From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993.nul> Date: Fri, 11 May 2012 08:47:22 -0400 (EDT) Archived: Sat, 12 May 2012 08:44:02 -0400 Subject: Re: The Roswell Investigation & The Skeptics >From: Vincent Boudreau <vincentboudreau.nul> >To: post.nul >Date: Tue, 8 May 2012 15:33:54 -0400 >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> >Hello Kevin and all, Vincent, List and all - >I would like to raise two points in this business of a Dream >Team putting a final note of the Roswell case. Please note that in my blog posting, I said team rather than "dream team". I will also note that our hope is to answer some of the questions that have gone unanswered and provide new evidence that might lead us to the proper arena. We hope that the quality of the evidence that we develop will make it possible for those who truly wish an answer, but not a specific to their belief structure answer, to come to a solid conclusion. >I wonder if I am the only one feeling that the "Dream Team" >concept has a bad ring to it. >First: if you're _not_ part of it, and you have studied Roswell, >it says so much about you and your research. I think you might be reading too much into this. The team was assembled based on our contact with one another over the years. You might note that David Rudiak and I have disagreed on some aspects of the Ramey memo, but we hope that by studying it together, along with some other contributors, we might resolve some of those lingering questions. >Secondly, if you're part of it, it says so much about your >chest-beating habits. You know, this is the one aspect that bothered me as well... I embraced the term but wondered how others might feel about it. Vincent, you have answered that question... which is why I have tried to refer to it as a team rather than a dream team. >I mean, this is not Basketball, and I see no Michael Jordan in >the room. But the concept of a dream team can be expanded beyond just basketball. No really a fair criticism, but I do get it. >So, to place someone on this "Dream Team" sounds more like >anointment than appointment, and I think we have had quite >enough of that in ufology. It's not really an anointment, but a question of selecting some of those whose work as been valuable to us in the past, which is not to say that other's work isn't equally valuable. It is really about who we had been in contact with and who had made some valid points about the investigation... and who could get together to meet in a face to face way. >Third, placing _yourself_ on what you call _yourself_ a "Dream >Team", well, not only sounds bad but tastes bad. Yeah, I get that... but then, it was put together on the basis of who we thought would be valuable to us in a limited working environment. It was not meant to suggest that other work wasn't equally valuable. Take Vic Golubic who worked the missing nurse angle. That work was and is quite valuable and it was an avenue that he wished to follow to its conclusion. He might be a valuable member of the team with respect to the nurse but not so much on the Ramey memo. It really just boiled down to who was doing what at this time. But I do get your criticism. >All said with due respect. >Now, let's address the Roswell thing. >I have just finished "Witness to Roswell" by Carey and Schmitt. >The work may lack a bit in structure and is not always coherent, >but it gets this across: _something_ happened in Roswell. I believe that we all agree, here on this List, the skeptics, the debunkers, all, that something fell at Roswell (or to be more precise, near Roswell) but the question remains, what was it? We hope to be able to clarify that. >65 years and 600+ witnesses later, it has all been shrugged off >by the powers that be: do you think another Marcel, another Haut >or another Exon will change anything? Nope... the eyewitness testimony can only take us so far... In fact, we have found some additional witnesses... mainly those who weren't directly involved but who can provide us with a clear vision of the activities on the base. We hope to be able to track down some of the documentation and we hope to eliminate some of the suggested answers to the case (and I know what the skeptics are thinking here... We wish to eliminate the alternative to aliens, but I hope to eliminate the wrong answers and provide a well thought out, well investigated answer that will satisfy the majority, realizing that no matter what we learn and what we publish is going to offend, annoy, irritate or disappoint someone. >The Air Force official explanations (Mogul and crashed dummies) >prove they don't care, and never will care, about the truth, no >matter what. Actually, I would disagree here because if the Air Force didn't care, they would have ignored us. That they attempted to produce a document to answer the questions that we all have raised, shows that we had gotten under their skin. We had a nice opportunity, but we let it slip away. I'm hoping that be reviewing some of that, we'll be able to learn a little more about them. >Any further work on Roswell can only serve to enlighten >interested citizens. >Nothing more, I am afraid. But this is a criticism that can be leveled at nearly all such endeavors. A new book on Jack the Ripper was just announced today... such a work can only serve to enlighten interested citizens... There are many books on the sinking of Titanic... and such a work can only serve... well you see what I'm saying. Once again, we are following some interesting avenues... I don't believe anyone tried to find the NOTAMs... we failed, but only because they no longer exist, so we answered that one, and now really unimportant, question. But then, more information can only expand our knowledge and lead us to a consensus. Kevin 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