bjacoby@iwaynet.net wrote:

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!

So? All battles and construction projects leave evidence behind. If it was a gunfight then there ought to be bullets scattered all over the place, probably shell casings too, and all the other debris of war. Where is it?

Where did all the excavated dirt and rock go?

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

It is irrelevant who built it. Where did the dirt and rock go?

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.)

Now you've gone from the absurd to the insane. Where are the mountains of rock and dirt that would have resulted from such massive excavations?

neither
the entrance nor any heavy construction is going to be likely to be seen on the surface.

Really? Obviously you've never seen a large tunnel being built. It's not exactly something you can disguise. The amount of heavy equipment on the surface is staggering.

Cleverly disquised air vents, however,
are another matter. If it were me, I'd look for those!

Fine. Get back to me when you find one. Until you do, I see no sane reason to believe any exist.

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?

All versions of the story are equally unlikely.

Unless, of course one knows exactly where the underground entrance
is. It obviously doesn't have to be nearby.

Yes it does, otherwise this story would have been based somewhere other than Dulce, duh!

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!

Paranoia noted.

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.)

This is badly flawed logic. It leads to circular reasoning. The whole UFO myth is propped up by circular belief that the government is covering up alien visitation and total lack of evidence for alien visitation is proof of how well the cover up works.

Of course the whole cover up argument is BS anyway because there is no way the government could cover up such a thing just in the US, let alone in the whole world.

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

Exactly!

So where are all the witnesses?

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.

Ok, where is your evidence for any heavy trucks or other equipment?

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!

It's not an attack. It's an accurate description. Bennewitz is a certified lunatic. That means he has zero credibility.

 This may be a factor to consider,

It is a very important point. Not everyone deserves to be given the benefit of the doubt. You can listen to and take seriously the rantings of every random lunatic that comes along if you like, but don't expect the rest of us to do so.

but any event stands or falls on the EVIDENCE!

Exactly. So...Where is the evidence?

 If there
is the likelyhood of a cover-up,

Assumes facts not in evidence! How did a hypothetical at best cover up suddenly become a "likelyhood?"

then personal atacks tend to be
even more evidence that where there is smoke there is fire!

Not if people are just stating facts that go to the credibility of the person in question. Ever heard the phrase "Consider the source?" Like I said above, not everyone deserves to be taken seriously.

The question is NOT if the person saying things is nuts, the question must always be are the facts true?

If something is true, then you can reasonably expect that eventually someone other than a certifiable nut case will be crowing about it. Here in the real world, you just don't see lunatics making momentous discoveries that somehow everyone else missed.

Face it, Dulce is a hoax.

And your proof is?

See all of the above.

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!

This is a favorite "argument" of you clueless woo-woo types. Unfortunately for you, it is totally bogus. If skeptics and scientists dismissed out of hand everyone who thought differently, we'd still be living in caves. Instead we have this amazing, high-tech, lifestyle that is totally removed from our origins. Obviously new ideas are embraced, but only the ones that are backed up with verifiable evidence. It's the credulous rubes like you who accept every bullshit claim and silly idea that comes along who are equivalent to flat-Earthers.

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".

Reread your post. Denial ain't a river in Egypt, you know.

And I
NEVER said I believed in it!

I never claimed you believed it. You have "skeptic hating troll" written all over you. I always suspected you were defending this nuttery more out of your hatred of skepticism than from any real belief in it. Your kind just can't resist defending every kooky argument that comes along (no matter how patently absurd and stupid) rather than admit the skeptics might just be right about something.

I simply pointed out that the "debunking"
arguments provided against it were no such thing and totally bogus!

Where was that? All I saw you do was spin off a bunch of crazy straw man arguments.

I'm debunking YOU, not defending Dulce.

You are deluded on both counts. All you have done is make yourself look like a fool. You must have a lot of practice at it to expose yourself so fully as a woo-woo in the very first two posts I have ever read from you.

--
The Evil Michael Davis(tm)
http://www.mdpub.com/scopeworks/
http://skepticult.org Member #264-70198-536
Member #33 1/3 of The "I Have Been Killfiled By Tommy" Club

"There's a sucker born every minute" - David Hannum (often erroneously attributed to P. T. Barnum)