From: Robert Powell <rpowell.nul> Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2012 12:03:58 -0600 Archived: Tue, 06 Mar 2012 14:44:01 -0500 Subject: Re: Let's Crank It Up A Notch - Cox >From: John Harney <magonia.nul> >To:<post.nul> >Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2012 16:09:14 -0000 >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 <snip> >>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. John, thank you for finally making a statement on your own. You stated that there is no reason not to believe that the effects could be caused by people walking or driving over the area. Your statement indicates that you clearly have never researched this case and that you have no scientific background. Using mechanics could you explain how people or a vehicle could create two concentric circles with radii of 2.2 and 2.4 meters? And using chemistry, would you care to explain how a mass spectrometer would fail to identify the hydrocarbons that would be left behind if a vehicle caused the two circles? And from a biological viewpoint could you explain how the chlorophyll levels in the plant samples decreased linearly by distance from the center point of the circle? Actually, John, a scientific background isn't essential for understanding this. But a basic understanding of logical reasoning is necessary. >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. You stated, "there are a few fairly good unexplained UFO cases." Based on what I have heard from you, I could no more trust a statement from you that a UFO case was "valid" than I could trust your belief that a case was invalid. 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