--------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 221 UFO Ref: F1R00002 Date: 01/08/98 From: PAUL ANDINACH Time: 09:40pm \/To: RON TAYLOR (Read 3 times) Subj: Postcard -=> Quoting RON TAYLOR to JACK SARGEANT <=- RT> The soap-opera fantasies are a really RT> good comparison... for instance, I think the high divorce rate is, to RT> a great extent, a result of being told by the soaps that RT> dissolutionment is an acceptable alternative to marriage... Actually, someone's uncovered scientific evidence that suggests that divorce might be a side-effect of prolonged use of The Pill. You don't believe me, do you? (I can tell, I'm psychic. ;) ) Well, it's true. Paul ... To a tennis player, love means nothing. --- Blue Wave/Max v2.30 [NR] * Origin: The Perth PC Users Group BBS - 08-9497-7772 (3:690/650) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 221 UFO Ref: F1R00003 Date: 01/08/98 From: PAUL ANDINACH Time: 09:46pm \/To: ALL (Read 3 times) Subj: Re: Testor's UFO....Coming > Testor's also brought out a F-117 and and Aurora prior to them > declassified by the Air Force. Someone help me on this. Has the Aurora actually been declassified? Paul ... but trust me on the sunscreen. --- Blue Wave/Max v2.30 [NR] * Origin: The Perth PC Users Group BBS - 08-9497-7772 (3:690/650) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 221 UFO Ref: F1R00004 Date: 01/08/98 From: PAUL ANDINACH Time: 09:47pm \/To: GEORGE JIRI OPLETAL (Read 3 times) Subj: Re: Evening with Phil Klass -=> Quoting George Jiri Opletal to David Bloomberg <=- GJO> Sure....he represents the extreme skeptic amongst skeptics. He's GJO> been caught out on a number of occasions, making unresearched claims, GJO> which were later proven wrong. This is a mark of a person with a GJO> completely set view on this phenomena. Depending on how large the "number of occasions", and how he reacted, it could just be the mark of a person who was a bit too confident about something. It's happened to me many times, although never on anything this important. Paul ... Even skeptics are only human. --- Blue Wave/Max v2.30 [NR] * Origin: The Perth PC Users Group BBS - 08-9497-7772 (3:690/650) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 221 UFO Ref: F1R00005 Date: 01/14/98 From: PAUL ANDINACH Time: 06:00pm \/To: MICHAEL TAUSON (Read 3 times) Subj: Re: A surprize from the -=> Quoting Michael Tauson to Paul Andinach <=- MT> But ... but ... but ... Paul, the government is a collective MT> *master* at vagueness and non-answers. (I could give you the MT> example of any congress critter, but that's too obvious. ) MT> Then have them define what all that includes. PA> You actually expect somebody to come forward and say, PA> "Topics currently protected matters of national security PA> include the Aurora jet plane, the spy network in Moscow, PA> the bugs on the phones in the Iranian embassy, UFOs ... MT> Well, that'd be cool, but I doubt they would give specifics. My point was that the government can't give specifics without endangering national security, but if they don't give specifics they'll be accused of being deliberately vague and off-putting. It's a no-win situation. A Catch-51, if you like. PA> ... "I thought YOU had the controls!" - black box record found at PA> Roswell MT> ROFL ... and *swiped* ... thanks! Actually, it's one of Ivy's. Haven't you seen it before? Paul ... "I've never seen a silent lawyer before." --- Blue Wave/Max v2.30 [NR] * Origin: The Perth PC Users Group BBS - 08-9497-7772 (3:690/650) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 221 UFO Ref: F1R00006 Date: 01/14/98 From: PAUL ANDINACH Time: 06:07pm \/To: GEORGE JIRI OPLETAL (Read 3 times) Subj: Re: Carl Sagan on UFOs -=> Quoting George Jiri Opletal to Paul Andinach <=- PA> That is the world view that skeptics are supposedly striving to PA> achieve. Anything is possible, in theory, so we have to look at PA> what's more probable. GJO> Within the laws of physics. Skeptically speaking, we don't actually *know* that the laws of physics are true. We just make that assumption because we've never seen them go rong. But, yes, the alternative that stays within the laws of physics is considered more likely than the alternative that doesn't. PA> For example, UFOs. It is possible that they're alien spacecraft. PA> It is also possible that they're ghosts, GJO> No likely, it brings in far more complexity into the problem. I know. That was part of my point. PA> interdimensional travelers, GJO> How is that possible? No one yet knows. If no-one yet knows, then no-one knows it's impossible. So it remains a possibility. It's not very probable, but it is possible. GJO> If these are not human time travelers, they are ETs anyway, GJO> though I would think a more down to earth method of transportation GJO> would be employed. "down to earth"? I note in self-defense that none of the alternatives I suggested originated with me (except the glowing ducks); they have all been seriously suggested by other people (except the glowing ducks). PA> stars, GJO> The high maneuverability is not supportive of this theory. Not all UFOs have been reported to have exhibited high maneuverability. PA> balloons, GJO> same as above. Ditto. PA> normal aircraft, GJO> documented characteristics are beyond human aircraft capability at GJO> this time. Not for all UFOs. PA> meteors, GJO> again like stars. They have very predictable parabolic paths. Again, not all UFOs have been reported to have unpredictable movements. And even some that were turned out to be meteors. PA> satellites, GJO> again the simplistic paths, do not fit what government documents say. I'm getting tired of repeating myself here. PA> or ducks covered with Glowzone stickers. GJO> well, the movement would be more realistic, however, observed GJO> altitudes are a limit. Ah well, it wasn't all that great a contender anyway. (Mind you, some observed altitudes have turned out to be wrong...) PA> Based on the verifiable PA> evidence currently available, alien spacecraft are more likely PA> than ghosts, interdimensional travellers, and glowing ducks. But PA> they're still less likely than stars, balloons, misidentified PA> aircraft, meteors, and satellites. GJO> correct Paul....the fact is the skeptic do NOT have an alternativ GJO> explanation, I have actually never heard one, that explains what some GJO> of these documents talk about. For instance? Paul ... I'd write more often if these darn aliens would stop abducting me. --- Blue Wave/Max v2.30 [NR] * Origin: The Perth PC Users Group BBS - 08-9497-7772 (3:690/650) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 221 UFO Ref: F1R00007 Date: 01/14/98 From: PAUL ANDINACH Time: 06:31pm \/To: GEORGE JIRI OPLETAL (Read 3 times) Subj: Re: A surprize from the -=> Quoting George Jiri Opletal to Ivy Iverson <=- GJO> I am not sure how they relate the test dummies to project Mogul. GJO> Mogul was a pure surveillance platform. I can understand them drop GJO> test dummy near nuclear denotation, to test whether an entire GJO> paratrooper battional would be wiped out. However, there is no GJO> logical need for test dummies in Project Mogul. Anyhow, in was a GJO> pretty pathetic attempt considering how vastly wrong they got their GJO> dates. The way it was explained to me, the dummies were never part of Project Mogul. They were dropped some years later, and it is thought that some people got the two events confused in later years. After all, the bodies only became part of the Roswell story decades afterwards. (And so too did the alleged witnesses get their dates wrong, but you seem to believe them.) The government is actually being quite nice to try and find a possible explanation, no matter how stupid, rather than just assume that the people who claim to have seen bodies were just lying. GJO> Thus, that leaves natural GJO> phenomena, which can be easily discredited by the flying maneuvers GJO> these object perform. And what about the objects that don't perform these maneuvers? Paul ... Two unemployed teachers: One had no principle, the other, no class. --- Blue Wave/Max v2.30 [NR] * Origin: The Perth PC Users Group BBS - 08-9497-7772 (3:690/650) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 221 UFO Ref: F1R00008 Date: 01/15/98 From: PAUL ANDINACH Time: 04:00pm \/To: IVY IVERSON (Read 3 times) Subj: Re: Roswell Truth? [1/2] >>> Part 1 of 2... -=> Quoting Ivy Iverson to Sheppard Gordon <=- II> After posting my previous reply to you, I saw and read your II> interminable debunking of the Roswell incident. Saw and read, but didn't completely understand, it seems. Sheppard Gordon didn't write the article, and it was not meant to be exhaustive; it was a summary of the points in a book the article's author has written about Roswell. On several occasions in the article, we are referred to the book for more information (and presumably more details and more evidence). You even quote some of these referrals. By overlooking that single point, the plaintiff has severely crippled her case, m'lud. II> Is it not possible for the all-powerful American Trenchcoat Society, II> (FBI, CIA, ASA, NSA et al), who can leap tall buildings in a single II> bound, to alter all kinds of records, both military and civilian, forge II> signatures on all manner of documents and otherwise hide, cover up, or II> destroy any evidence they wish to keep hidden, and intimidate whomever II> they wish to say WHAT they wish? It's possible. So what? II> So all of the "But his college records showed..." and "His military II> records clearly said..." entries must be taken with a small pinch of II> sodium chloride. "must"? The article was looking at the evidence regarding the Roswell incident. Where is the evidence that the evidence has been tampered with? II> This fact casts the shadow of uncertainty upon at least 30% of your II> claims. Saying that the *possibility* of tampering is a "fact" is like stating "It is a fact that some UFO sightings might be caused by flocks of ducks wearing GlowZone stickers". II> I am not saying they are all fabrications of the Trenchcoat society, II> however I consider the possability. I don't know the author of the article, but I'm willing to bet that he considered the possibility as well, but dropped it because of insufficient evidence. II> Gee, I wonder if a well-equipped crime lab were to carefully examine II> the ORIGIONAL of said documents, would they conclude that the ink in II> that comments by his commander were the same age as the other documents II> in his record which carry about the same date? Gee, I wonder if this comment was made after considering the possibility that this may be covered in the book? SG> ... Major Marcel, when first interviewed, could not even SG> remember the year of the alleged UFO crash, let alone the month. SG> Indeed, Marcel's own answer as to when this supposed "snapshot memory" SG> event took place was simply "in the late forties"! II> I am in my 50's, and I clearly remember things which happened during II> my youth, but I'll be damned if I can tell you the year OR the month! II> When was Sputnik launched? I remember seeing it going overhead, but I II> could only say it was in the late 50's. I remember when President II> Kennedy was shot, but damned if I could tell you more than "The 50's"! II> When did our astronauts walk on the Moon? I clearly remember watching II> them walking there on live TV, but I couldn't tell you just when, II> beyond "Late 50's." In fact, JFK was shot in late November 1963, and no astronauts walked on the Moon before 1968, but that just proves your point. I think. II> So your assertion about Marcel not remembering when doesn't hold a drop II> of water with me. Did you miss the point, maybe? As you in fact quoted earlier in the message, UFO researchers have claimed that the alleged witnesses have such clear memories of the event that their testimony, relying on memory alone, is sufficient evidence. The author of the article agrees with you that people don't have memories that good, even the "witnesses". II> And what's DuBose's claim to infallability? For all I know, he could II> be employed by the CIA. I wouldn't go that far, but I suppose all the arguments about memory not improving over time may also apply. I dunno, maybe that's covered in the book. (A valid point! Quick, kill it before anyone notices! ) II> To quote a tagline I have, "Skeptic's Cleaver: Hack off any II> nonconforming evidence." In other words, Occum's Razor does NOT hack II> just the bull... it can also be used to hack off whatever the person II> weilding it chooses not to believe. Can you deny this? First of all, there is no such thing as "Occum's Razor". Secondly, you seem to misunderstand what Occam's Razor means. (I assume that's what you refer to.) Occam's Razor is the principle that if you have two *equally applicable* explanations for something, you should go for the one that's less mplicated. At the risk of overdoing it, I give an example: There is nothing to suggest that the evidence regarding the Roswell incident has been tampered with by the "Trenchcoat Society". There are two possibilities that explain this observation equally well: 1. The evidence has not been tampered with. 2. The evidence has been tampered with in such a way that no indications of tampering are left behind. Unless further evidence surfaces to tip the balance one way or the other, Occam's Razor says to go with option 1. >>> Continued to next message... --- Blue Wave/Max v2.30 [NR] * Origin: The Perth PC Users Group BBS - 08-9497-7772 (3:690/650) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 221 UFO Ref: F1R00009 Date: 01/15/98 From: PAUL ANDINACH Time: 04:01pm \/To: IVY IVERSON (Read 3 times) Subj: Re: Roswell Truth? [2/2] >>> Part 2 of 2... II> I agree that you "gotta call 'em as you see 'em," however your II> opinion, (Yes, OPINION!), based upon YOUR research on the subject... II> ...does not necessarily guarentee that YOUR version of what happened at II> Roswell is the total, 100%, absoloute facts! Ah, so Ivy Iverson is allowed to state as fact what she believes to be true, based on what she believes to be the best evidence available, but the "skeptibunker" isn't. Don't they have level playing fields on your planet? II> Ok, let's digress for a moment. You have thoroughly debunked the II> "Weather baloon" story, (which few believed from the beginning), and II> have latched onto the "Project Mogul" story as gospel. You have built II> a strong case supporting your views. However you have totally ignored II> the OTHER half- dozen or so OTHER O-fishy explainations that have come II> out of the Pentigon in the last few years. And why should he not ignore them, since he found no strong case supporting *them*? I find it interesting that you accept his say-so when he's confirming something you believed all along, but when he tries to shake your beliefs he's spouting opinions based on questionable evidence. Now where have I heard that before? II> And why were these OTHER II> "official explainations" released over the last few years? If they did II> not exist, I would consider the POSSABILITY that Mogul MIGHT be the II> correct explaination, however by handing us one pablum story after II> another, they have TOTALLY destroyed any credibility they MAY have had II> in the matter as far as I am concerned. So, if the government came out tomorrow and said that they really had recovered a UFO at Roswell, you wouldn't believe that either. II> By playing with numbers you can definately II> "prove" that 3 equals 4, Prove it. II> and in a few minutes with a home PC, I could II> show you a picture PROVING that I can walk on water! No single piece of evidence counts as "proof", especially if it's known to be fakeable. II> In closing, I must say that while you have made a strong case, there II> are still some pretty sizable holes in it. And in closing, I will remind you that the article is only a summary, and that you can't criticize the argument or the evidence without having read the book. Paul ... and that is how we know the Earth is banana-shaped ... --- Blue Wave/Max v2.30 [NR] * Origin: The Perth PC Users Group BBS - 08-9497-7772 (3:690/650) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 221 UFO Ref: F1R00010 Date: 01/21/98 From: DAVID BLOOMBERG Time: 09:53am \/To: GEORGE JIRI OPLETAL (Read 3 times) Subj: Alien Encounters In a msg to David Bloomberg on , George Jiri Opletal of 3:632/562 writes: DB> If you are so concerned about such things, why then did you fail to DB> respond to any of the number of messages I posted here regarding DB> specific sightings, abduction claims, etc.? Yes, you responded DB> to MJ-12 (oh, great, we can have a long discussion about a DB> well-known hoax -- I can hardly wait to waste my time on _that_), GJO> You should of read me response by the time this message comes about. Nope. The only response (other than MJ-12) I've gotten from you has been on the article about satellites being mistaken for UFOs. Nothing on any of the cases I mention above. --- msgedsq 2.0.5 * Origin: The Temples of Syrinx! (1:2430/2112) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 221 UFO Ref: F1R00011 Date: 01/21/98 From: DAVID BLOOMBERG Time: 12:48pm \/To: IVY IVERSON (Read 3 times) Subj: MJ-12 debunked In a msg to George Jiri Opletal on , Ivy Iverson of 1:154/170 writes: II> I would sooner believe the likes of someone with doubious background Yeah, we know. II> who CLAIMS to have worked on reverse engineering UFOs at Area 51, and who, II> at least, knows where the restrooms and lunch rooms are and how meals re II> paid for, than the likes of someone who presents provably manufactured II> evidence. (We all know which two I'm thinking of here.) No, we all don't. Who are you accusing of using "provably manufactured evidence" and in what context? --- msgedsq 2.0.5 * Origin: The Temples of Syrinx! (1:2430/2112)