Hidden Truth/Hidden Truth.iso/data/newspostings/1401-1500/1410

Internet Message Format | 1996-06-18 | 9.4 KB

Path: news.demon.co.uk!dispatch.news.demon.net!demon!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!oleane!jussieu.fr!math.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!newsspool.doit.wisc.edu!news.doit.wisc.edu!news
From: Brian Zeiler <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors,alt.paranet.ufo,alt.alien.research,sci.skeptic
Subject: Edelman's stream of fallacies (was Re: Skeptic fallacies, a select few)
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 1996 18:22:07 -0700
Organization: University of Wisconsin
Lines: 179
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <4pi2p3$[e-mail]> <4pio1c$[e-mail]> <4q27h7$[e-mail]> <4q3m4n$[e-mail]> <4q47u7$[e-mail]> <4q4crb$[e-mail]> <4q5kio$[e-mail]> <4q73kk$[e-mail]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: f180-167.net.wisc.edu
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Win16; I)
Xref: news.demon.co.uk alt.alien.visitors:88266 alt.paranet.ufo:53694 alt.alien.research:26114 sci.skeptic:72506

Michael Edelman wrote:

> We see a lot of claims from people writing here that they do "research".

And we see claims from people like you that are regularly proven false,
yet strangely, they persist anyway like a typical fanatical zealot.

> They don't collect data, or test hypotheses.

I'm collecting data through the Freedom of Information Act.  What are you
doing besides dumping your verbal excrement in this group with hollow
ridicule and obnoxious winks?

>What they do is read books ]
> written by other UFO fans. This is how research was done in the Dark Ages ;-)

More ignorant blather from a vapid buffoon.  These "books written by
other UFO fans" that are cited by David Rudiak and myself make use of
government data that can easily be confirmed or refuted.  This data is
from the USAF primarily.  It's pretty shady of you to minimize the value
by calling them "books by written by other UFO fans".  If you have a
problem with this,  I suggest you attempt to authenticate some
information, and if you fail to provide corroboration from the USAF,
then you will have the right to be the obnoxious prick that you are.
Until then, however, you can only be regarded as a pseudoscientific
crackpot for refuting 50 years of literature on a subject with empty,
hollow, generalized claims with absolutely no empirical information to
defend your apparent accusations of fraudulent data.

> Given how poor communications were between here and Brazil in the 1950s,

Can you corroborate this claim of yours that communications between the
US and Brazilian governments were poor in the 1950s?  If you can't, we
shall have further evidence that you're an irrelevant waste of electrons.


> I would have serious problems with the chain of evidence there

The "chain of evidence" consists of letters and reports from Brazilian
government agencies and laboratories.  Please elaborate on the nature of
these problems you have after you've corroborated your claim that
communications were poor.

> - not to
> mention the previous question of why aliens were using such primative
> materials.

So the use of pure magnesium in an airborne vehicle for purposes unknown
automatically implies that it is a "primative [sic] material".  Can you
please corroborate this claim of yours that the uses of pure magnesium in
airborne vehicles are invariably primitive?

> And pure Mg wasn't possible in the 1950s? Think again.

Can you corroborate your claim that pure magnesium could be manufactured
in the early 1950s?  You can't, because Dow and other agencies conceded
that no artificial manufacture nor natural occurrence of pure magnesium
was known at that time.  But, give it the ol' college try anyway, Mike.
It's getting to be amusing -- in a derisive sort of way -- to watch you
ask all these skeptical questions every day that are always answered with
objective references that you refuse to track down.  It's even more fun
to watch you make claims that are wholly unsubstantiated and that
contradict the substantiated claims that we are citing.  This should tell
you something, but since you're a zealot, it doesn't.

> : This was completely consistent with the witness reports
> : of the fragments coming from an exploding saucer
>
> ...as we have a lot of data from exploding saucers that we can compare it
> to!

Either you're deeply stupid or you're blinded by fanaticism.  David's
point was that the evidence was *consistent* with the witnesses' reports.
They reported viewing an unconventional object explode over water, and
the physical evidence was of an unconventional nature and had slight
traces consistent with exposure to liquid water.  Your silly response is
totally irrelevant to this consistency between the report and the
physical evidence.

> , with the recovered fragments
> : coming from and being quickly cooled by shallow ocean water (which would produce
> : the hydroxide, not oxide, from the hydrolysis of water).
>
> So we have proof of....hot magnesium hitting water?

Classic example of SkepticMinimalism.  Mike, we have physical evidence
that corroborates the claims of the witnesses to a large, but not 100%
certain, degree.  This physical evidence was also determined by the
Brazilian government and by Dow to defy our knowledge of natural and
artificial occurence of this substance.

> I'd guess we have a piece of an aircraft, or possibly a chunk of
> or ICBM debris.

Now we see Mike lapsing into SkepticInformationFilter.  Debunkers have a
deflective shield around their cortex that guards against the absorption
of information that contradicts their collapsing hypothesis.  Mike, here,
has apparently decided -- contrary to the verifiable evidence by Dow and
various government agencies -- that pure magnesium *did* exist at the
time.  Of course, if Mike could provide some evidence of this, he might
be a little more convincing when he tries to debunk the other evidence
and verifiable substantiations of the never-before-seen pure magnesium.

So, because Mike has declared that the evidence of the lack of
availability of pure magnesium does not exist, he can therefore conclude
that it was an aircraft or ICBM.  Quite amusingly, he probably believes
that this is an accurate and sound application of Occam's Razor.  He
believes that Occam's Razor is a heuristic to preserve the "simple
explanation" at all costs, even if it means arbitrarily dismissing
nonconforming evidence and making unsubstantiated claims.


> Mg was a major material in 1950s aerospace
> technology.

Not pure magnesium.  Unless you can provide some documentation to this
effect, I'd rather take the word of Dow and other labs, thank you very
much.

> It's been replaced by other materals and composites that were
> unknown then. Again, why are advanced aliens using Mg instead of
> stronger, lighter, tougher materials?

Why do you assume that pure magnesium has only one use?  Maybe they eat
magnesium and make their onboard pool cues out of magnesium.  This is a
totally idiotic and absurd line of pseudoskeptical reasoning.

> Well, in the 1950s, Mg was a space-age material. NOt today.

Do you understand what is meant by "pure magnesium", and that it was not
in existence in the early 1950s?

> Hey, I'm not the one claiming that aliens use magnesium! You are. I've
> already shown you that it's extremely plausible that you're talking about
> a piece of 1950s aerospace technology.

You haven't shown *squat* except your own grossly uninformed and
illogical opinion.  YOU are the one contradicting the testimony of those
who should know, those who said that nobody knew of artificially or
naturally occurring pure magnesium at the time.  David supplied
references.  Yet you have decided that pure magnesium somehow did exist,
evidence and references be damned.  Just like a good "skeptic".  Somehow,
in a further display of disturbingly fallacious logic, you conclude that
you've "shown" that it's "extremely plausible" that it was 1950s
aerospace technology.  Amazing.  How can you call yourself a scientist?
You're nothing but a crackpot when you exhibit these revolting logical
fallacies.

>
> I'll bet not one saucer fan has revisited the question of whether very
> pure Mg was a product of 1950s aerospace technology.

You've been given the evidence and conclusions that pure magnesium was
unavailable at the time.  Yet you contradict this evidence with
absolutely nothing to offer yourself.  Logically, YOU are the one that
needs to revisit this question.  Maybe between your constant barrage of
derogatory terms like "saucer fan" you can actually squeeze in a little
substance next time.

> They generally
> don't investigate paths likely to contradict their fantastic hypotheses.

Oh please.  You're the one that's been contradicting the entire body of
research, evidence, and references -- with absolutely *_NO_* evidence of
your own to offer.  YOU are the one that is refusing to investigate paths
that contradict YOUR idiotic hypothesis, because your hypothesis for the
magnesium has already been decimated.

> You're a scientist, you say; what research have you done, other than
> reading past saucer tales?

And thus Mike lapses back into his rabid rants.  Little does he know how
completely insane he appears for stomping around the UFO newsgroups like
a madman, hurling insults around and overturning decades of verifiable
research with a few keystrokes.  He really doesn't recognize the obvious
lunacy in this behavior.

--
Brian Zeiler