On Sat, 12 Jul 2003, David Patrick <david.patrickNO+SPAM@ntlworld.com> wrote:

On Sat, 12 Jul 2003 07:35:29 GMT, Sir Arthur C. B. E. Wholeflaffers
A.S.A. <nospam@newsranger.com> wrote:

Other distinguishing features of the spOOks-KooKs-Trolls:

*Make comments unrelated to do with the subject matter. 

Like unending posts about the Iraq War for instance?

*Have closed minds and can't be bothered by facts.
*Refuse to do a stitch of research on this topic.
*Never get within 50 feet of a witness or researcher.

You've been given plenty of opportunity to name one single case you've
personally investigated. You've refused.

You've not posted one word of an investigation you personally have
done.

*Attack any book on the topic (except those by the CIA propriety press:
Prometheus).

Or totally accept any book as absolute fact without doing their own
research. Just as bad, Flaffer.

*Supply gobs and gobs of mis- and dis-information.
*Claim there isn't a credible photo when there has been hundreds if not
thousands of them, as well as thousands of hours of videos.  

Even the Fortean Times doesn't think there is one photo of alien
spacecraft that isn't faked or misidentified.

Link to one photo you believe to be a credible alien spacecraft then?
Can't do it?

*Straw man attack.-they will fashion a dummy position held by a UFO
researcher.
Then proceed to rip it apart. Many will discredit the researcher on this false
premise.

Exactly the way you're attacking people who don't agree with you in
your post right here.

*Invoke authority.
*Dismiss the charges as "old news."
*Set the criteria for "proof" incredibly high so that it could never be
reached.
*Always ignore the first-hand testimony of witnesses to the unexpected
credible
sightings.

We've never got that far with you since you refuse to discuss
anything. Ever.

*Practice scientific research by proclamation not investigation.

Pot Kettle Black, Flaffer.

Come on, show some guts. Actually name one case you've investigated.
Discuss one case in your own words. Link to one photo you think is
undeniable proof of an alien spacecraft.

You seem quite knowledgeable, David, so can you tell me about
your own research? which individual cases are you personally
familiar with? which witnesses have you interviewed? 

If I was searching for undeniable proof of an alien spacecraft,
with the advent of digital technology I would be foolish to look
for it in a photo, and you would be foolish to ask for it, since
such material is easy to fake for anyone with photoshop
and a bit of imagination.

As for hard evidence of a crashed saucer and alien bodies,
no-one would be so naive as to pretend that these would be
on open display, were the government or any associated
agency to acquire them. So continual demands for hard evidence
of this nature is unreasonable. What can be demonstrated,
unequivocally and beyond reasonable doubt, is clear,
unmistakeable evidence of suppression of evidence,
harrassment and surveillance of witnesses and researchers,
deliberate attempts to mislead and deceive the public,
mis-representation of documented facts concerning
UFOs, witholding of crucial documents concerning UFOs,
and other items documented by people like Nick Redfern
in his search for documentation and revealing encounters
with the MOD and Kew Records Office.

These are certainly sufficient to convince many people,
including myself, that not only is there a massive
coverup on the subject of UFOs at the highest level,
but that the government, contrary to its public proclamations,
takes this subject very seriously indeed.

David Patrick