UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 1999 > Jan > Jan 15

Re: Kenneth Arnold - Question

From: Roger Evans <moviestuff@cyberjunkie.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 18:09:13 +0000
Fwd Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 19:26:00 -0500
Subject: Re: Kenneth Arnold - Question


>From: Gary Alevy <galevy@pipeline.com>
>Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 19:13:34 -0500
>Fwd Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 17:21:00 -0500
>Subject: Re: Kenneth Arnold - Question

>>From: Roger Evans <moviestuff@cyberjunkie.com>
>>Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 09:31:58 +0000
>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>>Subject: Re: Kenneth Arnold - Question

Previously, Kari had offered:

>>>>Kenneth Arnold's airplane was single-engined Callier. According
>>>>to Jenny Randles ('The Complete Book of UFOs', Revised edition,
>>>>1997), it was specially designed for mountain work - capable of
>>>>landing in rough fields and pastures.

Because Gary is so sharp and devotes himself to only facts that
can be proved, he cautioned Kari:

>>>I understand you are trying to be helpful however; what's the
>>>point in posting the name misspelled and not giving a reference
>>>specifically with pagination that can be verified?

Myself, annoyed with Gary's hypocracy concerning "factual
evidence" decided to remind him of his own short comings in
recent history:

>>One might very well ask the same regarding your posts about
>>Hynek and Larsen. At least Kari can prove Arnold's plane
>>existed, even if the name is misspelled. How about a reference
>>and pagination to support your own info?

In response, Gary formulated this brilliant passage, all the time
avoiding the question at hand:

>You are a piece of work.  You assert she can prove Arnold' plane
>existed.
>
>How?
>
>Perhaps if she could bring the plane to my home, with the
>paperwork documenting its chain of ownership. Otherwise without
>physical evidence acceptable to me I won't consider anything
>else proof.

>Or maybe she should land it on the Whitehouse lawn.

>Isn't that how your usual line of reasoning goes.

>Or am I to accept on your word that her proof is my proof.

>Why don't you file a FOIA for Larsen and Hynek's paystubs.
>If you don't know how people are vetted then I suggest that
>you brush up on your tradecraft.

And here are my logical, well formulated responses to the above:

1) I think you are full of crap.

2) I think the above proves you are full of crap.

3) I will continue to consider you full of crap as long as you
don't practice what you preach regarding "verification" of
facts.

4) Did I mention I think you are full of crap?


Later,

Roger Evans

[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |

UFO UpDates Main Index

UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp


Archive programming by Glenn Campbell at Glenn-Campbell.com