From: Kathy Kasten <catraja.nul> Date: Sat, 4 Jun 2011 09:01:52 +0000 Archived: Sat, 04 Jun 2011 11:26:27 -0400 Subject: Re: Review Of Jacobsen's Area 51 Book >From: Don Ledger <dledger.nul> >To: <post.nul> >Date: Tue, 31 May 2011 14:25:45 -0300 >Subject: Re: Review Of Jacobsen's Area 51 Book >>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark.nul> >>To: <post.nul> >>Date: Tue, 31 May 2011 09:30:00 -0500 >>Subject: Re: Review Of Jacobsen's Area 51 Book >>>From: Kathy Kasten <catraja.nul> >>>To: <post.nul> >>>Date: Mon, 30 May 2011 18:13:54 +0000 >>>Subject: Re: Review Of Jacobsen's Area 51 Book ><snip> >Hi Jerry, >I think the negativity coming from you to KK is because she >aspires to be something she doesn't have the chops for. So what >does she do? She tries to tear down what she can't have. >KK is not a player and never will be. You have to work for it. >She has done nothing that I can see to prove or disprove the >phenomenon. And of course she relates to Jacobson's skewed book. >I'd be surprised if she didn't. You do so (or say you do so) >because the book is inane, full of the kind of garbage one would >expect to see from the fringe element - KK included - who drift >around on the backwaters of UFO the research community; looking >for the crumbs left behind by studious researchers. >One need only look at Jaconson's treatment of the technology re >Lockhheed for instance, it is pathetic. No real research done >there at all. And of course Jacobson has been disputed by the >very people that she claims to have interviewed. Watching her >sputter and attempt to support her claims on Night Line was >pretty sad. Bascally she did not produce the goods, a problem KK >has had herself on many occassions. Her ability to buy into >absurdity - particularly this book - without a ounce of research >of the source is astounding. >But as I said, this is what you can expect from the fringe >element. Don: Although you admit to not knowing who I am and what I am about, you lodge an attack that is unwarranted. And, why, because Jacobsen wrote a book, got interviewed in most major news sources and I supported her efforts. I even suggested that the Tale of Roswell was up for grabs because there is no evidence proving anything conclusive. It is why there are countless books written about an event that happened in 1947. I have no idea what you mean by the fact I "don't have the chops." Does that mean I just go along my merry way and don't respond to this kind of criticism. If I had to guess, you are basing your opinion on the fact that I called you out on your knowledge of Raytheon's projects for the Air Force. I even provided the name of the individual I got my information from. The guy didn't return your phone calls? However, you did discover that he worked in the capacity I cited proving that I do "have the chops." If that means I am able to back up my opinion with hard data, then, yes, I have the chops. If only you knew. In the future, I will respond to requests for more information, but I find these kinds of confrontations without merit. Anything I have challenged in this community of interested parties does have merit and needs to be addressed. Some changes need to be made. It appears you are not one of the individuals who is interested in revising their approach. BTW, it appears to me that you only read the book review - with link - that was posted here. I have to wonder if you are basing your criticism of Jacobsen's work on that review. I have not read the book, but my research leads me to keep an open mind on the subject. And, to post my own opinions when the spirit moves me. Peace out, 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