Stanton Friedman to Research Billy Meier??

[Pygar2]

I believe you. But I'm picturing Garak telling Sisko, "All you've lost is self respect!"
Science Fiction Theatre s 2 : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive is worth a watch. That link altered ; S2#6 is it.

 

[Trajanus]

No sonobuoy was reported found at Roswell; just the balloon train. MOGUL is clearly its source.

Nonsense, as Randle's research shows. Witnesses reported unusual metallic debris not balloons. Had it been just balloons the base intel officer would've identified them quickly and easily.

Credible witnesses don't spin incredible tales.

A base intel officer and his son are credible, and like many other credible witnesses over the past 75 years, reported highly unusual things.

 

[Trajanus]

The problem with Roswell was that the story came out 31 years later, with multiple versions. If it wasn't for Charles Berlitz, William Moore and lots of help from Stanton Friedman, we wouldn't be talking about it now.

In fact Marcel, originally interviewed by Friedman in '78, essentially reopened the case. 1978/80 may have been long after '47 but there was still good first hand testimony.

 

[Pygar2]

Where are the 1947 reports of weird material? Nowhere. In real life, there was none.

 

[Trajanus]

Where are the 1947 reports of weird material? Nowhere. In real life, there was none.

Not in the public domain, but again you can't assume something doesn't exist just because the public doesn't have access to it. Also, while we don't have recorded testimony (about this) dating from '47, there was still adequate first hand testimony starting in '78.

 

[Pygar2]

So I can assume undetectable tiny pink unicorns in my sock drawer, since they can't be disproven? That's not how science works. And no amount of mere words can prove a new phenomenon. Marcel proved only that he had a functioning larynx, that's all. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

 

[Trajanus]

So I can assume undetectable tiny pink unicorns in my sock drawer, since they can't be disproven?

Nobody, to my knowledge, ever claimed there were. Certainly nobody with the credibility of a base intel Major.

That's not how science works. And no amount of mere words can prove a new phenomenon. Marcel proved only that he had a functioning larynx, that's all.

I didn't say witness testimony proved the phenomenon. But it's still evidence something highly unusual came down in '47 and its remains were confiscated and kept out of the public domain.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

There can be no conclusive proof as long as there's a coverup. On the basis of testimony, however, it's reasonable to conclude Roswell involved something extraordinary. As Randle has shown, it wasn't MOGUL, and I doubt skeptics would've clung to mogul as long as they did if there were any alternative earthly explanation of any kind. You know what that leaves.

 

[Pygar2]

1) The claim does not create the reality.
2) The photos were printed; there is no reason to doubt them.
3) I have seen no extraordinary proof of a coverup. Or that Randle was correct.

 

[Trajanus]

1) The claim does not create the reality.
2) The photos were printed; there is no reason to doubt them.
3) I have seen no extraordinary proof of a coverup. Or that Randle was correct.

Like I just said, there's evidence for something extraordinary and for a confiscation of material, hence a coverup. I didn't say there was conclusive proof lay people are privy to.

 

[Pygar2]

But not WORTHWHILE evidence; would you convict a person for a major crime based on no better evidence?

 

[Gene Steinberg]

UFO cases are very heavily oriented towards eyewitness testimony, and physical evidence is seldom encountered. Even then most or all of that evidence is not sufficient to demonstrate an unknown phenomenon is afoot.

But eyewitness testimony under oath is enough to convict people of serious crimes including murder..

 

[Pygar2]

So let's see your habeas corpus... there isn't one.

 

[Trajanus]

But not WORTHWHILE evidence; would you convict a person for a major crime based on no better evidence?

As Gene said, witness testimony, if credible, is sufficient to convict.

 

[Pygar2]

Even when no murder is known to have occurred?

 

[Gene Steinberg]

Well, of course, there has to be a crime.

 

[Trajanus]

Even when no murder is known to have occurred?

In the case of Roswell, nobody disputes something came down, and testimony points to something highly unusual.

 

[Trajanus]

2) The photos were printed; there is no reason to doubt them.

I neglected to answer this. If you're referring to pics of junk in Ramey's office, there are excellent grounds to doubt them. As records indicate #4 was cancelled, and even if the balloons released did reach the ranch--considered highly dubious--there was nothing else. Wherever they got the junk shown in the office, it was NOT from #4 which contained no metallic debris. The claim that a substitution was made must be correct.

 

[Trajanus]

UFO cases are very heavily oriented towards eyewitness testimony, and physical evidence is seldom encountered. Even then most or all of that evidence is not sufficient to demonstrate an unknown phenomenon is afoot.

It's not sufficient to prove it conclusively--i.e. physical evidence in the public domain isn't--but it is highly suggestive of an unknown (or unearthly) phenomenon.