From: Eugene Frison <eugene.frison.nul>
Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2006 12:48:05 -0300
Fwd Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2006 19:50:44 -0400
Subject: Re: Jesse Marcel Jr. On & Off The Record - Frison


>From: Stanton Friedman <fsphys.nul>
>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>Date: Tue, 30 May 2006 13:32:39 -0300
>Subject: Re: Jesse Marcel Jr. On & Off The Record

>You have obviously been persuaded that my writing on MJ-12 and
>Roswell  has been  shown to not stand up, even though you have
>provided no examples, not even one.

Very true!

>By the way, why in the world would you imply that for me all
>there is to UFOs is high tech hardware?Oops, Sorry... I guess I
>shouldn't ask for specifics.

Oh, but in each of my posts I've been _very_ specific about why
I assert that even your claims that at least some UFOs are ET
spacecraft are premature (this is not quite the same thing as
saying "that for me [you] all  there is to UFOs is high tech
hardware" but a nice try in trying to make it look like I'm
saying this). I just didn't get get specific in why I agree with
others regarding Roswell/MJ-12 and disagree with you - a debate
I have no interest in - and this, too, is a good try to make it
look like I'm someone who avoids specifics.

Stick to the point I'm making (that even your claims that at
least some UFOs are ET spacecraft are premature) based on plenty
of _specifics_ (like the Webster/Bedford case that you've
conveniently avoiding being _specific_ about) instead of
meandering away down other avenues which you know I'm not
referring to.

I'm merely refusing to get into a debate about Roswell/MJ-12 -
not avoiding being specific about why I view your conclusions
that at least some UFOs are ET spacecraft are premature. You're
taking my refusal to debate one subject with you and using it to
make it look like I'm not being specific about why I disagree
with you regarding another subject. Nice sleight of hand but my
eye is still on the card that you're trying to make disappear.

>I learned early on when working in industry that most isotopes
>aren't fissionable. Fortunately a small % are. I learned most
>isotopes when they capture a neutron emit highly penetrating
>gamma rays..Fortunately some such as Boron 10 and Lithium 6 give
>off a non penetrating alpha particle.

Yes, indeed, I understand exactly what you're trying to say
_but_ ...

>I am convinced by the
>evidence that SOME ufos are alien spacecraft. Most are not. So
>what? My college  lecture is "Flying Saucers ARE Real"..More or
>less by definition all flying saucers are UFOs, but only a much
>smaller percentage of UFOs are flying saucers.I am looking for
>gold not dross even though gold ore is worth mining if there is
>an ounce of gold (probably only a half ounce now) per ton of
>ore.

... this is a premature conclusion (that some UFOs are ET
spacecraft) because the data shows that the category you are
referring to - your gold ore - is not a seperate category from
the other components of the UFO phenomenon but instead blends
into the more bizarre. You can't just pick and choose nice neat
little perfect nuts and bolts cases - cut it off there - when
some perfect nuts and bolts cases blur (through bizarre
characteristics) into the other components of the UFO
phenomenon. You're drawing arbitrary lines and roping off a
category (in effect, creating a category) that may not exist in
the sense you're defining it.

You may be correct that some UFOs are ET spacecraft but you
can't conclude this yet until you adequately explain the 'blur
zone' between the well-behaved nuts and bolts cases and the nuts
and bolts cases that possess characteristics of the 'other
components' aspect of the total UFO phenomenon.

>So I am very happy to end this discussion.

Works for me too, Stan, especially if you're going to keep
trying to make it look like my refusal to get drawn into a
debate over Roswell/MJ-12 with you is the same thing as me
refusing to be specific about why I think your conclusions that
some UFOs are ET spacecraft are premature.