Aliens On Earth.com Resources for those who are stranded here Our Bookstore is OPEN Over 5000 new & used titles, competitively priced! Topics: UFOs - Paranormal - Area 51 - Ghosts - Forteana - Conspiracy - History - Biography - Psychology - Religion - Crime - Health - Geography - Maps - Science - Money - Language - Recreation - Technology - Fiction - Other - New 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 Location: Mothership -> UFO -> Updates -> 1997 -> Jul -> Re: Bursting the Balloon

UFO UpDates Mailing List

From: Ted Viens <drtedv@smart1.net>
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 1997 16:50:48 -0500
Fwd Date: Mon, 28 Jul 1997 22:05:14 -0400
Subject: Re: Bursting the Balloon

> From: DRudiak@aol.com
> Date: Sun, 27 Jul 1997 15:18:30 -0400 (EDT)
> To: updates@globalserve.net
> Subject: Bursting the Balloon, Pflock (2)

> >From: Ktperehwon@aol.com [Karl Pflock]
>  >Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 18:00:37 -0400 (EDT)
> >To: updates@globalserve.net
> >Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: Bursting the Balloon

> In which the Pflockian DeBunking finger having writ moves on:

> > However...

> > In a 7/90 video-taped interview with Haut conducted by Fred
> > Whiting for the Fund for UFO Reseach, Whiting asked Haut if he
>

...snippety snip snip...Volumes and volumes of well expressed
counterpoint to Karl's missives removed...


> I'm also waiting for even one AAF document that states that Roswell
> base
> was involved in the recovery of a Top Secret balloon.  The GAO
> certainly
> couldn't find it.  In the triplicate-mad military, nobody at
> Roswell, Fort
> Worth, Wright Field, or the Pentagon seems to have bothered writing
> one piece
> of paper related
> to the incident.  That demands a PLAUSIBLE explanation.  At least
> one
> report, if not many, should have been written. Where are they?

> > -- KARL deBUNKER

> Well, at least he got that part right.

> David Rudiak


I must thank you for the great effort you have expended in your
rebuttals to Karl Pflock.  I have found the same faults in Karl's
grammatical and linguistic skills.  Still, I must take the bold move
and ask you:  "Why bother???"

In an honest discourse, each side is able to acknowledge a few points
of the other side, using them to modify some of their own positions
while together both parties stumble towards some reasonable
approximation of the truth of their subject.  In an honest discourse,
each side has the potential of realizing flaws in their own arguments
and then clarifying them by their own effort.  In an honest discourse,
each side knows that some of their positions are poorly supported by
the available evidence and acknowledge them as speculative.

In the few months since joining this list, I have seen Karl issue
these positions on Jesse Marcel a few times.  He brings them forth as
ritual.  He sees only his interpretation of the syntax and speech
patterns used by Marcel.  He makes no allowances for the foibles of a
reminiscent talk.  I am sure that none of the views and information
that you have spent much time to express will be seen in his next
broadcast of these events.

So, again I ask "Why Bother???"  Perhaps you found entertainment and
amusement in your efforts.  If so, I shout "Carry on!!!"  For myself,
I feel  a little guilty for not having more to offer in this post.  I
have found Karl's interpretations of these events even as he has
described them to be shallow, limiting, and self serving.

Bye...  Ted..