From: Gerald O'Connell <goc.nul> Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2011 22:36:30 +0100 Archived: Sat, 23 Apr 2011 06:47:07 -0400 Subject: Re: Trindade 'Negative Witness' Found >From: John Rimmer <johnrimmer.nul> >To: post.nul >Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2011 19:31:23 +0100 (BST) >Subject: Re: Trindade 'Negative Witness' Found >>From: Gerald O'Connell <goc.nul> >>To: post.nul >>Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2011 22:26:37 +0100 >>Subject: Re: Trindade 'Negative Witness' Found >>>From: John Rimmer <johnrimmer.nul> >>>To: post.nul >>>Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2011 16:34:55 +0100 (BST) >>>Subject: Re: Trindade 'Negative Witness' Found >>>>Game, set and match. >>I agree with you John. >>We have a witness to the effect that crewmen and others saw >>something, and they didn't know what it was. They became >>excited. There was a commotion. So even if the photographs were >>fabricated as an opportunistic response to the sighting, there >>was a sighting. A sighting of a flying object that could not be >>identified. >I was wondering when you'd pop up here, Gerald. Hello. >You claim: "We have a witness to the effect that crewmen and >others saw something, and they didn't know what it was." >In fact we have no such thing. We have a witness saying that >people were looking into the sky and trying to see something. No. Not True. I was responding to this quotation in Kentaro's original post: 'Then they started to say they were seeing [something], ' Not 'trying', but 'seeing'. All you are doing is mis-reading in a way that suits your particular agenda. >We >have no statement from anyone (other than the famous trio of >Barauna and his mates) saying that they saw anything. We have >several statements from people claiming other people might have >seen something, which is not exactly the same thing, is it? It's not the same, but then nor is it the same as there being nobody to claim that anybody saw anything is it? >Further you aver: "There was a commotion. So even if the >photographs were fabricated as an opportunistic response to the >sighting, there was a sighting. A sighting of a flying object >that could not be identified." >Nonsense. There is no evidence of an sighting. But there is, and you just don't like that fact so you refuse to accept it. It's not great evidence, but it is evidence. >Just because >there was a bit of a commotion is not an indication of anything, >as anyone who has done a bit of skywatching can tell you. >Try a little experiment. Go out into a busy street with a video >camera and a couple of mates. Point the camera into the sky and >start saying in a loud voice, "Wow, look at that, did you see >that, what was it, I think I've got it on camera!" If they then >join in: "Yes, I saw it, amazing, do you think it was a UFO .... >" etc., etc., etc. I bet you'll cause a bit of a commotion! Nonsense. There is no evidence to suggest that the people on that ship were conducting such an experiment or were skywatching and the commotion was what resulted. That being so, your comment is rather pointless. -- Gerald O'Connell http://www.onlyport.com Listen to 'Strange Days... Indeed' - The PodCast At: http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/sdi/program/ These contents above are copyright of the author and UFO UpDates - Toronto. They may not be reproduced without the express permission of both parties and are intended for educational use only.
[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp