From: Gildas Bourdais <bourdais.gildas.nul> Date: Mon, 30 May 2011 11:34:28 +0200 Archived: Mon, 30 May 2011 05:57:31 -0400 Subject: Re: Review Of Jacobsen's Area 51 Book >From: Kathy Kasten <catraja.nul> >To: <post.nul> >Date: Sun, 29 May 2011 18:36:09 +0000 >Subject: Re: Review Of Jacobsen's Area 51 Book >>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark.nul> >>To: <post.nul> >>Date: Sun, 29 May 2011 05:56:31 -0500 >>Subject: Re: Review Of Jacobsen's Area 51 Book >>>From: Kathy Kasten <catraja.nul> >>>To: <post.nul> >>>Date: Fri, 27 May 2011 18:57:10 +0000 >>>Subject: Re: Review Of Jacobsen's Area 51 Book >>>>From: Terry W. Colvin <fortean1.nul> >>>>To: post.nul >>>>Date: Mon, 23 May 2011 20:17:54 -0500 (GMT-05:00) >>>>Subject: Review Of Jacobsen's Area 51 Book >>>>Don't waste your money - not even the photos are fresh. >>>Oh well, I never heard of Jay Miller. I have to wonder why Annie >>>Jacobsen have an opinion about Roswell. At least, because she >>>claims to be an investigative journalist, she documents her >>>sources and they are viable - people who were affiliated with >>>Area 51 and Lockheed. >>>Let's be real clear about the myth of Roswell: all opinions are >>>based on rumors, second, third, fourth hand testimonies, so- >>>called "death bed" confessions, etc., etc. BUT, there isn't a >>>shred of anything to support any theory. So, the tale is up for >>>grabs. I think Jacobsen's opinion is just as valid's as any that >>>has gone before hers. She is just more created and very much >>>outside the box of the ufo orthodoxy. >>This must be the most wildly simplistic statement I've read on >>Roswell in quite a while. All it tells me, Kathy, is that you >>gave up thinking about it sometime ago. >>I mean to be real clear about that. >Well, Jerry, what I gave up on was the simplistic approach to >Roswell taken by all the known Roswell researchers. The only >source material I found cited in their books was material from >other Roswell researchers. >On the contrary, I have an unpublished manuscript which cites >many documents not cited by Roswell researchers. I think I can >relate to Annie Jacobsen and the heat she is taking from ufo >investigators. It is like: "What? You didn't quote from my book, >so you don't know anything!" Please, Roswell orthodoxy is alive >and well with 'the community' ready to defend their anointed >spokespersons. They just plain bore me. Jacobsen presents a >totally new approach. Something that can be researched. Plus, >the fact that she has rankled the UFO community. I like that she >has shaken up 'the community'. Kathy You don't need to refer to Roswell researchers to make a quick evaluation of her story. Let's see: Flying saucers of the 1947 wave would be secret planes derived from nazi flying saucers. I challenge you to quote only one serious aviation historian or specialist who would believe that. Children geneticaly altered by Dr Mengele to make them look like Grey aliens. I challenge you to find only one serious biologist who would believe that. In case you don't know, the structure of DNA was found in 1953 by Crick and Watson. In 1947, Dr Mengele was hiding in South America, and nobody was talking about Grey aliens yet. As for Stalin, he had other matters to attend to, rather than playing a Flying saucer comedy near Roswell. Conclusion: just another grotesque story. The more you insist, the more you sink. Gildas Bourdais 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