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 -> 1999 -> Jun -> Here

From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
Date: Wed, 02 Jun 1999 19:51:19 -0500
Fwd Date: Thu, 03 Jun 1999 06:55:58 -0400
Subject: Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes


>From: David Rudiak <DRudiak@aol.com>
>Date: Sun, 30 May 1999 21:17:52 EDT
>Subject: Re: Voyager Newsletter, Mogul Parchment Parachutes
>To: updates@globalserve.net

>The Eastonian Times-Picayune is back, starting off with the
>usual bird-brained theories about the original Kenneth Arnold
>sighting.  Bruce Maccabee, myself, and others argued ourselves
>blue in the face with all sorts of mathematical and other
>arguments why birds couldn't possibly work  (can birds outfly a
>plane?).  A lot of good it did.  Don't get me started.


Why don't we get you started?  Did it ever occur to you (and
Maccabee) that your mathematical arguments and analysis of the
Arnold case are only right if you assume Arnold was absolutely
incapable of human error? But what if he was wrong? What if, for
example, he saw another flight of some 20-25 objects not too
long after his original sighting which certainly sound like
birds to most of us? What if he went on to report seven UFO
sightings total? What if he eventually concluded that UFOs are
space animals -- "living organisms...in the atmosphere"?

See Clark's "The UFO Book," p. 62.

Would this lead you to conclude that you had something
approaching a fruitcake on your hands, or would you prefer to
conclude that a living organism crashed at Roswell?

You treat the Roswell case and its witnesses in the same
fashion. When they support your argument, such witnesses as
Proctor et al are absolutely accurate and inviolable in their
recall, never mind interviewed 30 and 40 years after the fact.
When they don't -- as in the case of Kent Lorenzo, first
interviewed by Friedman in 1992, but never conveniently
mentioned since -- they must be, what, part of the ongoing cover
up?

Don't get me started.

You, Maccabee and others can mathematically analyze Arnold's
original statements all you want, or until Hell freezes over,
whichever comes first. And it doesn't mean a goddam thing unless
you think he was absolutely dead on and incapable of any error
in perception whatever.

Now explain how Miracle Man, i.e., Arnold, came to believe that
UFOs were living organisms.

Troubling, isn't it?

Unless you're the editor of the Rudiak Real Times-Picaynue.

Dennis Stacy