Hidden Truth/Hidden Truth.iso/data/newspostings/1601-1700/1682

Internet Message Format | 1996-06-20 | 7.6 KB

Path: news.demon.co.uk!dispatch.news.demon.net!demon!usenet2.news.uk.psi.net!uknet!usenet1.news.uk.psi.net!uknet!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!news.mathworks.com!hunter.premier.net!insync!news.io.com!news
From: [e-mail] (Bill Peterson)
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors,alt.paranet.ufo,sci.skeptic,sci.physics
Subject: Re: Dr. Paul Hill's repulsive force field
Date: 20 Jun 1996 15:45:14 -0500
Organization: Illuminati Online
Lines: 154
Message-ID: <4qcd8q$[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <4q3rqb$[e-mail]> <4q403a$[e-mail]> <4qbejk$[e-mail]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: shangri-la.io.com
Xref: news.demon.co.uk alt.alien.visitors:88661 alt.paranet.ufo:53952 sci.skeptic:73009 sci.physics:79090

In article <4qbejk$[e-mail]>,
Mark O'Leary <[e-mail]> wrote:
>In article <4q403a$[e-mail]>, Bill Peterson <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>>>Leaving aside the content, if any of the debate, I'd just like to focus on
>>>what seems to be the way its being conducted:
>>>
>>>The question is "Is this relevant to "falling leaf" maneuvers?", and your
>>>answer was to talk about "bank to turn" maneuvers!
>>>
>>
>>Banking to turn and "falling leaf" are both maneuvers descibed by
>>Hill as effects of the drive mechanism. I chose the shorter
>>cases to type in, pure laziness. Both maneuvers are caused
>>by aiming the propulsion beam, according to Hill. I think they
>>are the same thing.
>
>Oh come one!
>
>You were trying to disprove the suggestion that "falling leaf" style UFO
>maneuvers could simply be misidentification of falling 'flat' rubbish such as
>cardboard. The discussion was *not* about the drive mechanism at that point.
>No-one is suggesting that other clasees of sighting, eg the 1800mph flight,
>bank to turn, or ground trace etc are *all* explained by cardboard.
>
>Since you continually try to change subject away from the obvious
>correspondance in flight dynamics between falling flat objects such as the
>fast-becominng-legendary cardboard and Hills purported drive mechanism, are
>we to assume that you acknowledge the point and having no comment to make
>against it?

As I understand it, you are saying that cardboard *could* be
mis-interpreted to be a "falling leaf" UFO. Correct? I agree,
that is possible and has probably happened. Now. Are you also
saying that ALL "falling leaf" reports are cardboard? If so,
please indicate which sightings show this.

>
>>>And this was in response to your mapping 1800mph, radar trace sightings onto
>>>the suggested 'cardboard' explanation for 'falling leaf' sightings!
>>
>>My main complaint was against the wording of the original post.
>>If you still have it, it goes something like this:
>>"According to SaucerZealot logic, the "cardboard effect" doesn't
>>exist, therefore it must be an ET UFO."
>
>Possibly a result of frustration from the refusal to address the point at
>all? I don't know. I agree that both sides (with exceptions) have
>deteriorated into reflex name-calling in parallel with the points they make.
>

I agree that cardbaord would superficially resemble those motions.

>>>It's falling into a pattern of non-sequitur after non-sequitur.
>>>
>>>I seem to recall that when you first joined this debate, BP, you were a
>>>little more honest in your tactics.
>>>
>>
>>In my opinion, any post that uses the term SaucerZealot is not
>>worthy of any answer at all. This claim, if taken literally, says
>>that since SZ's are so lame, they see everything as ET UFO's,
>>even cardboard. I just wanted to set the record straight that there
>>are plenty of sightings that cannot be explained by cardboard.
>
>Zealots are people that strongly beleive something - the term has no
>connotation as to whether the beleif is well founded or not. You may choose
>to interpret 'SZ' as an insult (I'm not denying that the one who types it
>means it as such either), but the words themselves arent perjorative. The
>insults are going both ways now between those that stoop to that activity.
>The choice is simple - respond to the insults, raising the amount of noise
>in the discussion but acheiving little else, or addressing the content of
>the posts that lurks between the insults - make the insulter look stupid by
>disproving their logic rather than chanting schoolboy taunts...
>
>i.e. if you think 'SZ' posts arent worth replying to, *don't reply*...
>

Very tempting.

>>>If you want to blow the 'falling cardboard' idea out of the water, cite a
>>>sighting where the "falling leaf" behaviour was followed or preceeded by
>>>high-speed, high-g maneuvers by the same object, or heavy mass ground traces
>>>or the like. The more you avoid the points being made, the more it looks
>>>like you've conceded the point and are trying to disguise the fact by
>>>changing the ground of debate.
>>>
>>
>>I will be glad to conduct a real inquiry or debate, but not with
>>someone who makes the claim as shown above. That was total bullshit
>>and I have no qualms about giving it back.
>
>OK, then.
>If you won't answer him, answer me. I don't recall ever using the 'SZ' term,
>and I do try and be polite most of the time. My snetiments more or less
>match his concerning the match between 'saucer landing' maneuvers and
>falling cardboard. What makes a misidentification of litter *less* likely
>than ET visitors in an anti-grav ship? [the case I asked for above that
>would 'blow the explanantion out of the water' would work admirably in
>answer to this question, if such a case exists]...
>

Are you proposing cardboard as the answer, and now expect us to "blow it
out of the water"? I would say that in order to get attention to the
proposition, show us a sighting that can be attributed to cardboard.
I will not take the burden of proving that all sightings are not cardboard.
I admit that the mistake could be made, but I'd like to see a case of
it.

>>>Transparent tactics.
>>
>>There is nothing to win with an opponent that insults you, therefore
>>it was not tactics at all. I'm not in that "debate".
>
>WHy did you keep answering the factual content of his posts with
>(inappropriate, nonsequitur) facts of your own, then? If you werent in the
>debate, why did you *post*?
>
>I personally find insulting opponents much easier to 'win' against.
>Answering an insult with a polite and logical explanation makes ones case a
>lot stronger to other readers, I find.
>
>>If you want to
>>make the claim that cardboard has been responsible for a sighting,
>>go ahead.  Please indicate which sighting(s), and I'll take the
>>time to research it.
>
>Ahhh... It's not a question of individual sightings. It's merely the fact
>that the many sightings that Hill and supporters of his advance, where a
>'falling leaf' movement is observed by the UFO, could be explained
>(possibly) by a mundane light, flat object (such as newspaper or cardboard)
>falling to the ground. The 'glow' of these UFOs could be explained by
>reflected light from ground sources, reflection of sunset due to being at
>higher altitude for twilight sightings (this would agree with the
>observation of 'reddish' "ionisation glow" for low speed maneuvers, such as
>'falling leaf' landings), or to the cardboard itself glowing due to inks, or
>even burning.
>
>All you need is a falling leaf movement that corresponds with a strong radar
>or ground trace, and this hypothesis has been shown unlikely in at least one
>case.
>

So the burden is on us, the SZ's? In other words, the default assumption
is that it is cardboard. I don't agree with that assumption. Please show
any sightings that you think can be attributed to cardbaord. I will attempt
to dig up something to refute this, but personally I think it's silly.

BP

--
Disclaimer: I only speak for myself, and sometimes I wish I hadn't!