UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2002 > Nov > Nov 14

Re: Disclosure Witnesses & Credibility

From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993.nul>
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 14:34:41 EST
Archived: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 16:09:17 -0500
Subject: Re: Disclosure Witnesses & Credibility


>From: John Zupansic <zupansic.nul>
>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 23:47:21 -0600
>Subject: Re: Disclosure Witnesses & Credibility

>>From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993.nul>
>>To: ufoupdates.nul
>>Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 12:44:57 EST
>>Subject: Re: Disclosure Witnesses & Credibility

><snip>

>>So the question to me is: "If some of the disclosure witnesses
>>are unreliable, why should we accept anything that comes from
>>the project?"

>>That means, if Dr. Greer couldn't be bothered with verifying
>>these tales, why should we even listen?

>>But doesn't those copyright issues speak to character and isn't
>>character of importance here. We have only so much in the way of
>>physical evidence so that the character issue becomes more
>>important. Here, Dr. Greer has failed...


>Touche' Mr. Randle.

>Earlier Mr. Ledger mentioned something about not throwing out
>the baby with the bathwater, but I think this is a relatively
>unrealistic hope.

>In the case of Greer, and perhaps the upcoming Sci-Fi special,
>the baby should and will get thrown out with the bathwater,
>rightfully so I think. Precisely because, as Mr. Randle so
>eloquently put it "If some of the disclosure witnesses are
>unreliable, why should we accept anything that comes from the
>project?"

I think you misunderstand here. The second part of that, which
followed, was about Dr. Greer not worrying about the reliability
of the witnesses and couldn't be bothered with checking. It
isn't hard to find the truth, but here the truth is that if he
eliminated some of the credulous witnesses, he would be left
without tales of 57 alien species, an abduction at Bentwaters
and MJ-12.

>Far too often people in this field give debunkers, skeptics,
>investigative reporters, and assorted media types ammo with
>which to shoot giant holes in UFOs and the ETH in the minds of
>the general public and perhaps as or more importantly,
>prospective scientists and researchers. Hyperbole and sweeping
>generalizations, sadly, play pretty well to the masses and to
>the those in the scientific community who don't have time to
>study UFOs in-depth.  It doesn't much matter if 90% of Greer's
>witnesses are credible (which they probably aren't) if 10% are
>liars.

But you see, we don't have to put up with the 10%. All that had
to be done was to properly investigate the backgrounds of those
making their claims. Had that been done, then we wouldn't be
having this discussion  because they would all pass.

So, why didn't they try to verify the backgrounds?

>It doesn't much matter if Schmitt's claims about Roswell

>are completely 100% accurate when it is so easy to discredit him
>on character issues.

But, you see, there is nothing that Schmitt knows that we don't
know from other, better sources, which is the point. And we know
that Schmitt's claims weren't 100% accurate.

You need an example? He claimed that Dr. Jesse B. Johnson was
the pathologist at Roswell in 1947. Schmitt said that he had
consulted the ABMS Compendium of Medical Specialists which
showed that Dr. Johnson had trained as a pathologist... well,
that was true, but what we also learn is that Johnson trained
from 1948 to 1949, after he had left the service and Roswell.
Schmitt had to know this, but ignored it. So, his claim was, I
suppose accurate, but the rest of the information also showed
that it was irrelevant. His information was 100% but it meant
nothing.

That example not good enough? How about claiming that one of the
Roswell witnesses had been Colonel when, in fact, the man never
rose above Staff Sergeant... and yes, that man lied about his
military career because he had claimed to be a Master Sergeant.

So, we can eliminate Schmitt from the equation and we still have
the same information as it was developed by others. In other
words, the messenger here is not important. It is the message.
And, if the messenger can't be trusted, then neither can the
message.

>People stop listening (rightly or wrongly)

>no matter how great the data is, after they find out the person
>in question has a history of lies/embellishments/exaggerations
>in their past.

But if the information is great, then a single individual is not
important. And if the person has a history of
lies/embellishments/ exaggerations, why should we believe that
this happens to be the one time that he or she is telling the
truth?

>Incidentally, I have tried to contact both Sci-Fi and MPH
>Entertainment to ask why Schmitt is included in their upcoming
>special, but haven't received a response.

I'm not sure why this has become so important, but the reason,
simply, is that Schmitt happened to be in the Roswell museum
when a couple of representatives came through. Say what you
will, Schmitt can (a) be charming  (b)  seem knowledgeable and
(c) and talk a good ball game.


KRandle

[ 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