UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 1997 > Oct > Oct 11

Re: Stills of the Mexican Footage

From: Ed Stewart <egs@netcom.com>
Date: Sat, 11 Oct 1997 17:18:51 -0700
Fwd Date: Sat, 11 Oct 1997 21:21:17 -0400
Subject: Re: Stills of the Mexican Footage

> Date: Sat, 11 Oct 1997 12:24:30 -0500
> To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
> From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
> Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Stills of the Mexican Footage

John Velez is quoted saying:

> Hey Magoo, after you spend the next three days counting the pixels in the
> UFO I'd be real interested in seeing how you are going to apply your
> 'glitch theory' to this puppy! <G>

First of all, I have been waiting since the 25th of September for you to
either quote me where you claim I have stated or implied that your
pixels over Queens were either a video artifact, or as you now state in
your ufological wisdom "glitch theory". Back on 9/25 I also claimed that
you would not be able to do so, since the above is a strawman argument
that only has validity within your personal reality and is not based on
anything that I have written to your video thread. Consequently, there
is no "glitch theory" for me to try to apply to the Mexico video. The
only question that still needs to be resolved is the one about your
integrity and intellectual honesty. Either produce the actual quote and
or quotes that would establish your strawman argument not to be a
strawman argument, or admit that you are so emotionally wrapped-up into
this subject that it has prevented you from being able to understand and
properly read the King's English.

Below is one of the challenges that I made for you to back-up your
argument. I have been waiting since 9/25/97. Failure on your part to do
that will expose you as intellectually dishonest and someone that has to
revert to straw man arguments in order to try to muster gallery support
for what was a totally inadequate jpeg image posted to the Internet in
the first place.

The following was a response of mine to Chris Penrose posted to this
mailing list on 9/25/97:

	>>Chris Penrose
	 >Ed Stewart

> > Also, it would be more informative if
> > we had access to an image that was not stored in the
> > lossy JPEG format.  Better still, to have several
> > consecutive frames of video footage.

> In today's day and age, nothing short of the original is necessary for
> any accurate interpretation and analysis to be made. That is impossible
> to have in this medium and that is why any such thread under the guise
> of analysis is pure noise. This thread is not about analysing John
> Velez's video since it can't be done over the internet, but it is all
> about John Velez's personal interpretations about what he thinks the
> video represents and in that process he has found time to slur other
> types of research into the UFO problem and that is what brought into
                                             *************************
> this discussion, not his video.
  ******************************
> > It is true that this "object" may be a video artifact, ...

> But, it is not a claim I have made in this thread. It originated as a
> strawman argument directly from John Velez that felt mandated to
> attribute to me. This thread is archived. I have asked John Velez to
> quote me specifically where such a claim was ever made. He can't because
> it is a fabrication on his part.

And also from 9/25/97, here is my direct response to "Honest" John
Velez also posted to this mailing list on the same date:

	 > Ed Stewart
	>> John Velez

	> John Velez is overheard making the astonishing claim to Chris:

> > I need the second (or better yet) third set of eyes on this
> > stuff. In spite of Ed Stewarts insistance that these are video
> > artifacts we know what we saw, and there _was something_ buzzing
> > around up there that ain't one of ours. Unless the US Airforce
> > is producing silent, silver, hamburger bun shaped crafts! <G>

> What kind of strawman argument/claim is this? At no time in this thread
> have I ever made anly claims as to what your blotches, or pixels were
> --- much less ever insist that they were "video artifacts". Prove me
> wrong and quote exactly from the thread where I ever made any such claim
> regarding your pixels? You can't, but I doubt you will ever admit it for
> after all that would be tantamount to admitting that you are so
> self-centered and emotionally involved with the outcome of your pixels
> that it has kept you from being able to read and properly comprehend the
> simple King's Engliah!

> The fact of the matter is that nothing can be conclusively said from the
> analysis of your generational jpeg images and any such "analysis" is a
> total waste of time. Especially since it should be quite apparent from
> anyone looking at the jpeg image that whatever was captured will never
> be able to be identified from the original point, or blotch, or pixels
> on the jpeg image. And for any chance of a real analysis that may bring
> some fruitful information about the image would of necessity have to
> have access to the original video. That is an impossibility in this
> medium which relegates all discussions related to the analysis of these
> jpeg, or BMP, or tiff, or whatever to simple posturing on your part for
> at best all that can be portrayed on this medium are generational
> copies.

> Also, it is quite apparent to me now that John Velez missed the entire
> slant and direction of my initial cynicism. It was not so much directed
> at his pixels, but at his remarks categorizing disciplined historical
> research as something totally useless and not needed. A remark that he
> felt compelled to make even though it had nothing to do with the
> original thread.

> So let's add strawman arguments to his wantom use of ad hominem slurs as
> part of John Velez's repertoire in his bag of tools to be employed by
> the new ufology in leading people to the "truth".

> Are your pixels that weak that apparently you need to distract attention
> from your "evidence" by employing ad hominems and strawman arguments
> instead?

> Ed Stewart

Back to the present message, "Honest" John Velez says:

> To quote a friend from the orient, this one looks like "paydirt!" the nice
> thing about having truth on your side is that vindication is always just a
> matter of time. He who guffaws last, guffaws best!

> John Velez, Ahhhh! Gettin there.

Strawmen arguments are not "having truth on your side". It is a logical
fallacy employed by people who at worst are intellectually dishonest, or
at best don't have the necessary critical thinking skills to mount
logical arguments against criticism.

Ed Stewart

ps. Mr. Magoo is of the high hopes in lieu of compelling evidence that
you will have the intellectual integrity to fess up to the fact that
your strawman argument direct at Ed Stewart was a simple mistake of
attribution on your part and not related to anything that Ed Stewart has
posted on your Queen's video thread. Ed Stewart has beat Mr. Magoo a
dollar that you don't have the intellectual integrity to make such a
public statement.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ed Stewart egs@netcom.com | So Man, who here seems principal alone,
There is Something        | Perhaps acts second to some sphere unknown.
  Going On!       ,>'?'<, | Touches some wheel, or verges to some goal,
Salvador Freixedo ( O O ) | 'Tis but a part we see, and not a whole.
--------------ooOO-(_)-OOoo------- Alexander Pope, Essay on Man -------



Search for other documents from or mentioning: egs | jvif

[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |

UFO UpDates Main Index

UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp


Archive programming by Glenn Campbell at Glenn-Campbell.com