UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2007 > Jul > Jul 26

Re: Leaked 'Top Secret' UFO Documents Frauds

From: Dave Morton <Marspyrs.nul>
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 17:39:29 EDT
Archived: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 10:14:09 -0400
Subject: Re: Leaked 'Top Secret' UFO Documents Frauds 


>From: Robert Gates <rgates8254.nul>
>Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 14:32:48 -0400
>Archived: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 12:16:10 -0400
>Subject: Re: Leaked 'Top Secret' UFO Documents Frauds -

>>From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <UFO-UpDates.nul>
>>To: - UFO UpDates Subscribers - <UFO-UpDates.nul>
>>Sent: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 8:02 am
>>Subject: UFO UpDate: Leaked 'Top Secret' UFO Documents Frauds

>>Source: PR Web - Ferndale, Washington,USA

>>http://tinyurl.com/25bc3p

>>July 24, 2007

>>Leaked 'Top Secret' Government UFO Documents Proven Frauds

<snip>

>An interesting analysis of the MJ 12 documents. I would be
>curious to see which particular documents she fingers as being
>bogus, however their was ONE document that is believed to be
>real based upon the so called analysis. I know for years Stan
>Friedman has maintained that much of the Woods Majestic Document
>collection is bogus or had problems.

>I predict with great reliability that various skeptibunkers will
>hold this so called analysis up as proof that ALL the majestic
>documents are phony.

>The will do this without any examination of the actual program
>itself, or the reliability of the computer program, or testing
>it with known real documents to see if it is accurate 95 percent
>of the time, but because it agrees with their pet theories, it
>now becomes a fact, never to be doubted.

And this 'proof' of phoniness held up by skeptibunkers will
probably be done by Pelicanistic, dogmatic, automatic, auto-
trashing, noisy, RoboDebunkers in a knee-jerk reaction.

Having a so-called 'scientific' analysis done by a Phd in what
would superficially appear to be a 'mainstream' way is the
Imprimatur of legitimacy, to some quadrants, and needs no
further explanation.

I hold no grudge against Dr. Carol Chaski, although you would
think she'd take greater care in planning and executing this
document evaluation, rather than have her name associated with
an analysis of only 11 documents, and a small number of
controls. If it had been me, I would have refused to do it with
such a small sample, even if the client couldn't afford to pay
for the work involved with a larger sample.

Michael Heiser is another story.

Let slip the robots of debunkery.


Dave Morton



Listen to 'Strange Days... Indeed' - The PodCast

See:

http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/sdi/program/


[ 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