What really happened at Roswell?

[TwistofFate]

How long before someone claims that the Columbia crash was actually a spacecraft reverse engineered from Area 51?

[GOM]

*Originally posted by RickJay *
**

That’s my opinion, from a guy who has worked on classified projects. What’s it worth to you? **

Since you asked. Zero.

You’re an anonymous poster on a message board, to me. I learned my lesson years ago…

Stanton is a careful researcher. I can pick up the phone and call him. I can read his books. When I can read one of your books, then you might reach the level of credibility that Stan has. What title should I look for?

[GOM]

*Originally posted by cjhoworth *
**1. All right, GOM, try reading this article from CSIOP’s website (thanks for the link to the index, mehitabel. It points out things in the testimony of witnesses which cannot possibly be true and testimony which has changed over the years.

2. Sorry, in my opinion, what happened at Roswell was not a flying saucer crash, and, while I’m willing to believe there is sentient life out there somewhere, I don’t believe we’ve encountered it yet.

CJ **

1. Thanks. I’ll have to read it later, but I was already aware that there are problems with some of the eyewitnesses. Stanton Friedman has pointed that out himself. That does not make all the testimony from all the witnesses invalid.

2. No need to be sorry. I can accept your opinion. That was my opinion years ago. The debunkers who flatly claim they know everything about Roswell are the ones who puzzle me…

[GOM]

*Originally posted by scr4 *
**I can’t find information on this. What exactly did the Air Force colonel say about the bodies, and how does it discredit the rest of his announcement? **

I’m out of time for now, but think “time compression”. He shouldn’t have tried such a joke explanation, imo. I’ll try to see if I can dig up anything else on this later.

[GOM]

*Originally posted by bonzer *
**

[Incidentally GOM, in quoting it, you reedited my post into 3 points, which seems to me very bad practice. I’ve no problem with people cutting posts in replying to them or indicating ellipses within quoted text, but casually rewriting someone else’s post is dangerous.
Of course, when cutting a post down for reply it’s easy to drop points you’re uncomfortable about replying to. So I’ll reiterate: “what about Freidman’s implicit endorsement of the dodgy maths ?”] **

Hello bonzer,

My dad’s been in the hospital, so I lost track of this thread…

I have used that method for years. You are the second person to ever complain about it. I will do my best to remember to never use it again with a post of yours since it seems to bother you.

However, when you say “casually rewriting someone else’s post is dangerous” you are seeing something that does not exist. I never casually rewrite anyone’s post. I did not casually rewrite your post. I did not rewrite even one word of your post. Anyone can check your post and my response to verify that your words have not been deleted, modified or even transposed. I often do split up points to clarify and focus on specific details. Let’s make sure your accusation fits the facts. Okay?

For future reference, it’s rare that I will resond to every single point made in another person’s post. Especially the longer ones. I do try to respond to as many points as my limited time allows. I have no comment on your allegation of dodgy maths. I see it as running off on a tangent. YMMV

HTH

[ralph124c]

I concur with you…the city of roswell has made a fortune over this stupid incident. I happened to drive through Roswell (on my way to Texas) once in the early 1980’s…boy, are you isolated!
Now, as for ELIDA , NM, does anybody live there?

[bonzer]

*Originally posted by GOM *
My dad’s been in the hospital, so I lost track of this thread…

Sorry to hear it. I hope he’s recovering and wish him well.

However, when you say “casually rewriting someone else’s post is dangerous” you are seeing something that does not exist. I never casually rewrite anyone’s post. I did not casually rewrite your post. I did not rewrite even one word of your post. Anyone can check your post and my response to verify that your words have not been deleted, modified or even transposed. I often do split up points to clarify and focus on specific details. Let’s make sure your accusation fits the facts. Okay?

The issue is not whether a post has been split up and specific details focussed on. Everybody does that and, indeed, I’m doing it just now. It’s a universally accepted convention that posters can reply to individual points by quoting the point and then giving their response.
But some of us regard a numbered list as a formatting choice for an argument that has its advantages and disadvantages. It’s appropriate in some cases and not in others. Thus when we use one in one of our posts it’s a deliberate choice and done for a reason. When you rewrote my post as one and reposted it as Originally posted by bonzer you were summarising my argument under my username in a form different from what I posted without acknowledging the change. Sure, people can check back to see that you’ve altered/not altered my intent, but you shouldn’t expect them to have to.
In this instance the effect is pretty minor and largely a matter of style. But standard conventions for quoting people exist for reasons and it’s actually disconcerting to see one’s post altered in the idiosyncratic way you did.

For future reference, it’s rare that I will resond to every single point made in another person’s post. Especially the longer ones. I do try to respond to as many points as my limited time allows. I have no comment on your allegation of dodgy maths. I see it as running off on a tangent. YMMV

Absolutely fair enough - as I covered above and as I’m effectively doing here. My mileage, however, is that it’s more useful discussing the technical points on his website than getting into tangents about his technical qualifications.