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: DRudiak@aol.com
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 1997 11:16:37 -0400 (EDT)
Fwd Date: Thu, 31 Jul 1997 08:42:41 -0400
Subject: Re: Bursting the Balloon


>  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???"

Many of the statements by Pflock and other debunkers go far beyond mere
differences of interpretation.  Instead, they are transparent distortions of
factual information.  E.g., Pflock completely misquoted the Roswell FBI
telegram to make a point.   He claimed that Marcel's service evaluations
indicated that he was "excitable," when there are numerous statements in the
evaluations explicitly stating that he was very cool-headed and NOT
excitable.

One reason I go into detail is so that the debunkers can't plead ignorance
anymore. If Pflock now repeats that Marcel's service evaluations say he was
"excitable," then we will all know that he is deliberately lying.  And
somebody who would blatantly lie like that clearly has some sort of agenda.
Ironically, their whole argument is that Marcel can't be trusted because he
lied about his record.  But when they lie about or grossly distort his
record, why should we trust anything they have to say?


David Rudiak