From: Robert Powell <rpowell.nul> Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2012 07:55:20 -0600 Archived: Mon, 05 Mar 2012 09:52:05 -0500 Subject: Re: Let's Crank It Up A Notch - Cox >From: John Harney<magonia.nul> >To:<post.nul> >Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2012 17:32:16 -0000 >Subject: Re: Let's Crank It Up A Notch - Cox >>From: Gildas Bourdais<bourdais.gildas.nul> >>To:<post.nul> >>Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2012 17:03:14 +0100 >>Subject: Re: Let's Crank It Up A Notch - Cox >>>From: Robert Powell<rpowell.nul> >>>To: post.nul >>>Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2012 20:30:56 -0600 >>>Subject: Re: Let's Crank It Up A Notch - Cox >>>Rather than make an assertion that some book demolishes the >>>Trans-en-Provence case, perhaps you could give the reasons to >>>this forum as to why that case is invalid? >>In a few words, here are the main arguments of the skeptics on >>Trans-en-Provence: >>- The round trace on the ground was made by a truck. The >>witness Renato Nicolai admited it could have been, although he >>confirmed at the same time that it was the exact place where he >>had seen the UFO land in his garden. Nice old man! >>- About the strange effects on the surrounding plants, measured >>by professor Bounias : he goofed in his tests, and CNES engineer >>Velasco doctored the plants in his micro wave oven (a brillant >>suspicion of Robert Alessandri); >>- Finally, the obvious conclusion: Nicolai made a joke. >>Case solved! >Yes, I couldn't have put it better myself. Unfortunately I >haven't managed to find a detailed account of Maillot's >investigation in English on the Web, but the French version is >available, with diagrams, at: >http://www.zetetique.org/tep.html Gildas, yes, I knew you were joking. I just wanted to see if John Harney could make some arguments by himself. And apparently, he still cannot. All he can do is cite a website. Anyone can do that. Perhaps I could just say, "go read the original scientific report." Centre National D’Etudes Spatiales. No.16 Technical Report. Toulouse March 1, 1983. “January 1981 Trace Analysis.” That is hardly what I would consider making an argument. What exactly are your main reasons that explain Trans-en- Provence, John? Can you list them yourself? I think Jerry Clark's reply to John Harney was probably the most appropriate: "There's a pretty serious distinction between 'skeptical' and 'a skeptic.' All sensible persons are skeptical when need be. It takes another kind of person - a lock-step ideologue, specifically - to be 'a skeptic,' through which sensibility everything must be processed like so much sausage." Listen to 'Strange Days... Indeed' - The PodCast At: http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/sdi/program/ These contents above are copyright of the author and UFO UpDates - Toronto. They may not be reproduced without the express permission of both parties and are intended for educational use only.
[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp