From: Stanton T. Friedman <fsphys.nul> Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2011 18:00:16 -0400 Archived: Mon, 21 Feb 2011 07:19:09 -0500 Subject: Re: McGonagle's Ufological Stand >From: Don Ledger <dledger.nul> >To: <post.nul> >Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2011 13:46:11 -0400 >Subject: Re: McGonagle's Ufological Stand >>From: Roy Hale <roy.nul> >>To: <post.nul> >>Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2011 13:26:02 -0000 >>Subject: Re: McGonagle's Ufological Stand <snip> >>Do please watch this clip and think how far UK skeptics have >>come to arrive at such answers on UFOs when you arrive at 4.22 >>in the clip onwards: >>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bLRS1e0wxF4 >>Oh and this great piece from 29.18 onwards I think Jenny tells >>the camera that 95% of the UFO cases she has investigated are >>all explainable, but the other 5% is somehow not mentioned in >>the film? What a great opportunity she had to tell the camera >>what the other 5% may have been! >>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rNR2M0eYsEQ >>"We must educate the British about UFOs in anyway possible!" >>http://tinyurl.com/5sbrfx2 >>http://tinyurl.com/5sfudaj >>http://tinyurl.com/6ev2ynb >>Roy >So the Bobby went into an altered state of consciousness? >What did he walk around in a trance later? >Andy Roberts sets the tone. >When in doubt come up with the bogus psychological angle. Enter >the realm of the witchdoctors. Make the case a metal case. >Attack/trash the witness. Mind you this doesn't stop the likes >of Andy Roberts and David Clarke from pumping out UFO books. But >the documentary people fall happily into this tripe every time >as they attempt to 'balance' out the statements by the witnesses >- who apparently are mental cases including the police - with a >'sober' explanation which is usually unresearched (enter >Roberts) and in this case ridiculous and probably should have >been grounds for libel. >But this is the kind of drivel that Rimmer and McGonagle buy >into. Safe ground. McGonagle apparently has done a 180 having >been a 'true believer' (whatever that is) himself (according to >one of the aviary over there who related this info to me after >the Condign Report was released) before McGonagle fell in with >'bad':) company. >But back to the Bobby in the 'altered state'... >One must presume then that every time this Bobby or any other >cop comes into contact with something disturbing during the >course of their duties they go into an altered state. >When does this occur? Where is the cut-off point? Is it after >the ticketing of a speeder but before the lifting the body of a >6 year old's body from the ocean shore after immersion of 4 >days; or the brutal slaying or some prostitute who has been >hacked to pieces. That's just a couple of samples out of >hundreds of terrible scenes that the police live with day in and >day out but then 'expurt' Roberts comes along and tells the >police they went into an altered state. What rubbish and what >cheek. What piety. You have to have a pretty big ego to pump >that bullshit out; and belive it. >Frankly, the 95% explainable number is a cop-out but it's not >only Jenny Randle that has bought into that myth. Right on Don. It is truly amazing that the proponents of the false doctrine that "Since most sightings can be explained, all can" aren't aware of the fact that gold ore is worth mining if it has 10 grams of gold per million grams of ore. They choose the dross. Most of us with any sense would choose the gold. Stan Friedman 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 | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp