From: Dave Bowden <email@example.com> Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 12:26:19 +0000 Fwd Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1999 03:22:56 -0400 Subject: Re: Get Real >Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 11:16:10 -0500 >From: Amy Hebert <firstname.lastname@example.org> >Subject: Re: Get Real >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <email@example.com> >>Date: Sun, 24 Oct 1999 15:12:10 +0000 >>From: Dave Bowden <firstname.lastname@example.org> >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <email@example.com> >>Subject: Re: Get Real >>Using _your_ logic (real >>world commercialism) how do you explain the total lack of >>'greys' in any of the sci-fi films and tv shows made in those >>days? >If you wish to talk about the lack of 'greys' in sci-fi films >and tv shows in the '50's, why not start another thread titled >"Lack of Greys In The '50's". I am not interested in the topic. And why is that? It is after all relevant, is it not? I thought you were a researcher. Researching something like this involves more than just interviewing people. Check out the history, see how far back it goes, question the reason why there were no lightbulb-headed creatures in the 50's or 60's. Don't just brush aside any information that goes against your own personal beliefs. >I started this thread, "Get Real", in reference to something I >observed while watching "Close Encounters Of The Third Kind", >then you asked why there weren't any photographs of beings and I >offered the photographs from the case I investigated, then you >began asking questions about the photographs. Remember? I am not the one with the 'missing time' of course I remember, I also remember seeing your pictures. The only face I can make out appears to have a black wet nose. Do you by any chance happen to have a dog? >Those who like to debunk everything they hear and see will do so >no matter how much evidence or information is put before them. Debunk? Oh dear oh dear, there's always someone out there roasting that old chestnut. What do you consider to be 'how much evidence'? Pictures of a camera flash reflected in glass showing nothing more than possibly someone's dog. Verbal accounts but nothing else to back it up. And of course you are not interested in researching past accounts (pre-1970's). >you know how to tell the >difference between someone with a genuine interest in reviewing >the data and those interested only in seeing their name in >print. And when your book or books are published, I take it you will have your name in print? Going by what you have just stated above (and if you are to earn the respect of others) you will go by a pseudonym or is there any reason why what you state to others does not apply to you? >>>Can you indicate what you plan to say to these >>>"researchers"/"investigators" about the article in question? >>>Will you simply ask them why they didn't review the material or >>>will you be adding your assessment as well? >>I just want to ask why they didn't review the material, I don't >>plan to add anything. >Very well, the list of those with whom I have tried to share >this case will be sent to your E-mail box tonight. I trust your >inquiries will be done with taste and professionalism. However, >how will we know you actually contacted them? This is a very good question, since your private mail to me indicated that you do not want me to spread around the list (which I obviously will not do). Therefore how can I let anyone know that I actually contacted anyone without everyone else knowing who I contacted? >As usual, enjoyed conversing with you, Dave. ;> Funnily enough enjoyed conversing with you too. ;) Dave.
[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp