Hidden Truth/Hidden Truth.iso/data/newspostings/1701-1800/1773

Internet Message Format | 1996-06-21 | 5.7 KB

Path: news.demon.co.uk!dispatch.news.demon.net!demon!netcom.net.uk!ix.netcom.com!netnews.worldnet.att.net!newsxfer2.itd.umich.edu!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.ycc.yale.edu!news
From: Cluster User <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors,alt.paranet.ufo,alt.alien.research
Subject: Re: Abnormal psychology on the Internet: Brian Z.
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 1996 13:59:36 -0400
Organization: Yale University
Lines: 99
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <4q1qpg$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: trurl.eng.yale.edu
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (X11; I; IRIX 5.3 IP12)
Xref: news.demon.co.uk alt.alien.visitors:88826 alt.paranet.ufo:54056 alt.alien.research:26395

Jim Rogers wrote:
>
> Brian Zeiler wrote:
> > Fredric L. Rice wrote:
> >
> > > <smile> Project Mogul accurately describes reasonable explanations for
> > > all the known facts about the so-called "Roswell crash"

<smile> What's that- wishful thinking? It is obvious that every "reasonable
explanation" regarding Mogul must be stretched to the breaking point to cover
just the most general of details witnesses describe. It's quite a leap of
faith to believe that because Mogul was declassified we can now just forget
Roswell.

And that does appear to be what you are implying we should do. Why the great
hurry to call the subject dead?

> > ROFL.  Of course, you forget that the Mogul debris was unclassified
> > because it consisted of VERY basic, familiar neoprene material and
> > accompanying reflectors and whatnot.  Only the *project* was classified,
> > and the Alamogordo team had left debris to decompose before when it
> > landed on rough terrain.  Civilians had recovered debris before,
> > according to records, without being detained and threatened for a week
> > like Brazel was.
>
> Circumstantial, as has been pointed out to you endless times.

So, you don't like "circumstantial" evidence, and you also don't like witness
testimony- so just what it is you want? It sounds like what you want is to
convince people the subject isn't worth looking in to- why exactly do you care
so much about it?

> > Furthermore, why did nobody recognize the smell, look, and feel of
> > neoprene?  Everybody involved had handled neoprene balloons before. Such
> > a perceptive failure in dozens of people is infathomable, except to the
> > paranoid skeptic fringe, apparently.
>
> According to your own reasoning, neoprene left out in the sun for several
> days would get crunchy and black. What was there to inerrantly recognize
> as an ordinary downed neoprene balloon?

Well, if neoprene turns in to some of the materials described by witnesses,
then I guess we can certainly understand why the government was in a hurry to
shut the doors on the incident.

> > Why was no ID tag among the debris, as it was among other balloon
> > recoveries?
>
> According to your "debris field" quote, stuff was spread out over a huge
> area. How big was this tag, and what makes you so sure Brazel would have
> found it? Merely because in other balloon recoveries, it was found?

I'm sorry, I don't understand who was saying the tag was never found- is that
in the military records? Of course I wouldn't expect Brazel to find it.

> > This is called critical reasoning, Fred.
>
> BWAHAHAHAHA! Yesindeedy. I call it selective examination of the data, the
> very thing you accuse the "paranoid (?) skeptic fringe" of doing.

Mogul doesn't naturally explain any of the facts of the Roswell case. It must
be twisted and stretched to cover a few selected details, and it is on that
sort of shakey foundation that you are calling Roswell a closed book. Talk
about selective examination...

> > ....  Here are some more facts, since you seem
> > quite factually impoverished:
>
> Mixed in among a whole lot of personal opinion. Look Brian, if you intend to
> present "facts," then present "facts" and not a zillion lines of crap with a
> few actual facts sprinkled throughout. All your approach accomplishes is to
> overwhelm the newsgroup with high-volume, low signal:noise opinion and a
> childish demand on your part that the rest of us wade through it to figure
> out whatever the hell your point is supposed to be.
> Jim

I disagree; Brian, when not caught in an endless cycle of verbal war, actually
posts a lot of relevant, non-opinion material that he has worked to acquire-
FOIA stuff, government/military documents, corespondences with individuals,
interesting book text... in short, while he has opinions, he above all goes
out of his way to find support that is independant of his opinion, acquiring
material that ought to be of equal interest to all interested in the subject
of UFOs, "skeptical" or otherwise.

OTOH, There is a contingent of self-proclaimed "skeptics" (that I tend to
refer to as "Skeptics") in this group, however, that appear to have never done
any objective research whatsoever, and feel that their contribution to a
newsgroup it isn't even clear they should be writing in is to fill the
bandwith with arm-chair dismissals and vapid, insulting generalizations. For
the groups one Brian, I can name 6 rabid-debunkers off the top of my head. The
irony is that I would most certainly classify Brian as genuinely more
skeptical that these particular self-proclaimed Skeptics, who appear much more
to be people in a great hurry to dismiss fact in order to protect unspecified
beliefs.

This isn't to suggest that there are no healthy, contributing skeptics here.
They are plentiful, but they are much quieter, and involved in less
emotionalizing efforts than the type of Skpetic that chose to entitle a thread
"Abnormal psychology on the Internet: Brian Z."