Aliens On Earth.com Resources for those who are stranded here UFOs | Paranormal | Area 51 People | Places | Random Top 100 | What's New Catalog | New Books Search... for keyword(s)   in Page Titles in Book Title/Author in Contents of Pages ---other searches--- Metacrawler Yahoo FAST Search Google Altavista Dogpile Inference Find Northern Light IWon.com MSN Search Las Vegas Sun Our Bookstore is OPEN Mothership -> UFO -> Updates -> 1997 -> Jul -> Here

From: Andromeda0@aol.com [Jared Anderson]
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 1997 23:54:41 -0400 (EDT)
Fwd Date: Fri, 18 Jul 1997 00:12:09 -0400
Subject: Re: Bursting the Balloon

>From: RTodd12191@aol.com
>Date: Thu, 17 Jul 1997 08:35:21 -0400 (EDT)
>Fwd Date: Thu, 17 Jul 1997 09:14:17 -0400
>Subject: Re: Bursting the Balloon


   < From: Andromeda0@aol.com [Jared Anderson]
   < Date: Tue, 15 Jul 1997 05:14:10 -0400 (EDT)
   < To: updates@globalserve.net
   < Subject: Bursting the Balloon

   < If anyone needs a good laugh they can goto this location to
   < read the Air Force's dummy report: http://www.af.mil/lib/roswell/ >

>Unfortunately for Jared Anderson, the full text of the new Air Force
>report is not available on the internet.  I must assume, therefore,
>that Mr. Anderson has not yet seen and read the full report, and
>is writing out of ignorance.  What a surprise.

Yes it's true, I, like Mr. Pflock, am making statements about the
report without having read all it's parts. I will say that if the
rest of the report is as silly as the dummy excerpts that I HAVE
READ I may consider refraining from giving it the time.

>I take offense that an alien spaceship buff like Jared Anderson
>would claim that a report he hasn't even read "more or less
>pissed on" my research into the New York University (NYU)
>("Mogul") balloon explanation for the debris recovered on the
>Foster Ranch,

I guess the tone of my paragraph deceived you into the impulsive
assumption that I am in resounding support of the extraterrestrial
hypothesis for the crash. This is not so. I do not believe the
saucer buffs have proven their contentions any  more than the
balloon buffs. This gives me the oppourtunity ridicule equally
all those with irrational blindness and the inability to see past
their own convictions. Now since we're talking about "pissing" why
are you so full of piss and vinegar? Are you really so convinced
that the Air Force dummy contention is a compliment to your research?
Or are you having trouble admitting that the balloon theory has been
hurt by this ridiculous myth?

>especially when the report he hasn't even
>bothered to read reaffirms the findings of the.first report issued
>in 1994.  Even more troubling is Anderson's assertion that the
>new report is a "fictionalized account of a still highly
>controversial incident."  I do, however, admire his courage
>for speaking his mind out of nearly total ignorance.  THAT
>takes guts.


Guts? Nonsense. Sometimes you gotta throw rocks at people's
kneecaps in order to get them to come out and answer a question.
I am happy to say that both yourself and Mr. Pflock came rushing
forward to respond to my insidious little paragraph but that's
neither here nor there. Your response seems to clealry
indicate a glowing endorsement of this new report so I guess we
all know where you stand don't we?

>Strangest of all is that alien spaceship buff Anderson apparently
>hasn't considered the possibility that the tall tales told by a
>number of supposed Roswell "witnesses" are nothing but
>"fictionalized account[s] of a still highly controversial incident,"
>which is "still highly controversial" largely due to the tall tales
>told by the supposed "witnesses" to the "alien" bodies.
>Apparently Roswell alien spaceship buffs believe only the Air
>Force is capable of telling lies.

I couldn't possibly take that position.  I enjoy pointing out
non-truths no matter who tells them whether they be Roswell
witnesses (Ragsdale and others) or the Air Force :)
or,  oh yeah "researchers".

>I agree that, in being too timid to call a spade a spade, the Air Force
>did not enhance their own credibility.  Instead of saying he had no
>explanation for why supposed Roswell "witnesses" were "confused"
>about dates by seven or eight years, Colonel Haynes should have said,
>"Well, did you ever consider the possibility that the witnesses were
>lying?"

You make sense here. It is far more credible to assume that
witnesses could be lying rather than mistaking CTD's wearing
military jump suits with "US Army" stamped on them (as ret.
Col Raymond Madson of Project High Dive contends) for child
sized aliens (if there were actually any aliens seen at all).
But Alas, in it's zealous foolishness the Air Force is again
overly eager to please so it serves up one myth to quash
another. Just so I can be clear on this would you please state
which of the witnesses you think were lying and which of those
you think saw CTD's from 1953? Additionally on the subject of
Col. Haynes - What is "time compression" anyway?..I don't think
that's a real word. It sounds more like an algorithm used in
the manufacture of compact discs.

It's disappointing to see that after the good work you did on
the Schulgen memo that you've taken this dummyism so seriously.
Very credulous indeed.

see ya at the next Air Force report.


Jared.
(alleged alien spaceship buff)