David,
I honestly did not think we would get to this point so quickly. However, your inability to face reality (in its entirety, rather than just those pieces of reality that support your worldview) is something I cannot change about you. But I can continue to point it out so that others will see just how barren your "evidence" is. Moreover, I'm afraid I also have the opportunity to show how your continued support for Ms. Howe also permits me to reveal your hypocritical nature.
David Griffin wrote:You know I just don't have the time.
Using excuses like this, I don't expect you to respond to any of my salient points. In fact, you've already done a pretty good job of ignoring my bigger points and just cherry-picking the statements I make that are irrelevant to your "evidence". While you have enough time ("all afternoon") to upload questionable evidence to your site, it is odd you don't even have 20-30 minutes to address the points that impeach your evidence, and the source that delivers them. That is truly sad, David. Hiding behind a rock when faced with the truth is not going to get you very far in Exopolitics or any other facet of life. But for the sake of completeness, let's dissect this whole issue, shall we?
But why do I need to go into a science debate when Linda adequately covered this far better I than I could.
The reality is that she did not cover it adequately. The blatant reality shows that she only chose to report expert, scientific analyses that supported her motivations to pass this off as anomalous. Given that Ms. Howe admits she is not a scientist, only a reporter, why does she feel qualified to dismiss certain scientific analyses...oddly enough, those that would call into question her conclusions? And let me point out that this is NOT the first time Ms. Howe has applied such tactics:
On a sidenote, the scientific technologist that compiled this report at the request of Howe is the same scientific technologist Howe used to examine the bogus Brazil UFO Abduction. Howe wasn't apparently satisfied with those results and chose to use someone else to examine the materials after Reiter and another scientist concluded there was nothing unusual about the evidence. Howe went on to champion that case in spite of an analysis done by two scientists she has used in the past without question.
That's twice she has only told partial truths. And this brings us to your hypocrisy. Here are your own words from another thread:
David Griffin wrote:A prime example of not only a truth embargo - more like an instant light-switch.
So if Ms. Howe is only telling PARTIAL truths, that would certainly constitute her imposing a "truth embargo" of her own, now wouldn't it? If I were you, David, I would be ashamed to have ever paraded Ms. Howe as an advocate of truth, given that she does not reveal the WHOLE truth, and allow her readership/viewership to come to their own conclusions. Quite honestly, she is doing nothing more than spoon-feeding you what SHE wants you to believe... and you are swallowing it hook, line, and sinker. But we are not done with your hypocrisy yet, David. Elsewhere in this thread you used the words:
...on current western court / legal processes this case is done.
Inasmuch as you have elected to apply the "western court/legal processes" to your "evidence", I would now like to call your attention to the oath that a witness takes prior to them giving testimony on a witness stand. I will even use the version that is applied in the UK/Wales so you don't think I am being biased to the USA legal system:
I swear by [substitute Almighty God/Name of God (such as Allah) or the name of the holy scripture] that the evidence I shall give shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
Emphasis mine, of course. So, David, I am afraid that if Ms. Howe were given this oath that she would be guilty of committing perjury. Beyond this I must point out to you that your "star witness" for this "evidence" has now been impeached. In a court of law, David, you would now be toast. Plain and simple.
This evidence is part of the ongoing continuum of data thrown up since humans first decided to be brave enough to leave the sanctuary of the cave. Or at least some of us were.
The evidence is clearly incomplete, and has now been shown to be something less than it has been touted to be. And your arrogant statement regarding how "brave" you are for "leaving the sanctuary of the cave" looks to be quite shameful at this point.
Certainly I cannot change your beliefs, David. But once you deign to "sell" your beliefs to others based on false/incomplete testimony, this now leaves you open to be shamed for beliefs that are shown to be lacking. So was this your "best evidence" or did you save better stuff for later? I'd hope that this little exercise would at least teach you to remain a bit more humble in your pronouncements until such time as others have had the opportunity to examine and refute your "evidence".
Ray