From: Kathy Kasten <catraja.nul> Date: Tue, 8 May 2012 19:18:47 +0000 Archived: Wed, 09 May 2012 07:38:02 -0400 Subject: Re: The Roswell Investigation & The Skeptics >Date: Tue, 8 May 2012 03:34:26 -0400 >To: ufo-updates-list.nul >From: post.nul >Subject: UFO UpDate: The Roswell Investigation & The Skeptics >Source: Kevin Randle's A Different Perspective Blog >http://tinyurl.com/cbholsl >Sunday, May 06, 2012 >The Roswell Investigation And The Skeptics >I have seen, over the last several months, nothing but criticism >from the world of the skeptic about our efforts to assemble a >team to investigate the Roswell claims. We have published little >about our investigation, other than to announce the members of >the team, and the skeptics and debunkers have found nothing to >like about it. They are convinced that all we will do is >reinforce the ideas that have already been published. That is, >we'll endorse the extraterrestrial and that is it. >In fact, I believe that the only answer they will accept is that >Roswell was something mundane, most probably a weather balloon >array launched from Alamogordo on June 4, 1947. If we determine >anything else, regardless of what evidence we might uncover, it >will be rejected as more of the same. They all know that there >has been no alien visitation and therefore anything that >suggests otherwise is the result of poor technique and >investigation on our part. >Any eyewitness testimony that suggests otherwise is the result >of poor memory, confabulation or outright lying. Nothing these >people say will be believed, unless they provide testimony that >what fell was something mundane, most probably a weather balloon >array launched from Alamogordo on June 4, 1947. >If, however, the eyewitness testimony reinforces the balloon >explanation, then those memories are accurate and reflect >reality. It doesn't matter if those memories are can be proven >false with documentation, they must be believed because they >lead directly to the accepted explanation. >As I say, all this is ridiculous because we haven't completed >our work. We have developed some interesting leads, but the >skeptics are already rejecting our research without seeing any >of it. Kevin: I find it just as disingenuous to defend a research solution you have not formulated. How would you know the outcome of research you have not started, discussed with your team or planned the new approach to solving a problem. Usually, a researcher in the academic world would make the proposal to the juried panel before starting the research. Then, wait for the approval before going ahead with the research. If you are looking for approval from your peers - for all practical purposes, members of this list, please present your proposed outline of the research you intend to pursue. The information in your blog seems to be a defense without outlining an approach. I think you know better. KK 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