From: John Harney <magonia.nul> Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2012 16:09:14 -0000 Archived: Tue, 06 Mar 2012 11:41:18 -0500 Subject: Re: Let's Crank It Up A Notch - Cox >From: Robert Powell <rpowell.nul> >To: post.nul >Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2012 07:55:20 -0600 >Subject: Re: Let's Crank It Up A Notch >>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 >>>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? As I have already noted, Gildas Bourdais has given you an excellent brief summary of the reasons for not taking the Trans- en-Provence story too seriously. Some people were impressed by the scientific studies of the vegetation at the alleged UFO landing site, but no good reason is given to believe that the effects described could not have been caused by people walking or driving over it. The real mystery about this and other such stories is the question of why intelligent, well-educated people would want to believe such nonsense. >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.". This is quite meaningless. People are sceptical of such stories because of such things as the lack of multiple, independent witnesses, and because of inconsistencies and sloppy investigation techniques. There are a few fairly good, unexplained UFO cases -- although it seems that the true explantions are unlikely to be exotic - but Trans-en-Provence is obviously not one of them. John Harney 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