In sci.astro Michael Davis <mdavis19@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

As I understand it the "battle" was supposed to be deep 
underground. So pray tell just what does looking at the
dirt overhead "prove"?

So you think it's possible to build a huge underground base and 
have a massive battle without disturbing the ground at all? 

Yes. It was supposed to be a gunfight not a nuke war!

Where 
did all the excavated dirt and rock go? 

Duh. It was "excavated" by the folks who built it!

Where is the entrance(s) 
to this supposed base? Where is the evidence that any heavy 
construction ever took place there? 

These now are the correct questions!  But allow me to point out
that given an underground construction technology at the levels
of that alleged in the stories (Monorails criss-crossing the 
country from Washington D.C. to Western military bases etc.) neither
the entrance nor any heavy construction is going to be likely 
to be seen on the surface. Cleverly disquised air vents, however,
are another matter. If it were me, I'd look for those!

Many versions of the Dulce 
myth allege the military fought alien saucers on the surface at 
the entrance to the underground base. There is no entrance or any 
evidence of a battle. 

Then that makes the surface battle stories unlikely doesn't it?
Unless, of course one knows exactly where the underground entrance
is. It obviously doesn't have to be nearby.

And before you start shouting about 
government cover-ups, remember that this is public land just 
outside of a fair sized town, and not a secret military base where 
security could be enforced. 

Why should one NOT consider cover-up? It's what governments do!
It's also SOP when sensitive military things are involved. Therefore,
a PROPER investigation would begin by ASSUMING a cover-up and 
go looking for evidence of that!  (Military policing area etc.)

Any strange government or military 
activity would have had to have been witnessed by lots of people. 

Exactly! That's why one starts looking for those things. One
doesn't start looking for a coal mine by poking around the wheat
fields in Pennsylvania! You start by asking about coal trucks etc.

So why is it that only a former mental patient named Paul 
Bennewitz seems to know anything about it?

And now comes the "debunker" coup de gras! An attack on the crediblity
of the mental state of the messenger!  This may be a factor to 
consider, but any event stands or falls on the EVIDENCE!  If there
is the likelyhood of a cover-up, then personal atacks tend to be
even more evidence that where there is smoke there is fire!  The 
question is NOT if the person saying things is nuts, the question must 
always be are the facts true?

Face it, Dulce is a hoax.

And your proof is?

The lack of any evidence of anything unusual at Dulce is all the 
"proof" I need to see that the Dulce myth is just so much horse 
shit. As for name calling, well Pietro *is* a kook. So it's not 
name calling when it is an accurate description of a person. HTH.

Oh, I see. The sun goes around the earth because, well, it's "obvious"
to "everyone" and anyone saying different is a "kook". Yeah,
sounds like great science to me! 

For defending the amazingly silly Dulce myth, you have earned the 
accurate description of "Credulous Woo-Woo." Congratulations.

Dear Evil Michael Davis (tm), 
	Keep your congratulations because I have done no such thing.
(Obviously most of your "proof" of things seems to take place between 
your ears)  I did NOT defend the "amazingly silly Dulce myth". And I
NEVER said I believed in it!  I simply pointed out that the "debunking"
arguments provided against it were no such thing and totally bogus!

I'm debunking YOU, not defending Dulce.

Bjacoby

-- 
Due to SPAM innundation above address is turned off!