UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2001 > Apr > Apr 1

Re: AA Time Warp - Evans

From: Roger Evans <shooter@afterimagephoto.tv>
Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2001 19:37:44 -0600
Fwd Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2001 11:54:51 -0400
Subject: Re: AA Time Warp - Evans

 >From: Ed Gehrman <egehrman@psln.com>
 >Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2001 14:50:33 -0800
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: AA Time Warp - Gehrman

 >>>>Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 20:12:41 -0600
 >>>>From: Roger Evans <shooter@afterimagephoto.tv>
 >>>>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>>>Subject: AA Time Warp

Previously, I wrote:

 >>As usual, Ed, you seem to miss the point. There was an entire
 >>thread dedicated to the issues of why the footage seen in AA
 >>looked so bad.

Ed replied:

 >As you may recall I never agreed with that assessment. You were
 >the only person saying that the AA "looked so bad".

Not true, Ed. In fact, after reviewing the archives, it appears
that you are the only one that thinks AA looks "good". Please
point out all the posts from that thread that supports your
claims that I was the only one that questioned AA's quality. If
what you say is true, then there should be plenty of quotes in
that thread from other people that agree with your assessment
that AA looks real.

 >I think the
 >AA, once it's viewed with the clarity that the AA CDs bring, has
 >excellent quality and what you'd expect for the conditions and
 >the period.

No, only what _you'd_ accept as the reality for that time
period, Ed. And what "conditions" are you referring to? Are you
saying that things weren't as good as they could have been?
Isn't that the entire point? They had three weeks, according to
the claims of the alleged cameraman. Why would you have to
qualify your statement about "what you'd expect for the
conditions" if they had three weeks to prepare?

Again, it would appear that nothing will dissuade you from your
belief system. Also, I find it odd that you want other people to
spend $35 apiece to help prove your case. Yet, you won't spend
the same amount to make a BetaSP copy for me on a tape I'll
provide which would have even _greater_ detail than the CDs.

Continuing, I had written:

 >>No, I do not believe that the cameraman is telling the truth. I
 >>believe that this was a mistake in his make-believe story.

Ed replied:

 >This makes no sense at all. If the cameraman is telling the
 >truth, then everything happened as he says...end of story. He
 >was there and he should know! If he's not telling the truth,
 >then how can you use his testimony to determine that there were
 >three weeks between the crash and the autopsy?

This is just plain stupid, Ed. Someone claiming to be a
cameraman that also claimed to shoot archival footage of a
claimed alien autopsy made statements that are suspect. What
makes them suspect is the discrepancy between how the footage
looks and the three weeks he also claims lapsed between the
crash he claims to have seen and the autopsy he also claims to
have shot.

In my world, all I see are "claims"; some of which contradict
other "claims". In your world, these aren't "claims" but gospel
until proven otherwise. Worse, your circular logic mandates
that, because someone claiming to be a cameraman said he shot
AA, then AA is real because this person was interviewed and is,
therefore, also real. Likewise, because the AA footage exists,
then this person claiming to be the cameraman must be telling
the truth which, in turn, validates the AA footage itself which,
in turn, validates the cameramans story!

 >I never agreed with the "hurried state" discussions. You created
 >the strawman that the AA was somehow of poor quality but when
 >I've asked you to show us what you meant by these poor "quality
 >problems", you've refused to do so. Now you have a perfect
 >opportunity to give the list examples of these "problems" and
 >you still refuse. What's that all about?

Ed, what discussion group are you reading, anyway? There is an
entire thread that dealt with these issues. This is so typical
of you. Someone hits you in the head with a stick and you stand
there bleeding and say, "What stick? I don't see a stick,
therefore, I am not bleeding."

What's funny is, in all this smoke, you have yet to ever give a
list of reasons why AA is real. You demand that others toe the
line and prove it false. Yet, for all your bellyaching about
non-believers, and how EBK won't ever let you talk about AA on
this list, you have never given any list of reasons beyond your
typical circular logic as described above. Considering that your
"on air" time is so precious, I'm surprised you don't take
advantage of it. I'm sure everyone would like to know why AA is
real. After all, you are on record as saying that AA is real.
What's _your_ proof? Or does everyone have to send you $35.00 to
find out? I can see why you think so much of Santilli's value


[ 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