I held a party in my barn in a north Nottinghamshire village thirty five years ago. About forty people attended. That is a default situation for something that truthfully happened. If you wish to question that, then you may wish to provide evidence to refute it. It is not a paranormal claim, and it is quite likely to have happened in reality. Why would you question my personal testimony?
No. Because the default state of people in Nottinghamshire village is "not attending a party". If you think it's material that such an event took place, you have to provide some supporting evidence for it.
We have no responsibility whatsoever to
disprove that any event happened. You have the responsibility to prove it
did happen.
Members of the Brazel family and neighbours, both stated that around thirty five years after the alleged event, that Mac Brazel was detained for a period of time by the military, over a matter of security, that could have been directly related to the secret Project Mogul. Why could this not be a better default scenario, than the one that you cited, in the absence of any witness alternative supporting statements? You may still of course be correct that Brazel was not detained in the way that has been stated, but it is certainly not a given default scenario, as you assert.
Yes it is. The null hypothesis is the default one, especially when dealing with nearly forty-year-old recollections of an event that is purported to be
extremely out of the ordinary.
And that goes
double when there's no contemporary evidence whatsoever to corroborate these decades-later recollections.
I thought that would have been obvious when a state secret was involved, whatever the nature of that secret was.
You'd be wrong. The real world doesn't work like the X-Files.
Who knows, but is it really relevant to the point in question. If it was necessary for Brazel to be detained for questioning, he would have been detained at an appropriate venue.
And if it wasn't necessary, he wouldn't have been. So it's up to you to show that he was, indeed, detained.
That is a fair point. Witness statements have varied as to the length of the detention. It ranges from a three days, to five days, to a full week.
Discrepancies which highlight the requirement for actual corroborating evidence.
Brazel was also reported by his neighbours, to be seen in the local town during the alleged period of detention escorted by the military. They added that he ignored them as he walked by, and eventually refused to discuss any aspect of the case again after his release.
Which is odd, since right there in the July 8th newspaper story, Brazel is quoted as stating he regrets ever saying anything and that the publicity surrounding his find made him swear that he wouldn't ever report anything he ever found on his ranch again unless it was an actual
bomb.
A week's military detention to get him to refuse to talk after that point would seem to be rather redundant. In fact, it has all the hallmarks of a much later addition to the story, designed to enhance the aura of mystery and cover-up surrounding events.
That's why corroborating evidence is needed, to separate the later confabulations from the actual facts.
So the reponsibility passes to Blanchard. It still does not change the fact that military were responsible for the initial woo explanation.
Yes. Something that they regretted jumping the gun on pretty much as soon as it happened. Anyone with any experience with the military will have no hesitation whatsoever in telling you that the military
makes mistakes.
This does have a ring of truth about it, as Brazel probably came into contact with material he was not familiar with in the first instance, but nevertheless, still man-made. But why sticks and rubber and tin foil could be described as remnants of a saucer or disc is beyond credibility.
And yet, that's exactly what happened. And
long before the military even started backtracking on the saucer story, too, so it can't have been something concocted for their coverup story.
