From: Don Ledger <dledger.nul> Date: Thu, 10 May 2012 13:18:56 -0300 Archived: Thu, 10 May 2012 14:04:53 -0400 Subject: Re: The Roswell Investigation & The Skeptics >From: Kathy Kasten <catraja.nul> >To: <post.nul> >Date: Wed, 9 May 2012 20:25:06 +0000 >Subject: Re: The Roswell Investigation & The Skeptics >>From: post.nul >>To: UFO-updates-list >>Date: Tue, 8 May 2012 03:34:26 -0400 >>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 >><snip> >>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. >><snip> >I just tried communicating with Don Schmitt and making an appeal >to rethink out of the box that members of the team created for >themselves. All I got in response was a very defensive comment >that I was slinging arrows and discounting all the witness >testimony. No, what I was calling for was a coming together of >interested members of the UFO community. In essence creating a >"juried panel of peers" to make suggestions to help the team >refine their approach. Just as would be done in an academic >setting. A setting Kevin has suggested should be done in a >chapter in one of his single author books. >After all, isn't everyone wanting a true to the core solution to >the problem and would be willing to support a group or team >willing to revisit and re-examine the data, reread the any or >find more supporting documents. The approach of laying all the >different scenarios out on the table, as a group together not >playing we're the team and you're not. Discounting those >scenarios that are not supported. Then, anything left, in the >words of Sherlock Holmes, author Conan Doyle's character who was >based on Dr. Bell - probably the first forensic pathologist in >history: when all probable solutions are discounted and only the >most improbable supported by the facts is the solution. >(Oh, go ahead correct the quote. I am paraphrasing.) >It looks like the UFO problem will not be solved because the >people claiming to be interested in solving it are too invested >in their ego stake in the game. One can't behave that way when a >new field of research wants to be accepted by the academics. >Later on, once the field is accepted into the academic world, >then participants can play the ego game. Seems to me, as an interested by-stander, that the biggest ego in the room is your own, KK. You bring nothing to the table as far as investigative skills go; your knowledge of the field is extremely limited and at best askew; yet you constantly criticize those that do have skills and have spent years looking into a case. Until you actually have something intelligent to add why not sit back - as a first class amateur - and enjoy the fruits of other's labours rather than expecting others to do your work for you? If not then please retreat to whatever place you live in to deal with the demons that you have alluded to in the past and that are haunting you. Don Ledger 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