NICK REDFERN: TRUTH ABOUT ROSWELL

[jmercer]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: NICK REDFERN: TRUTH ABOUT ROSWELL

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess....invalid. If true, his hypothesis would turn history upside-down. How is it that throughout all these years, no one else has seen any evidence of this fantastic conspiracy? How did the US have the resources to develop flying saucers when it was so busy developing nuclear weapons, missile systems, and jet aircraft? Why haven't any other historians jumped on the bandwagon? I think the answer is obvious.

I couldn't agree more. I haven't read the book or looked at the soruces cited, but logic compels me to point out the following:

With the media's current focus on the Iraqi prison scandal and the Guantanamo Bay issues - if this book were based on any shred of credible evidence at all - the Associated Press, CNN (and just about everyone else) would be going absolutely nuts on the topic.

The fact that they're not is a pretty darned strong indication that it's not credible. In fact, I wonder about the timing of this book - could it be that this guy decided to write this based on the current media frenzy about prisoner abuse - could he be trying to "ride the wave", as it were?

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

jmercer said:
With the media's current focus on the Iraqi prison scandal and the Guantanamo Bay issues - if this book were based on any shred of credible evidence at all - the Associated Press, CNN (and just about everyone else) would be going absolutely nuts on the topic.

Unless, of course, the press is in on the coverup. Even all the foreign press. Even Mother Jones.

~~ Paul

 

[joyrex]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Roswell

What a strange way to go through life.

We'll know that one for sure after he's dead!

 

[lumos]

UFO researcher Nick Redfern’s new book on Roswell. It wasn’t aliens, Mogul, weather balloons, or crash test dummies. (all explanations put forth by the U.S. government.) According to Redfern, it was this:

http://www.coasttocoastam.com/shows/2005/06/21.html

How much stock should we place in information from that website? Check out the ads: ESP pills, Lock Ness monster revealed...

 

[turtle]

Re: Re: NICK REDFERN: TRUTH ABOUT ROSWELL

How much stock should we place in information from that website? Check out the ads: ESP pills, Lock Ness monster revealed...

Irrelevant.

the website has nothing to do with Redfern's validity, or, lack of. The website is merely posting the new about Redfern's book and his intereview.

The website didn't write the book. The website isn't responsible for any truths, or untruths, contained in the book.

 

[Ashles]

Re: Re: Re: NICK REDFERN: TRUTH ABOUT ROSWELL

Irrelevant.

the website has nothing to do with Redfern's validity, or, lack of. The website is merely posting the new about Redfern's book and his intereview.

Out of interest Turtle, why do you have a link in your sig that invites us all to join join you at "Forteans and Skeptics" if you aren't a skeptic, and seem to actively dislike the concept?

 

[turtle]

Re: Re: Re: Re: NICK REDFERN: TRUTH ABOUT ROSWELL

Out of interest Turtle, why do you have a link in your sig that invites us all to join join you at "Forteans and Skeptics" if you aren't a skeptic, and seem to actively dislike the concept?

I have a link because I'm a shameless hussy.

Why do you think I have some kind of concept about "actively" disliking the concept of skepticism?

Check out the group for yourself, join or don't, up to you. shrug.

 

[turtle]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Roswell

Actually invisible pink unicorns run the government.

Obviously you can't rule it out because apparently that wouldn't be scepticism.

Your strange definition of scepticism obviously involves giving equal credence or possibility of likelihood to everything claimed by anyone ever.

No it doesn't, but if you want to put words in my mouth I can't stop you.

Which is ironically just about the exact opposite of scepticism.

Your personal theory clearly involves "It must be something interesting and exciting".
The mundane is obviously instatly rejected.

No it's not. But, see above. . .

No because you have again created a new definition of a word. Being "not naive" does not mean being astonishingly cynical.

that's your opinion; that's it's "astonishingly cynical." I find it "astonishingly naive" one thinks our gov -- or any gov -- is incapable of such things.

But hey, this isn't about me, it's about Redfern's book. So I"ll tell you right now: don't pick a fight with me, about me. Thanks.

So you don't have any interest in finding out whether there is any evidence for any claim anyone ever makes?

Uh, never said that, and um, no, and oh dear, where'd you get that idea from?

I'll try one more time:

I haven't even read the damn book, how can I say if it makes any sense or not? We can all speculate, but without having read the book, can't do much more than tha.

I haven't come out and said anything like "I haven't read the book but I believe Redfern" although, you seem to want to think I have.

You sound quite proud of being wilfully gullible.

Well, no, but you seem to think it does.

Why, I don't know, I don't really care either, but I have a feeling you're going to tell me anyway. I don't believe Redfern, now, if I did, I probably would be gullible, eh?

Think what you like about me but don't fight with me or play some personality game with me; this isn't about how stupid you think I am, it's about Redfern's ideas re: Roswell.

What a strange way to go through life.

Oh, aren't we judgemental now? tsk, tsk...

By the way would you like to buy some magic beans?

that's cute too, say, ever consider writing for the Comedy Channel?

Okay, 'nuff of that.

I know where you stand, thanks, now, let's move on.

 

[turtle]

Re: UFO

Hello Turtle,

I should have explained myself. I don't believe that experiments were being conducted on Japanese POW's (or any other POW's for that matter) by the USA in 1947/48. I would like the Roswell story of aliens crashing to Earth to be true; what a story that'd be! However, at the time of the 'Roswell Incident', people were seeing 'flying saucers' all over the place, possibly because of the emergence and experimentation of technology following WW2. The sensationalism created by these strange flying (by earthly) craft possibly whipped up hysteria among people and the Roswell incident was borne from that - just someone's idea of a prank that maybe went too far.

Very possibly. Then again, the fact people were seeing "saucers" before Roswell could also mean that's because saucerst there were. . . true UFOs, IOW, not experimental man made craft. We'll probably never know.

A similar sort of thing happened in Warminster, England during the 1960's. People were convinced that aliens were among them because so many had seen odd-shaped craft in the sky. It turned out that these UFO's were nothing more than experimentations in military aircraft, coupled with pranksters creating 'spaceships' from bottle tops, cotton reels and fishing line.

Oh yes, hoaxters love to come and play, lol. And we know the U.S. gov. and very likely others intentionally pushed UFO theories to cover up their own experimental technologies, as a distraction.

I am quite certain as I can be, that the Universe is teeming with life: we cannot be the only life inside it. However, people from all planets tend to mind their own business and not get involved with others, especially when the distance between life-bearing planets is so vast, far more vast than our human minds can comprehend.

How can you make that assumption? We don't know if aliens are more prone to minding their own business or not. . .

How would anybody from another planet know that Earth has life, and moreover, why would they bother travelling the distance to find out?

That's assuming a few things: one, that they come from outside the solar system, two, that they come from within the solar system but not from our own earth, three, that they wouldn't have the technology/mind/ whatever to know about us.

No, this 'Roswell Incident' and all the other 'incidents' are borne out of minds much closer to home.

Again, very possibly, but I don't think we'll ever know. The government's bungling of their own cover stories doesn't much help. Was it a weather ballon, Mogul, or crash test dummies? Make up your minds, pick a story, and stick with it.

 

[Ashles]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Roswell

that's your opinion; that's it's "astonishingly cynical." I find it "astonishingly naive" one thinks our gov -- or any gov -- is incapable of such things.

That's exactly what I was saying.
I personally don't think there is any remote possibility that the US government has created flying sucers with Japanese soldiers in them so distorted that they look like aliens.
This doesn't mean I think that governments aren't possible of rather appalling acts, merely that this particular scenario sounds ludicrous to the point of stupidity.
Anyone who seriously gives it even the slightest credence might well have paranoid delusions. Or be extremely gullible. Or not very bright.

Sorry if that sounds rude but it's my opinion.

But hey, this isn't about me, it's about Redfern's book. So I"ll tell you right now: don't pick a fight with me, about me. Thanks.[

He's not here, and you are so far the only person who has not rejected the theory outright as ridiculous.
And I find it hard to believe a rational thinking person could accept this theory in any way.

I'll try one more time:

I haven't even read the damn book, how can I say if it makes any sense or not? We can all speculate, but without having read the book, can't do much more than tha.

I haven't come out and said anything like "I haven't read the book but I believe Redfern" although, you seem to want to think I have.

So there is no evidence for the theory, you haven't read the book, and the whole thing sounds ridiculous.
That is why I presented the Invisible Pink Unicorn theory. It carries as much weight.

Why, I don't know, I don't really care either, but I have a feeling you're going to tell me anyway. I don't believe Redfern, now, if I did, I probably would be gullible, eh?

Gullible, attention seeking, fantasy-prone, mentally unstable, delusional, a liar, fulfilling a psychological need, intellectually subnormal...
There are many reasons people believe things that sound ludicrous to most people.

Still, luckily you're not one of them.

Think what you like about me but don't fight with me or play some personality game with me; this isn't about how stupid you think I am, it's about Redfern's ideas re: Roswell.

You appeared to take the theory seriously for a moment. If you haven't then I will tease you on the matter no further.

Oh, aren't we judgemental now? tsk, tsk...

Er yes, I am judging you by what you post. If that does not reflect what you actually think that is hardly my fault.

that's cute too, say, ever consider writing for the Comedy Channel?

No, not since they cancelled MST3K.
And I live in the UK so I would pitch ideas to the BBC or maybe Channel 4.

Okay, 'nuff of that.

I know where you stand, thanks, now, let's move on.

I agree - let us put this Nick Redfern nonsense behind us.

 

[turtle]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Roswell

There's this:

Anyone who seriously gives it even the slightest credence might well have paranoid delusions. Or be extremely gullible. Or not very bright.

This:

And I find it hard to believe a rational thinking person could accept this theory in any way.

Oh, wow, and this

Gullible, attention seeking, fantasy-prone, mentally unstable, delusional, a liar, fulfilling a psychological need, intellectually subnormal...
There are many reasons people believe things that sound ludicrous to most people.

Still, luckily you're not one of them.

Now I remember why I had him on ignore awhile back.
And why he's back on.

 

[songstress]

Roswell

Hello turtle,

No, you are definitely not delusional - the topic is worthy of discussion, in my opinion, from all angles. You are a good debater.

You are right - we don't know that people who may exist on other planets are any more prone to minding their own business than we are; it's just that we will never know.

Patsy.

 

[Ashles]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Roswell

Now I remember why I had him on ignore awhile back.
And why he's back on.

Funny, you never mentioned me being on ignore before.

I wonder why I was taken off ignore anyway?

And songstress - Turtle, a good debator?
You are joking aren't you?

Her debate tactic consist of "I'm putting you on ignore".

Wow, masterful.

Also in my post I referred to the fact that I was teasing her. I wasn't calling her any of those things, I was referring to someone who actually believed such a ludicrous theory as Nick Redfern's. Which she said she didn't really.

It's hardly my fault she is so thin skinned.

 

[songstress]

Roswell

Dear Ashles,

I think that you are a good debater, too!

I haven't ignored anyone. That would be a very rude thing to do.

Patsy.

(edited due to spelling mistake...pesky keyboard! Tch!)

 

[Ashles]

Re: Roswell

Dear Ashles,

I think that you are a good debater, too!

I haven't ignored anyone. That would be a very rude thing to do.

Patsy.

(edited due to spelling mistake...pesky keyboard! Tch!)

Sometimes you do make me chuckle songstress.

I did enjoy the debates we had with the Pakistani homeopaths, particularly Dr Mas.

Although I have heard that Mas debating can stunt your growth.

 

[songstress]

Roswell

Dear Ashles,

I am glad that I make you chuckle I often have that affect on people..ha ha!

Yes, the Dr MAS debates..tch, tch! Whatever happened to that? I think I switched off when I couldn't read the posts that were written in broken English.

I don't like the idea of being able to put certain posters on 'ignore.' If we were a debating society meeting 'in the flesh' and someone chose to ignore someone else in that situation, that person would immediately be looked upon as 'rude' and quite rightly so. The concept and purpose of debate, disagreement and sometimes agreement, is that we learn from one another; even if our views don't change, at least we have a more broader outlook.

Patsy.

 

[Rob Lister]

UFO researcher Nick Redfern’s new book on Roswell. It wasn’t aliens, Mogul, weather balloons, or crash test dummies. (all explanations put forth by the U.S. government.) According to Redfern, it was this:

http://www.coasttocoastam.com/shows/2005/06/21.html

As written, this statement:

"Surprisingly, he said these vehicles were piloted by Japanese POWs

Cannot be true.

 

[Ashles]

Re: Roswell

I don't like the idea of being able to put certain posters on 'ignore.' If we were a debating society meeting 'in the flesh' and someone chose to ignore someone else in that situation, that person would immediately be looked upon as 'rude' and quite rightly so. The concept and purpose of debate, disagreement and sometimes agreement, is that we learn from one another; even if our views don't change, at least we have a more broader outlook.

In this I certainly agree with you. I have never put anyone on ignore on this or any other board.

I can choose to not respond to certain posters, but if you put someone on ignore you may miss something interesting that person has to say - even if it is something you disagree with.
It may be something you previously didn't know, or it may be just entertainment. But removing someone's opinions from your view will not be of benefit to you in the long run.

It's like sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting 'la la la la'.

An aceptable debating tactic - if you're 5.

 

[DavoMan]

Yeah well I haven't found ONE alien who can say it was a weather baloon yet.

 

[songstress]

Roswell

Dear Ashles,

Agree with you 100%.

Patsy.