From: Kathy Kasten <catraja.nul> Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2011 21:10:48 +0000 Archived: Mon, 19 Dec 2011 18:05:51 -0500 Subject: Re: White House Ends Silence On UFOs & ETs With... >From: Steve Sawyer <stevesaw.nul> >To: <post.nul> >Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2011 16:46:48 -0800 >Subject: Re: White House Ends Silence On UFOs & ETs With... >>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark.nul> >>To: <post.nul> >>Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2011 12:26:08 -0600 >>Subject: Re: White House Ends Silence On UFOs & ETs With... >>>From: Don Ledger <dledger.nul> >>>To: post.nul >>>Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2011 12:45:11 -0400 >>>Subject: Re: White House Ends Silence On UFOs & ETs With... <snip> >>>BTW - it's a frosty day in hell when Andy Roberts and I agree on >>>anything. Temps are below zero there now. >>Here, too. >>Jerry Clark >Ditto. It really serves no useful purpose for some List members >here, such as Greg, Kathy Kasten, and a few others, to dangle >these kinds of hints, implications, or other unsubstantiated >stories and information without backing them up with verifiable >documentation, sources, or other means to further investigate >and vet them. >I mean, what does that accomplish? Simply more dissension, >dispute, and request for substantiation that those who choose >not to provide it, for various previously stated but rather >specious reasons, seem to want to suggest is not possible or >safe for public distribution. If that's the case, then why make >unsubtantiated or questionable claims, assertions, or nebulous >contentions without supporting facts or data in the _first_ >place?_ >To do so seems kind of pointless and automatically gives rise to >legitimate doubt of such claims, when those who promote them say >they're too secret to discuss or to provide backing data about. >Otherwise, such statements on the part of a minority of List >members here will continue to be subject to perpetual >skepticism, argument, and looked upon as more likely false than >true when no foundation of fact or sources is provided. Frankly, >that is becoming both boring and silly, IMHO. >Extraordinary claims in fact do require extraordinary evidence, >or proof of some kind, or why should anyone here believe what is >claimed without adequate substantiation one might use to check >such contentions? To do so is deceptive and disinformational in >nature, at the very least. It could also be termed other things, >but which for now I will defer mentioning or expressing further >opinion or speculation about. Steve, Steve, Steve: I named my source: Fr. Joe Anderson, member of the Vatican Observatory, Tucson, AZ. Providing a link for you to make sure Fr. Joe is on the staff? Sorry, that is easy enough for you to check out. However, you are verifying something I have had suspicions about. There are a major of UFO researchers who are just plain lazy and get upset if the information isn't spoon fed to them. KK 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