UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2007 > Sep > Sep 5

Re: New Revelations On Origins Of MJ-12

From: Paul Kimball <TheRobieShark.nul>
Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2007 19:34:27 EDT
Archived: Wed, 05 Sep 2007 09:20:41 -0400
Subject: Re: New Revelations On Origins Of MJ-12


>From: Stan Friedman <fsphys.nul>
>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2007 16:39:45 -0300
>Subject: Re: New Revelations On Origins Of MJ-12

>>From: Paul Kimball <TheRobieShark.nul>
>>To: ufoupdates.nul
>>Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2007 05:02:12 EDT
>>Subject: Re: New Revelations On Origins Of MJ-12

Stan:

<snip>

>>One could just as easily - and more pertinently - ask why you
>>never seem to mention the fact that the EBD makes no reference
>>to your supposed second crash on the Plains of San Agustin,
>>which you claim was legit, nor do you seem to make much mention
>>of the supposed second crash that the EBD DOES mention, the 1950
>>'crash' at El Indio - Guerrero.

>Not just as pertinently. The briefing is stated "as a
>preliminary briefing only.It should be regarded as introductory
>to a full operations briefing intended to follow." Not being
>psychic I have no idea what was included in the full operations
>briefing, or why certain things were not included in the
>EBD.Ike's time at the Pentagon was brief.Ask Ruben Uriarte re
>Del rio.

I shouldn't have to ask Uriarte - I'm asking you. You're the MJ-
12 expert. Do you endorse the Del Rio crash as legit? Surely you
would have crossed that "T" and dotted that "I" when you did
your funded FUFOR research. If you don't accept it as genuine,
then how do you square that with its inclusion in MJ-12, or your
firm conclusion that the EBD is authentic?

As for the Plains of San Agustin, I've heard you're "not
psychic" line before. We all have. But it's not an answer to
what is a huge, glaring hole in the pro-MJ-12 argument - at
least for someone like you who also accepts the reality of a 2nd
crash at the Plains. Logic dictates that even a preliminary
briefing would refer to this second crash, particularly as the
briefing referenced two other crashes. The reason you don't
address this - and never have - is because you can't, other than
to say that you're not a psychic.

That's not logic, it's not science, it's not a reasonable and
rational examination of _all_ of the evidence. It's cherry
picking what you like and can handle in order to fit it into
what you want it to be, while ignoring the things that undermine
your argument.


Best regards,

Paul Kimball
www.redstarfilms.blogspot.com
www.bestevidence.blogspot.com



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