UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2004 > Mar > Mar 21

Re: Jerry Black To Polygraph Bruce Maccabee -

From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac.nul>
Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2004 18:05:01 -0500
Fwd Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2004 20:23:43 -0500
Subject: Re: Jerry Black To Polygraph Bruce Maccabee -


>From: John Rimmer <jrimmer.nul>
>To: ufoupdates.nul
>Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 20:25:02 +0000
>Subject: Re: Jerry Black To Polygraph Bruce Maccabee

>>From: Alfred Lehmberg <Lehmberg.nul>
>>To: ufoupdates.nul
>>Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 10:08:45 -0600
>>Subject: Re: Jerry Black To Polygraph Bruce Maccabee

>>What? This is the stupidest thing I've ever heard! Polygraphs
>>are a shim-sham, a crack-pot machine, and are easily defeated.
>>So says Dr. Philip Zimbardo of Stanford and a couple of other
>>lettered researchers from other universities on an up-dated
>>college telecourse I saw just Tuesday.

>>Polygraphs are a lie in the fog, completely subjective, and are
>>indicative (to the powerful masses) of likely guilt... and only
>>_possible_ innocence. They _only_ do harm and _never_ do any
>>lasting good, and they are desired only by persons who would
>>likely _never_ be strapped to the fallacious machines
>>themselves...

>>Dr. Maccabee! You don't need to do this! It's not valid; it's
>>not science; it proves _nothing_! You've a reputation to stand
>>on! Stand on it!

>Blimey! What's going on here? I, a cursed pelicanist and
>skeptibunker, entirely agree with Alfred Lehmberg!

>Polygraph tests are just as he describes: indicative of guilt,
>and never proof on innocence. They are, completely phoney
>science.

>Bruce Maccabee has made a very foolish decision, and once he has
>made it any - perfectly rational - second thoughts will be seen
>as an admission of guilt!>

>Bad move.

Good advice even though from an avowed pelicanist! However,I am
assuming (perhaps this is rash!) that Mr. Black is an honourable
man and he will treat this as he treated the Walton case: after
Walton et al passed Jerry's prescribed tests he stated that, in
his opinion, they were telling the truth. I haven't seen any
commentary against the Walton case from Mr. Black for about 10
years now. Therefore, assuming he goes through with this and I
pass I assume he will _get_off_my_back_.

As Jerry Clark has wisely pointed out, I could be wrong in my
assessment of the Walters sightings. (There is little discussion
about the numerous confirmatory sightings except the offhand
comment that other witnesses were all swayed by Ed.. somehow....
a lot of weak mnded individuals in Gulf Breeze?. I don't think
so.)

Perhaps my analysis is fatally flawed, etc. In this case I would
be supporting Ed Walters as a result of incorrect "thinking."
But that would have **nothing** to do with money being passed
around to "buy" the results of the analysis.

The mere fact that Mr. Black is now appealing to "lie detection"
and pointedly ignoring rational analysis (he would hate to bore
everyone with another discussion of the experimental evidence!)
shows that he is grasping at straws to "prove" what he "knows in
his heart" is true (that I joined with or "conspired with" Ed
and probably MUFON to produce a moneymaking hoax UFO case).

This is pelican excrement of the first order.

I suppose that if he goes through with this and I pass he will
want to test Salisberry, Lyons, Andrus, Shuessler, Flannigan,
Watson, etc., hoping to get the answer he wants (Odd, isn't it,
that the only person who _has_ been tested and has already
passed is Ed!!! Compare this with the Walton case where he
failed to pass his first test and there arose a controversy that
lasted for years!)




[ 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