UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2002 > Jan > Jan 1

Re: New Year Agenda - Stacy

From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2001 21:22:18 -0600
Fwd Date: Tue, 01 Jan 2002 10:43:39 -0500
Subject: Re: New Year Agenda - Stacy


 >From: David Rudiak <DRudiak@aol.com>
 >Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2001 14:12:12 EST
 >Subject: Re: New Year Agenda
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net

<snip>

 >Poor Kent Lorenzo. Dennis regularly drags him out as his
 >personal poster boy for Roswell witnesses who supposedly
 >disprove anything happened. But all the man basically had to say
 >was , "I wasn't aware of anything happening."


David,

See my most recent post, prior to this one. Lorenzo Kent
Kimball, and others like him, is your problem, not mine.

He was the second medical officer in command at Roswell. If
bodies had been brought in he would surely have been aware of
them. The fact that he wasn't aware of anything happening speaks
volumes - you just don't like what you hear.

 >Put Dennis in charge of a criminal investigation and have him
 >canvas a neighborhood for witnesses. He finds 5 people who claim
 >to know something and 30 who were watching television and say
 >they didn't hear or see anything.

 >That would be the end of the investigation on Dennis' beat.
 >There was no crime. The 30 no-nothings would trump the 5
 >possible know-somethings. Those who claim to know something must
 >be mistaken, liars, or loonies. That seems to be the logic at
 >work here.

Yeah, and put you in charge of Roswell and we'd have just the
same sort of ridiculous situation we currently have - crash
sites and recovered bodies everywhere, with no end in sight, and
'witnesses' like Dennis, Anderson, Kaufmann, Rowe and others
probably going unchallenged. Certainly you would never have
cared whether they were being truthful or not.


Again, see my previous post. I never said or implied that
Kimball's testimony trumped that of two other witnesses. I
asked: how many other witnesses similar to Kimball have been
ignored or overlooked by Roswelll proponents simply because they
didn't have an extraordinary tale to tell?

It was Aldous Huxley who said that "the unexciting truth is
often eclipsed by the exciting lie." Is that what's happened
with Roswell? I don't know. What I damn well do know is that you
and other so-called Roswell investigators are a helluva lot more
interested in those witnesses who support your sensational case
than in those who don't.

Excuse me for calling attention to the latter - as you never
would.

<snip>

 >There _is_ a document of unimpeachable provenance that _proves_
 >something 'toward' happened at Roswell. It's called the Ramey
 >telegram. It states unequivocably that there were "victims" and
 >then it goes on to discuss that something "in the 'disc'" was
 >going to be shipped.

 >So there were 'victims' and there was an object Ramey calls a
 >"disc". How does a Mogul balloon crash produce "victims"?

 >Furthermore, can you explain why Ramey would be calling the
 >crash object a "disc"?

 >Think carefully Dennis. This is an intelligence test. If your
 >typical, knee-jerk, skepti-bunky response is that a Mogul radar
 >target was the "disc", then you have to explain why Ramey talks
 >about something "in the 'disc'" being shipped. Radar targets
 >didn't have any insides.

You think carefully, David. Ramey isn't calling anything
anything. If you assume he's the recipient, and not the sender,
of the teletype in hand. But maybe you think it's the other way
around?

As I've said before: your Rorshach reading of the text in his
hand is your reading. Others on your side of the argument beg to
differ. Let's see a consensus - it doesn't have to be unanimous.
But I'm not going to get into a discussion about it with you
based on the Rudiak reading of it and the Rudiak reading alone.
I've already said that you're welcome to your personal
interpretation and that I think there may yet be much to be
revealed in the teletype.

 >Even Top Secret documents, if they existed, with similar denials
 >would prove nothing if the sender and/or reciprient lacked the
 >proper clearances. Because of compartmentalization, even if all
 >the parties had Top Secret clearances, this does not mean the
 >parties would be privy to all Top Secret information.

Blather. What you're really saying is that no document would
dissuade you of your version of Roswell. Rudiak's "out", in
other words.


Dennis Stacy





[ 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