 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Dickenmeyer on 2003-03-17 22:57 ]</font>

Agreed, it's a laugh riot.

"I'm not going to simply accept the testimony of an individual if the claims are extraordinary."

Remember your remark on my plural use on agent? Well, I think you are ignoring the issue of individuals here, not individual.

I really don't see anything wrong with your criteria either. I don't agree with it, but it simply is not mine.

Moreover, I don't have any scientific evidence on this issue, I never said I did. One of the first things I will tell someone when talking about UFOs is that there is no scientific evidence available to substantiate the claims that unexplained airial phenomonia is linked to aliens, other worlds, time travel, etc.

As for my criteria, you should already know what I consider to be admissable as evidence. I answered it two days ago:

Personal testamony, which is evidence in any court of law, of an observation IS evidence! Not scientific, but then again some scientific evidence is not admisable in a court of law as evidence. You say you want scientific evidence, then you say you want an oservation, I believe you really want neither. You would atempt to debunk any evidence put to you, and in the case of a credable first hand account, you would simply discredit the person. This is the oldest trick in the book, used by both sides. A good bonafide scientific, or non scientific researcher would know that.

Piont in case:

"People who may seem to have a lot of credibility can have problems with themselves.

Like I have said:
I'm sure statistics can show us a percentage of even the most rational, and balanced people suffering from some kind of condition or another. But I don't think it is rational to lump ALL of the most credibile people into this catagory.

Or for that matter this one:

"And the military besides is not known for promoting the best of mental health. This isn't a prejudiced statement, it's backed up by medical documentation. Some individuals are wacky and it doesn't matter if they've been promoted to Colonel."

I'll see your Colonel and raise you a General, Dubose.

--------------------------------------------

"Hmm... You didn't trust the Sonoma State website? Why's that? Why is the telephone a better source?"

Gee, why wouldn't it be better? Just think, to actually have the opertunity to talk to a real live human, it's wild, try it some time.

It really wasn't a question of trust, I could not find BA's name in the faculty saction on the site. So I was not about to use it as a confirmation. All I could find was a link to this site. Which one could take as an endorsement.

As for the phone thing, well, now whos paraniod?

--------------------------------------------
As for this:
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=El...O-8859-1&hl=en

I give you names and you give me wacko web groups. And you never answered my question:

But I'll give you names, when you start telling me who the millions of people are who believe Elvis is still alive. Are any of them former CIA?

If you have time to look for/at stuff like the above e-group, man you got to much free time! [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_rolleyes.gif[/img]

Hows about spending some of it helping me move?
--------------------------------------------

By the way, my concern is not who I am or am not lumped in with. My concern is to be open to information and not to just dismiss whole catagories of such because some people are just plain looney! Higher education, experiance, millitary service, or ditch digger some people are very honest and sincere, some are complete loonies.

__________________
"Propaganda must not serve the truth, especially insofar as it might bring out something favorable for the opponent" -Adolf Hitler

Matter of syntax. Any GIVEN individual.

Then, you can surely tell me why you dismiss psychics. After all, they have the same level of credibility as these claims.

Psychics, too, have been admissable as courtroom witnesses. Perhaps we should listen more carefully to what Nancy has to say?

This is where the argument falls apart. Once you stray from science, there is no way to verify anything short of making a judgement about a human being. Science is much more assured. Things for which we have no scientific evidence very rarely turn out to have anything behind them. If you think differently, perhaps you'd like to offer an example.

Reposting this comment is a bit insulting since I've explained to you that science is EXACTLY what I want.

And you accuse ME of jumping to conclusions. Sheesh! Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!

And like I have said: that's not the issue. The issue is when there's no evidence to back the person up, how do we know whether they are credible or not? How do you know that fish didn't speak in Hebrew? You haven't really said whether you believe that one or not. That's why baloney detectors are useful.

As I have said over and over again, you've got a President of the United States who has witnesses a "UFO". That's just as much credibility as your general. I don't believe that either one has the extraordinary evidence required.

The answer lies in that site. You do your own research if you really care, but, yes, there are CIA agents that believe Elvis is alive.

I have studied the "Elvis is alive" phenomenon for the same reason I studied the ETUFO phenomenon: I'm interested in what and why people believe. The reason I use science as a criteria for detecting baloney is because there is so much out there that IS baloney. I just wonder how you can call "Elvis is alive!" crazy without doing an research into it, but continue to advocate that there are "mysteries" that haven't been solved with respect to this set of beliefs. I have a baloney detector that utilizes science. What does yours beep at? Obviously it beeps for Elvis is Alive. But there are any number of studies that have been done by people in the Elvis is Alive community that have shown he is alive.

Sound familiar? It's the same game that is played with ETUFO. Exactly the same. The people have JUST AS MUCH credibility. They come from all walks of life and all circumstancese. Just like in the ETUFO community.

I might say the same thing about you. We spend our time researching what interests ourselves. I happen to be interested in what people believe: but I don't care what the belief is, in order for it to be shown to be credible I require scientific evidence. A critical evaluation of history also shows that this method is the best for determining what phenomena will ultimately end up yielding fruit. You've heard about the Sir Arthur Conan Doyle and fairies, right? Same idea.

Then you should also entertain the existence of fairies, talking fish, and the "observed" fact that Elvis is Alive.

This is EXACTLY what I'm saying, and the way one determines this is by evaluating their claims scientifically. Else, how do you determine it? You say "in a court of law", but as I have pointed out, there are things admissable in a court of law (psychic testimony, for one) that you don't seem to agree with are based in reality. So, again I ask, what is you criteria so that Elvis-sightings, psychics, zetatalk, and talking fish (well, you haven't commented on the talking fish, so I don't know whether you believe in that one or not... touche!) are fakes but UFOlogy has some "truth" behind it?

OK guys, you might want to reel it in a notch. This is degenerating into farce of who said what who meant what. Keep it up Phil might lock the thread.

Hank,
Use of the term "flying disk" at that time still meant damn little other than something they didn't know how else to categorize it. If neither of the two investigators were trained in balloon/rawin ops, they could still categorize the debris as being from a "flying disk" without specifying or implying "extraterrestrial spacecraft" simply because they cannot identify what the material is.

Then what about the descriptions of the materials recovered that would rule out a balloon, and the FBI report from an Air Force investigator stating what was found in sufficient detail to rule out a balloon? Were all the officers involved in this discovery so inept and mistaken that it took Brig. Gen. Ramey to clear up the mystery of what the aluminum foil and string was? It's scary to think that with 24 hours to investigate, the Air Force base wouldn't have a clue that the foil, string, tape, and balsa wood was not "a flying disc". The Air Force used the term "flying disc" purposely in their press release, as that was the popular term for UFO's, and it was approved for release. That was not just a newspaper term the next day. If I were to walk around a farm and find aluminum foil and string scattered throughout, I would not think it was a flying disc and send a press release out to the world! And I'm not even in the Air Force! You're asking me to believe that these Air Force personnel were that inept. That's what I have a problem accepting.

Can we agree that the military lied to us at the time, and stuck with that lie for decades, based on their disclosure 50 years later that it was not a weather balloon?

I've mostly been staying out of this debate, but....

Hank, where are these wonder materials? It looks to me like all we have are hearsay descriptions of them, and I think the value of hearsay has already been discussed here. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

__________________
...And that, my liege, is how we know the Earth to be banana-shaped. --Sir Bedevere

The option reamins that the Air Force may have, perhaps "inadvertantly," made THEMSELVES look or appear "inept" in issuing both the initial report, and its later retraction.

It should have taken months before such a report can be released to any agent — only after a long process of discovery as to what that debris was — if we are to take any of this seriously.
It was a farce from the very beginning and another lesson to look before you leap and to make sure you know what both hands are doing before reaching for the soap.

How can anyone — Air Force or otherwise — determine what is and what is not an alien craft in one day?
That is what this matter totally hinges on — what was released in the intial press release — as everything else that has come since has given this material a rather mundane and earthly origin.
(Not that listening in, (or the ability to listen), to Soviet detonations was "mundane" even then, but it is a far cry from empirical proof of, not only the existence of alien life, but also irrefutable proof of their visitation to Earth.)

Even I, the Grand Poopah of Fence Sitters, had to make a decision on the validity of that issue.
I believe the Air Force.

Then what about the descriptions of the materials recovered that would rule out a balloon

What descriptions would these be? All of the descriptions made at the time by those who saw it were of burned rubber like material, bits of foil, short broken balsa like sticks and colored tape. Awfully balloonish if you ask me. The foil covered neporene is thought to be the culprit of the wondrous materials claims as it doesn;t crease, is hard to tear, and hitting it with a sledgehammer won't do a damn thing to it.

and the FBI report from an Air Force investigator stating what was found in sufficient detail to rule out a balloon

Might I have a source for this since I have never heard of any FBI reports in regard to Roswell debris?

Were all the officers involved in this discovery so inept and mistaken that it took Brig. Gen. Ramey to clear up the mystery of what the aluminum foil and string was?

Inept? No. Mistaken yes. I keep repeating myself since it doesn't seem to be sinking in that those who investigated had no training and experience in these kinds of objects and had no reference point to say. The Met officer at RAAF was NEVER consulted as to the possibility that this was a WX ballon derivative. Ramey consulted his Met officer who immediatly recognized the debris for what it was. That it had to go to Ramey to do it WAS a bit of a cock up.

It's scary to think that with 24 hours to investigate, the Air Force base wouldn't have a clue that the foil, string, tape, and balsa wood was not "a flying disc".

You might think it scary, I think it was people not knowing what it was.

The Air Force used the term "flying disc" purposely in their press release, as that was the popular term for UFO's,

I disagree. This is how it was charachterized by Mac Brazel and the local media. At the time, the closest thing the AF had to a term for UFO's just that. It did not yet have wide public understanding that UFO= ETS

If I were to walk around a farm and find aluminum foil and string scattered throughout I would not think it was a flying disc and send a press release out to the world!

If you came upon material you had never worked with before and had no training or experience with, you might.
I don't know how many more ways I can say this before it hits home or you tell me not to but this is not a case of ineptitude so much as inexperience. Marcell while not inept was judged based on his fitness reports to be an average to below average officer in his drive and performance.

Can we agree that the military lied to us at the time, and stuck with that lie for decades, based on their disclosure 50 years later that it was not a weather balloon?

Not a chance. It was only a lie insofar as the evidence given to General Ramey that had gone unidentified by the RAAF personnell was identified as being the same type of components USED by WX type balloons. I do not recall if Gen Ramey knew of the NYU experiemnts or not, but even so, to state that the material in question was ordinary WX ballon type material is not a lie.

A press release of a flying disk recovery, does not a flying saucer crash make. Where are the bodies and the main saucer? Marcell specifically stated nothing hit the ground. None of the accounts recorded in 1947 mention these things. All Brazel reported was debris in the field that had been there for some weeks by the time he saw it, and he left it there for a couple more. Since popular myth has it that the crash was on the 3rd of July, this material could not possibly be from it. Since Randle and Friedman can't agree on when or where either, this in and of itself makes the whole Roswell data-set suspect.

"OK guys, you might want to reel it in a notch. This is degenerating into farce of who said what who meant what. Keep it up Phil might lock the thread."

You have a very good point! And I suppose there is scientific evidence to back THIS up! He has locked other threads, right?

Oh well, so much for the First Amendment. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_eek.gif[/img]