UFO Conjectures

Wednesday, September 30, 2015

The Strange Case of Ermine de Reims

For those who are enthralled by the UFO abductee (experiencer) phenomenon:

(Consider this book as a significant supplemental to my Betrayal posting of the other day.)


A Roswell response that is a gem!

Brian Bell is an occasional visitor/commentator here and a stalwart at Kevin Randle's blog.

He provided a comment at Mr. Randle's blog that I've grabbed and post here as it is right on the button about Roswell. our friend, Kevin, and Roswellians all.

He was replying to Kevin's plea for sources from Mr. Bell, who asked for such from another at the blog.

(I hope he and Kevin forgive me for the plunder.)

Brian Bell said...

Not really Kevin. And for the record here's why.

Most of what people are asking for is already either obtainable with a little bit of effort, or they're just trying to be crass and annoying by asking someone to go chase down a rabbit hole for information so they can in return then dismiss their comments or discourage them from any further posts.

It's a nice tactic if you want to get somebody off your back. You just say, "oh go away until you find me a bunch of sources because I don't believe you anyway." It's a dismissal tactic for people interested in ignoring what they don't want to consider.

Given that on your blog even you have conjectured without any documented sources, I don't think conjecture in the conversation regarding Roswell requires absolute definitive and detailed verification of absolutely every single CONJECTURED point when it comes to ALTERNATIVE THEORY based on some factual information.

Bear in mind it's you and all of your followers who believe Roswell was the cosmic event of all time, but who also have the burden of proof on your backs. Not mine.

I think we may have pointed that out a dozen times already. If you want to convince the world, or me, that what you claim actually happened you can't tell people (or me) who don't believe your claim that we or I have to prove it never did happen. Of course that's what believers like to do: "I claim ET has arrived, I have no definitive proof only conjecture, but if you don't believe it's true because I say it is, then you have to prove my conjectured truth claim wrong." That strategy is just gaming your hypothesis to suit your needs.

If you really want a "different perspective" stand back and let people have a go at legitimate and logical counter discussion and alternative theories which are very much linked to factual data instead of trying to get them to shut up by telling them to chase down rabbit holes to prove what you believe happened or didn't happen because it doesn't match your truth claim that has not even been proven.

If anything your knowledge of Roswell should be used in a consultative, unbiased, and open dialogue fashion, rather than as a baseball bat used to intimidate others into believing what you insist must be true despite no physical evidence.

Other researchers like yourself pondered the same conundrum with the greatest of frustration. But, they ended up concluding the very same thing you call skeptics are claiming can't be so.

What happened at Roswell most definitely leans toward prosaic when all credible information is examined. If ET exists the evidence so far indicates didn't nose dive his spaceship into the sand on the Foster Ranch.

You're a smart guy Kevin, you should be able to understand that. But I think you're way too close to the subject to have any true unbiased objectivity.

This blog may be about you stepping back and thinking about all of the decades you've put into Roswell, but on a scale of reflective thought I think you only moved about 2 mm away from where you were in the 1990s.

Much of your anchor points fell apart when witnesses identified they had lied about the cornerstone of the very story you claim is real. Of course you and others base much of your remaining claims on 2nd, 3rd, and sometimes 4th hand memory deficient recollections or witnesses and researchers who still manipulate their comments to suit their agenda.

Of course not finding what you want is disappointing for anybody who spent decades of research on something they think is real.

But regardless, you and others deflect, ignore, defer, minimize or sanction certain legitimate topics or conversation points as not being eligible for commentary. Why? I can only conclude because you're trying to control the data.

In other words your bias is your Achilles heel.
8:15 AM