Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
sci-nerd

Roswell 1947

907 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

psyche101
6 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

You call it an anecdote, I call it an analogy and it speaks quite well for what humans may accept for "evidence". 

Your misusing the term to fulfill your own predetermined conclusion. No it doesn't. The Griffith Innocence Project has directly illustrated human testimony to be flawed, having overturned 75% of the cases they have reexamined eyewitnesses testimony VS DNA evidence. 

It proves that testimony is notoriously unreliable. 

6 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

It took four women to identify themselves and accuse Senator Al Franken of sexual abuse for him to step down from office. That's quite powerful and backs up my contention 100%. Human testimony can be a strong evidence.

No it doesn't at all. 

There were photos of the creep grabbing a sleeping service woman on  the boobs. That's hard evidence. And better than testimony. You are lying when you say it was pure testimony that exposed that creep. 

6 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

Tell me something... if you disagree with somebody, why the ad hominems?    Are you devoid of anything that is constructive to say?

 "CHILDISH"....  Just throw a slur out there.  Good job. :wacko:

Its an accurate descriptor. Your approach is dishonest and predetermined. Hard to respect that. Like all UFO alien nutters, you offer a distorted view of evidence to support utter nonsense. If you want constructive, then read my posts more carefully. The information to support the claims I have made is all there. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
psyche101
11 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

a military Public Information Officer would not use military lingo when addressing citizens because it may confuse them.

Nonsense. The full description of of RADAR wind targets is discussed in the articles. And it's directly associated with RAWIN targets on multiple instances. Quite clearly the terms are associated in general. 

11 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

 Haut knew what he was doing.

His story changed several times!!! 

Mythmaker is what Haut is!! 

11 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

I outlined it above.  I showed that he likened the "disk" that RAAF had in their possession to be of the type of disk that the citizens of Roswell had been rumoring about seeing in the skies for some time.

And from all those Newspaper articles it's plainly more than obvious that what they were seeing, photographing and reporting as discs were balloon trains with RAWIN targets. 

11 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

Your argument applies to military people addressing military people only, not when addressing citizens.

There are citizens holding up RAWINS as discs. The FBI memo says the disc was suspended by a balloon.

Quote

EIGHTH AIR FORCE, TELEPHONICALLY ADVISED THIS OFFICE THAT AN OBJECT PURPORTING TO BE A FLYING DISC WAS RE COVERED NEAR ROSWELL, NEW MEXICO, THIS DATE. THE DISC IS HEXAGONAL IN SHAPE AND WAS SUSPENDED FROM A BALLON BY CABLE, WHICH BALLON WAS APPROXIMATELY TWENTY FEET IN DIAMETER.

That's the same thing. Military people relating to Military people RAWIN targets as 'discs' and civilian sources doing the very same. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Trelane
1 hour ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

 As a Public Information Officer, Haut is supposed to talk to the citizens on their level, not in military jargon. Haut made it clear to the citizens. RAAF had the type of disk the citizens spoke of.

I am sure the people of Chavez County interpreted this release the way I interpret it, the way Haut intended it. They had a crashed "flying disk".

And yes, Blanchard made the move without approval from above, the biggest mistake of them all.

Loosley spoken, they could be mistaken. Hmmm, well, they would actually all have to be quite daft to make that scale of blunder. But if we assume that they did blunder in their assessment, you still have to contend with remarks made in the future by the many RAAF officers involved. Are they then all fabricating this disk...?  If they're hiding something else that was secretive to the military, why not just say it was a balloon instead of contradicting the official Air Force byline?  Tough question. Maybe it is because what the military was really hiding was.... a disk. :ph34r:

It depends on what one calls "evidence". I say human testimony is evidence, others in here argue that with me. 

If seven women of the #MeToo movement said that Senator Joe sexually abused them, would you believe these women?  Most people would. No-brainer.

Point 1: Happens all the time actually. Taking into consideration again this is right after WWII, the PIO or PAO as they are now called was not as well trained in news releases as they are now. Terminology varied from command to command based on commanding officer preference.

Point 2: I am only stating for those on site and what they saw for interpretation. Of course the locals with no first hand knowledge would accept and repeat what was put out by government. This was in an era where the general public overwhelmingly trusted what was said by the military and government officials.

Point 3: Or maybe something else????

Point 4: Again that is subjective as to what our individual opinion is of that. I don't feel we need to argue over opinions. Ours apparently is different and I'm fine with that.

Point 5: Conversely, wrongly accused people can openly state in court they are not guilty and are sent to jail for decades, some death row. only to find out on the back side they are in fact innocent.

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Earl.Of.Trumps
57 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

Your misusing the term to fulfill your own predetermined conclusion. No it doesn't. The Griffith Innocence Project has directly illustrated human testimony to be flawed, having overturned 75% of the cases they have reexamined eyewitnesses testimony VS DNA evidence. 

It proves that testimony is notoriously unreliable. 

No it doesn't at all. 

There were photos of the creep grabbing a sleeping service woman on  the boobs. That's hard evidence. And better than testimony. You are lying when you say it was pure testimony that exposed that creep. 

Its an accurate descriptor. Your approach is dishonest and predetermined. Hard to respect that. Like all UFO alien nutters, you offer a distorted view of evidence to support utter nonsense. If you want constructive, then read my posts more carefully. The information to support the claims I have made is all there. 

 

Says the man that OPENLY distorts Wilmot's testimony to support his predetermined view. Tell me about it!  And you have NEVER supported the claim that it was a meteor. all you did was move your lips to get your desired outcome. In fact I  proved to you 3 different ways how it could not possibly be a meteor and you STILL marched on with your unsubstantiated bull story.

The man that sits in here pushing this theory that Haut, in his report to the media, is describing a RAWIN when he says "disk". Another pile of manure that you manufacture so as to get your desired, predetermined result.

YA. Tell me about it.  I know why you resort to ad hominems and you know why. Because that is your nature. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
36 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

Says the man that OPENLY distorts Wilmot's testimony to support his predetermined view.

You are the only one distorting information. Every sensible evaluation of Wilmots sights results in a meteor. All you have to support your predetermined conclusion of Disc is a bad description of a meteor. 

36 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

Tell me about it! 

You seem to be the one telling other everything they should accept about Roswell, and you don't even know who Arnold is and why he is relevant. It obvious that your just another Roswell noob championing UFOlogy. You seem to know less about the incident than any other poster here, yet claim to have all the answers. 

36 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

And you have NEVER supported the claim that it was a meteor. all you did was move your lips to get your desired outcome.

That's an outright lie. I have you the names of both meteor showers, and sightings by at least two other groups that saw a meteor. Your either blind, deliberately ignorant or both. 

And I'm typing. My lips remain motionless. 

36 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

In fact I  proved to you 3 different ways how it could not possibly be a meteor and you STILL marched on with your unsubstantiated bull story.

No you haven't. You said it had no tail. Parralax error easily accounts for this, and duration was longer than normal, which would simply be exaggeration of the time frame due to the wonder of an inexperienced observer. 

You have in no way at all proven the sighting was not a meteor. You have arrogantly stated that opinion. 

36 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

The man that sits in here pushing this theory that Haut, in his report to the media, is describing a RAWIN when he says "disk". Another pile of manure that you manufacture so as to get your desired, predetermined result.

I have both military and civilian references from the time frame. That proves your full of crap Earl. 

36 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

YA. Tell me about it.  I know why you resort to ad hominems and you know why. Because that is your nature. 

You get what you give. Have you ever read your own posts back? Your a very unpleasant character Earl. You are rude and condescending but the worst of it is that in this thread, you have shown quite clearly that you are the most uniformed poster regarding this event in the whole thread, yet arrogantly chastise other with UFOlogy crap. You nerd a mirror if you want to see why nobody respects you. Have a look at yourself sometime.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NYCEddie
Posted (edited)

You people are unbelievable, fighting with each other over semantics! 37 pages of bs and the discussion was over right at the beginning with the link to Kal K. Korff's article. For shame.

 

Edited by NYCEddie
Left out a word.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Leo Krupe
15 hours ago, NYCEddie said:

You people are unbelievable, fighting with each other over semantics! 37 pages of bs and the discussion was over right at the beginning with the link to Kal K. Korff's article. For shame.

 

Man, that's what internet forums are all about! At the risk of damning with faint praise, I'll give the people here credit though--they're not as vitriolic as some places on the net.

Seriously though, in any discussion forum, you can't really expect a complete and final resolution to any issue, particularly one as viscous and amorphous as UFOs, ghosts, monsters, and other relatedly assorted topics. After all, this is the Unexplained Mysteries board, not necessarily a scientific board (and even if it were well and truly scientific, you can bet there'd be a lot of wild speculation, depending on the topic--theoretical physics comes to mind).

I find this entertaining, even though I'm a boring ol' skeptic who doesn't believe in alien visitation, much less abductions. But following the conversations, and occasionally getting into the thick of it (when I have the time to devote to it) can be relaxing or it can get my adrenaline pumping. No matter what though, it gets my brain working and I can work on not only critical thinking skills, but argument/debate skills.

 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.