From: Roger Evans <moviestuff@cyberjunkie.com>
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1999 15:30:23 +0000
Fwd Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1999 09:46:04 -0500
Subject: Re: The Credibility of Edgar Fouche'


>From: Tim Matthews <matthews@zetnet.co.uk>
>Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 06:38:21 -0000
>Fwd Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1999 14:38:39 -0500
>Subject: Re: The Credibility of Edgar Fouche'

>>From: Roger Evans <moviestuff@cyberjunkie.com>
>>Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1999 09:30:17 +0000
>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>>Subject: Re: The Credibility of Edgar Fouche'

>>>From: Serge Salvaille <sergesa@connectmmic.net>
>>>Date: Sat, 09 Jan 1999 19:38:22 -0500
>>>Fwd Date: Sat, 09 Jan 1999 23:11:30 -0500
>>>Subject: Re: The Credibility of Edgar Fouche'

Previously, Serge had written:

>>>I have asked you, on
>>>this List, a couple of times, a few pointed questions based
>>>"specifically" on this secret hidden technology paradox inherent
>>>to your research-claims: you never answered the damn questions.

<snip>

>>>Surprised - well, not really, rather pissed off - when you take
>>>this rabbit out of the hat:

>>>>NO! Just to ask serious and detailed questions about his
>>>>"evidence", which by any standards can best be described as
>>>>hearsay.

My response had been:

>>I couldn't agree more, Serge.

>>I, too, have questioned Tim about his "I've got a secret in my
>>pocket that can prove all my claims" approach to debate. Several
>>times he said he was going to send me some technical info that
>>he didn't feel comfortable releasing on the list. Never got it.
>>When I brought this up on the list, he sent me an email claiming
>>his computer was down and he'd get back to me later, or
>>something as such. I'll let you guess the end to this vapor-ware
>>charade.

Tim defends his position:

>This is just complete and unadultered drivel from somebody who
>should know better. Anyway, my book's out in a few weeks so you
>can buy that and whinge about it.

>Stick to the point, or more specifically the points under review.....

While you may consider it drivel, it was none the less correct,
wasn't it? In fact, only because of this post did you finally
send me the info that, I assume, you were referring to quite
some time back.

For the record, I have no opinion regarding Ed Fouche'. However,
I do feel that you should practice what you preach when you make
demands that someone respond to your questions or request for
proof. _That_ was the point under review for my post. Nothing
else was implied.

Later,

Roger Evans