The Evidentiary Thread (Exhibits, Documentation, Testimony)

Hard to debunk

Moderators: ryguy, chrLz, Zep Tepi

Postby Access Denied » Wed Sep 12, 2007 7:14 am

[sigh]

At this rate I’ve never going to finish working on my rebuttal…

[then again if this keeps up maybe I won’t have to lol]

Captain Richard T. Holder wrote:Neither White Sands nor Holloman had an object that would compare to the object described.

Is anyone truly surprised they didn’t have a “two-legged egg shaped” object? :shock:

Captain Richard T. Holder wrote:There was no known firing mission in progress at the time of the occurrence that would produce the conditions reported.

Keyword “known”…again not too surprising after only a couple of days (over a weekend) into the investigation when this statement was made (on Monday) don’t you think?

[I suppose now’s a good time to mention that ironically (coincidentally?) the northern range tracking radar at White Sands had been turned off for the day (on Friday) prior to the time of Zamora’s sighting.]

Captain Quintanilla contacted the FTD liaison office at Holloman AFB regarding the Socorro sighting and requested that he, Maj Mitchell make discreet inquiry as to a possible vehicle which may have caused the sighting.

During the latter part of May Lt Col Conkey visited W-P AFB, and at this time informed Capt Quintanilla that he had no knowledge of a vehicle at White Sands capable of causing the sighting as described by Lonnie Zamora.

So (“officially”) he couldn’t find a “two legged egg shaped” object either? Hmm… could that be because whoever was responsible didn’t want to be “caught”? After all “they” sure took off in a hurry when the cops showed up!

Serpentime wrote:O.K. Maybe Quintanilla didn't say that...

...but some of the other investigators on this case DID. :)

[snip]

So perhaps Quintanilla might have drawn the same conclusion - given this additional intelligence?

If that was the case it’s not reflected in the conclusion Quintanilla’s boss came to based on his (and the other investigator’s) inputs…

http://www.footnote.com/image/8694587/#8694697

1. Mr Zamora claims the object had two legs slanted outwards, towards the ground and he also claims that he distinctly heard two or three loud thumps, like someone possibly shutting or opening a door.

2. It is my belief that Mr Zamora is telling the truth and that he did in fact see a man made object which probably belongs to one of the services. There is no indication that the vehicle which Mr Zamora saw came from outer space, now or ever.

Eric T de Jonckheere
Colonel, USAF
Deputy for Technology and Subsystems

Honestly I don’t see what all the fuss is about.

Serpentime wrote:Yes. A Bell 47G certainly had the range to reach Socorro. :)

But mathematical analysis appears to show that said helicopter could NOT have accounted for the physical evidence that was documented at the site.

Who says the helicopter had to create the “Holes-In-The-Ground”? By the same token can you say with any certainty that a helicopter (assuming it missed all the rocks lol) should have left some distinct (unambiguous) markings in what was described as soft sand (in the bottom of the dry arroyo or “creek”) after taking off? In fact in many respects a helicopter may account for what was (perhaps more importantly) NOT found at the site. For example why aren’t there more “footprints”?

For Heaven’s sake man think outside the box!

[OK “trapezoid” lol]

Yes, we know the Blue Book investigators “failed“ to identify the “stimulus”. So what? If they couldn’t do it no one can?

Serpentime wrote:In addition (as I previously pointed out), my own reading of the available Surveyor documents has raised serious concern on my part that none of the T-2H helicopter flights carried any Vernier propulsion system at all?

I agree that’s definitely a possibility (why do you think I brought it to your attention?) but like I tried to tell you it may not even matter. For example according to this “Surveyor Project Status Report” dated 27 NOV 64 (well after the Socorro incident)…

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi. ... 001352.pdf

…the T-2H Tests & Evaluation (p. 12) were completed in October of 1963 and shows no T-2 (or S-8 for that matter) tests of any kind for 1964 while the Master Schedule (p. 7) shows that T-2 testing at AFMDC was scheduled to be completed by the end of February of 1964!

[there’s those damn date discrepancies again lol]

Of course we know according to other documents that this simply isn’t true so is it possible the “T-2H” test scheduled for the date of Zamora’s sighting wasn’t actually related (other than in type designation) to the tests described in the documentation?

Serpentime wrote:To the best of my discernment, the available evidence suggests that only ONE (?) Surveyor test vehicle was equipped with both RADVS and Vernier rockets - and that this single test article was only evaluated from tether tests.

And if so you have a problem with this vehicle (or the S-8 w/o RADVS) being attached to the helicopter in place of the “RADVS only” test article (if that’s the case) to accomplish some specific test because?

If it’s because such a test isn’t specifically documented in the available evidence then I suggest for example these Hughes documents relevant to the T-2 Test Program may offer some additional clues…

2254.6/410 11/10/64 Final T-2H Test Phase Report QA-I Model RADVS Testing on the Bell 47G Helicopter

228103 4/30/65 T-2N Vehicle System Functional Test Plan Vol. I

2254/204 5/65 T-2N Model and Functional Description

225462 Rev. A 10/14/65 T-2N Tethered Test Plan, Vol. I

n/a 11/11/65 T-2N-1 RADVS Problems, Special Review at AFMDC

2254/273 6/66 T-2N-1 Surveyor Test Vehicle Descent Test No. 6 Mission
Report


SSD 68154I 6/66 T-2N Surveyor Test Vehicle Mission Report Descent Test No. 8 - T2N-I Descent No. 5

SSD 68149R 7/66 T-2N Surveyor Test Vehicles. Tether and Descent Test Series Final Report


…or perhaps it wasn’t documented for some reason.

[I can think of at least one lol]

In either case any attempt to rule out the Surveyor hypothesis based solely on the evidence available and presented so far is in my opinion premature and unscientific.

Also let me remind you I’m not the origin of Surveyor “hypothesis”…

http://www.nmsr.org/socorro.htm

In 1995, a colleague of Moore's who ran the Skyhook Balloon program at Holloman Air Force Base in Alamogordo, Bernard "Duke" Gildenberg, learned from Capt. James McAndrew, the AF's point man on Roswell, that on April 24, 1964, there were special tests being conducted at the north end of the White Sands Missile Range (WSMR) involving a helicopter used to carry a Lunar Surveyor around for some tests.

…so presumably the evidence (or some “inside” knowledge) exists.

Serpentime wrote:
Access Denied wrote:(assuming, among other things, they weren’t simply a clever diversion created by the crew of the Bell 47G or anyone else) "Holes-In-The-Ground". :D


As you stated, that is an assumption. ~ Unless further evidence exists that can prove / establish such a "deception operation"?

~ As I stated earlier (quoting Carl Sagan, of course...:)):

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. :)

Will a 12 to 16 inch wide shovel that was operational in 1964 do? :D

Serpentime wrote:Besides, the absconding "crew of the Bell 47G or anyone else" must have paid much more attention to positioning these "Holes-In-The-Ground" at near 90 degree axes to each other, than they did to creating any semblance of a reasonable (non-trapezoidal?) "landing gear" arrrangement - given all of the activities they must have been responsible for within the span of about ten minutes (?), or less, on the ground.

OK now you’re scaring me… I’m sorry but that sounds like something Hoaxland would say. Should we also be looking for any 19.5 or 33 degree angles and cross-checking the latitude and longitude in relation to the positions of Sirius and Orion on the horizon on that date? :roll:

Just how long do you think it would take to dig four 2 inch deep holes in soft sand? I’m thinking not much longer than it would take to walk between each one and take one scoop with a shovel and fling it. This isn’t a crop circle we’re talking about.

Serpentime wrote:They must have brought some digging tools, too? ;)

Well now that you mention it, assuming they didn’t go out on their own, somebody had to put out those fires. Hmm… four burn marks and four “Holes-In-The-Ground”. Coincidence? :lol:

As someone I admire wisely pointed out today in an unrelated discussion I’ve been following elsewhere “as usual, the devil is not in the details but in the assumptions.” :wink:
Men go and come but Earth abides.
User avatar
Access Denied
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 2740
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 7:32 am
Location: [redacted]


Postby ryguy » Wed Sep 12, 2007 3:29 pm

Access Denied wrote:…or perhaps it wasn’t documented for some reason.

[I can think of at least one lol]

In either case any attempt to rule out the Surveyor hypothesis based solely on the evidence available and presented so far is in my opinion premature and unscientific.


I have to agree with that statement strongly. And while I understand Serp's contention that putting forth a hypothesis regarding other potential experimental test flights without precise supporting documents to defend it can be premature and unscientific at times - there is also the concept of the preponderance of evidence...which, in court, can be enough at times to put people in jail.

Given the volume of data that documents related tests similar in many, many ways (as AD has outlined) to the kind of vehicle sighted on this date - given that these kinds of experimental craft were being tested throughout this exact time period, given that base(s) in the vicinity were actively carrying out classified tests (how highly classified were some of these...in some cases, how are we to ever know?)....given all of that and more - this particular hypothesis remains, IMHO, one of the strongest and most plausible.

I've yet to see anyone put forth any other hypothesis with a shred of even circumstantial evidence that can come close to the amount of data that supports this particular earthly hypothesis (for this sighting, that is - not all UFO sightings....lest we be pigeon-holed as blanket skeptics).

Still looking forward to the rebuttal AD - btw, if you guys think there is anyone out there who might have the capability to answer questions regarding this case, or who might at least know who else to ask, just let me know and maybe we can start getting in touch with some of these guys (who are still alive) in real time...and maybe take care of answering any discrepancies...

-Ry
---
"Only a fool of a scientist would dismiss the evidence and reports in front of him and substitute his own beliefs in their place." - Paul Kurtz

The RU Blog
Top Secret Writers
User avatar
ryguy
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 4920
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 3:49 am
Location: Another Dimension

Postby Serpentime » Thu Sep 13, 2007 6:19 am

ryguy wrote:
Access Denied wrote:In either case any attempt to rule out the Surveyor hypothesis based solely on the evidence available and presented so far is in my opinion premature and unscientific.


I have to agree with that statement strongly.


Unsurprisingly, perhaps (LOL), I will agree with that statement, also. :)

But the challenge we are presented with in the case of the Surveyor hypothesis is NOT to rule Surveyor OUT as an explanation for the Socorro sighting, but rather to rule it IN.

After all, as we know, the purpose of a scientific hypothesis is not to prove a negative, but instead to prove that said hypothesis can be positively validated by the demonstration of verifiable evidence.

Unfortunately, to this point – if I might be so bold – we simply have not found or demonstrated such evidence.



For example:


~ No clear evidence has been presented that places a helicopter at Socorro.

~ No evidence has been presented that places any variation of a Surveyor test vehicle at Socorro.


Merely because David Thomas tells us that…

In 1995, a colleague of Moore's who ran the Skyhook Balloon program at Holloman Air Force Base in Alamogordo, Bernard "Duke" Gildenberg, learned from Capt. James McAndrew, the AF's point man on Roswell, that on April 24, 1964, there were special tests being conducted at the north end of the White Sands Missile Range (WSMR) involving a helicopter used to carry a Lunar Surveyor around for some tests.


…does not confirm that the “portion of the WSMR Range Log obtained by McAndrew” - which he duly demonstrates - places these “special tests” outside of Socorro, or, for that matter, that these tests actually did occur at the “north end” of the range (where they would have been coordinated out of the Stallion Range facility, which was commanded by Captain Holder).

No such indication is cited by the Range Log, and without further verification, we are left unsure as to whether the “north end” representation is, in reality, either factual, or only the hearsay of a.) James McAndrew; b.) “Duke” Gildenberg; c.) Charles Moore; or d.) David Thomas himself?

Further, Charles Moore’s statement:

Says Moore: "Something went wrong and they don't want to admit it. I have good reason to believe that." He did not elaborate.


…is also hearsay – which is not substantially evidential in a court of law, let alone a scientific debate. Moreover, Moore’s apparent reluctance to “elaborate” does nothing to support his contention, or to provide any meaningful verification to his claims that might be of meaningful use to a scientific inquiry.


And where it is suggested that…

Access Denied wrote:
…so presumably the evidence (or some “inside” knowledge) exists.


…even David Thomas, himself, readily admits:

Of course, this new evidence is far from conclusive.




Further – and even more troubling to the Surveyor hypothesis:


~ No evidence has been presented that any Vernier rockets – or other means of propulsion, capable of creating high temperatures, burned vegetation, or “calcified” sand - were carried on any of the Surveyor helicopter flights.

And,

~ No meaningful evidence of any deception on the part of official agencies, or others, has been presented - which would, in turn, be required to account for the failure of the Air Force investigation to solve the incident.



Neither has any supplementary evidence been presented which could correlate the April 24, 1964 “sighting” to any other vehicle, of any sort, that might explain the evidence that was documented by the Air Force, and others, at Socorro.


Though it has been offered previously that:

Access Denied wrote:
“as usual, the devil is not in the details but in the assumptions.”


…Assumptions – in lieu of facts, or evidence, is (respectfully) all that we have observed so far toward the placing of a Vernier-equipped Surveyor / helicopter combination in the outskirts of Socorro, New Mexico.

And as we are all aware, assumptions are not explanations. Neither do they scientifically validate a hypothesis, or establish factual reality.




On the other hand – however – much evidence has been presented here which does appear to validate the hypothesis that this incident remains scientifically unexplained:


~ A Bell 47G helicopter could not have created any of the physical evidence.

~ No documented variant of a Surveyor test article could have created the physical evidence.

~ No evidence of any vehicle capable of creating the “conditions reported” were ever uncovered by the investigations of either the Air Force, or the Army.


And while such observations are not conclusive to the elimination of Surveyor, they are scientifically derived, and representative of the documented evidence that is currently established and testable.

For this reason, they must be given due and reasonable consideration toward any attempt to scientifically explain the Socorro “sighting”.



Each individual is, of course, fully entitled to their own beliefs regarding unresolved questions about the nature of reality – and as we know, such beliefs may be myriad. But as we have also come to understand, such beliefs do not always reflect fact.

It is for this reason that Science ultimately exists – to separate fact from belief.


Somewhere in another thread, Carl Sagan was quoted as stating:

I don’t want to believe, I want to know.


To my perception, this statement defines the mission of Reality Uncovered, itself, as it also defines my own personal philosophy – which is exactly why I partake here.


So, in respect to the Surveyor hypothesis serving as a factual explanation for the sighting of an unusual aerial vehicle on the outskirts of Socorro, New Mexico, on 24 April 1964, I will only offer this:

Serpentime wrote:
I don’t want to believe, I want to know.



Gee, that sounds familiar. :D



{P.S. – Carl stole it from ME. :D}


ROTFL

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


So what else do we have, here? ;) LOL


Access Denied wrote:
Captain Richard T. Holder wrote:There was no known firing mission in progress at the time of the occurrence that would produce the conditions reported.


Keyword “known”…again not too surprising after only a couple of days (over a weekend) into the investigation when this statement was made (on Monday) don’t you think?


~ Maybe if Holder was communicating by Pony Express rider, or something, but the telephone clearly existed in 1964, didn’t it? ;) Besides, Holder was on the site Friday evening. Sounds like he had plenty of time to me?

And besides, all he had to do was call the Deputy for Range Activities at AFMDC and ask him to check McAndrew’s / Gildenburg’s / Moore’s / Thomas’s “WSMR Range Log”, right?


Simple as Simon. 8)



Then again, as late as a month later, Lt. Colonel Conkey still couldn’t solve the puzzle…

During the latter part of May Lt Col Conkey visited W-P AFB, and at this time informed Capt Quintanilla that he had no knowledge of a vehicle at White Sands capable of causing the sighting as described by Lonnie Zamora.



Access Denied wrote:
So (“officially”) he couldn’t find a “two legged egg shaped” object either? Hmm… could that be because whoever was responsible didn’t want to be “caught”? After all “they” sure took off in a hurry when the cops showed up!


The perfect crime, it would seem. 8)

These “outlaws” must have had more enablers and “co-conspirators” than Usama bin Laden. ROTFL :D

The U.S Air Force hasn’t located him, either. :(


Access Denied wrote:
[I suppose now’s a good time to mention that ironically (coincidentally?) the northern range tracking radar at White Sands had been turned off for the day (on Friday) prior to the time of Zamora’s sighting.]


You can mention it any time you like. After all, Quintanilla’s word is good. :)

~ Actually, I plan to explore this radar “issue” in greater depth shortly; but for now I’ll simply suggest that Albuquerque and Holloman were still on line (I think?), and that they – or the FAA – probably should have been able to “pick-up” a T-2H helicopter simulating a Surveyor Descent Contour in the Socorro area.

(I wish Max was still around…:()


Access Denied wrote:
Serpentime wrote:O.K. Maybe Quintanilla didn't say that...

...but some of the other investigators on this case DID. :)

[snip]

So perhaps Quintanilla might have drawn the same conclusion - given this additional intelligence?


If that was the case it’s not reflected in the conclusion Quintanilla’s boss came to based on his (and the other investigator’s) inputs…

http://www.footnote.com/image/8694587/#8694697


2. It is my belief that Mr Zamora is telling the truth and that he did in fact see a man made object which probably belongs to one of the services. There is no indication that the vehicle which Mr Zamora saw came from outer space, now or ever.

Eric T de Jonckheere
Colonel, USAF
Deputy for Technology and Subsystems


Honestly I don’t see what all the fuss is about.


You’re right, of course… If de Jonckheere had suggested a “Zetan Egg”, Curt Lemay probably would have had him thrown him out of a B-52 (at HIGH altitude). :D


Access Denied wrote:
Serpentime wrote:Yes. A Bell 47G certainly had the range to reach Socorro. :)

But mathematical analysis appears to show that said helicopter could NOT have accounted for the physical evidence that was documented at the site.


Who says the helicopter had to create the “Holes-In-The-Ground”? By the same token can you say with any certainty that a helicopter (assuming it missed all the rocks lol) should have left some distinct (unambiguous) markings in what was described as soft sand (in the bottom of the dry arroyo or “creek”) after taking off? In fact in many respects a helicopter may account for what was (perhaps more importantly) NOT found at the site. For example why aren’t there more “footprints”?


Hmmm… The Uncertainty Principle, huh?. :D

~ Then again, can we ever really tell what the temperature of a glass of water REALLY was because some idiot scientist went and stuck a thermometer in it and disrupted the thermodynamic “equilibrium”?

{Darn Science!!}

And in spite of it’s being much heavier on the ground than the weight of the Human “outlaws” from Hughes (?), the helicopter apparently obliterated both it’s own “impressions”, and all of the footprints that the “rouge test pilots” had not already erased with their handy Bat-rakes, after they had quickly improvised (McGyver-style) the irritating “Holes-In-The-Ground” to confuse poor Sgt. Chavez. :(


But then again, wasn’t there a conspicuous LACK of “blast effect” noted by the investigators?


Go figure. :D


Access Denied wrote:
For Heaven’s sake man think outside the box!

[OK “trapezoid” lol]


I though that my last answer was pretty “creative”, don’t you? 8)

ROTFL


Access Denied wrote:
Yes, we know the Blue Book investigators “failed“ to identify the “stimulus”. So what? If they couldn’t do it no one can?


Never fear, the great GodTom is here! :D

{Or was that Underdog? I forget…. Duh. :(}


Access Denied wrote:
Serpentime wrote:In addition (as I previously pointed out), my own reading of the available Surveyor documents has raised serious concern on my part that none of the T-2H helicopter flights carried any Vernier propulsion system at all?


I agree that’s definitely a possibility (why do you think I brought it to your attention?)


In aviation, the answer is known as “Charlie – Yankee – Alpha”. :D


Access Denied wrote:
… but like I tried to tell you it may not even matter. For example according to this “Surveyor Project Status Report” dated 27 NOV 64 (well after the Socorro incident)…

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi. ... 001352.pdf

…the T-2H Tests & Evaluation (p. 12) were completed in October of 1963 and shows no T-2 (or S-8 for that matter) tests of any kind for 1964 while the Master Schedule (p. 7) shows that T-2 testing at AFMDC was scheduled to be completed by the end of February of 1964!

[there’s those damn date discrepancies again lol]


And that darned Uncertainty Principle, too…. :D


Access Denied wrote:
Serpentime wrote:To the best of my discernment, the available evidence suggests that only ONE (?) Surveyor test vehicle was equipped with both RADVS and Vernier rockets - and that this single test article was only evaluated from tether tests.


And if so you have a problem with this vehicle (or the S-8 w/o RADVS) being attached to the helicopter in place of the “RADVS only” test article (if that’s the case) to accomplish some specific test because?


…Because the necessary evaluation was reportedly accomplished using mathematical modeling:

From SURVEYOR SPACECRAFT AUTOMATIC LANDING SYSTEM:

To obtain probabilistic estimates of end-to-end system performance, the project team developed several analytical and numerical tools.

In many respects analytical considerations exerted substantial influence over the terminal descent system design, following the project’s development paradigm of simplicity wherever feasible.

Analytical approximations were used extensively for preliminary design, for both ease of use and because of the relatively limited capability available for computer simulation at that time.

Ultimately, a Monte Carlo simulation of the complete mission was developed,
incorporating models for the spacecraft’s guidance and control system, including the midcourse maneuver, main retro burn, and vernier descent to touchdown.

This simulation capability also incorporated dispersions associated with the ground-based radio navigation system used in the missions, enabling a comprehensive statistical treatment of injection errors, ground-based navigation errors, midcourse maneuver execution errors, retro burn errors, and vernier descent error.


All they had to do now was drop that complete mock-up from a balloon tether! :D

To my way of thinking, that’s a much simpler “development paradigm of simplicity” than lashing the thing to a helicopter, flying it all the way to a civilian population center, running away from the cops, digging “Holes-In-The-Ground” to confuse the police and poor Quintanilla, raking over your footprints, and then launching a “cover up” to protect your “contract”.

But whad’do I know?


Silly me. :D


Access Denied wrote:
If it’s because such a test isn’t specifically documented in the available evidence then I suggest for example these Hughes documents relevant to the T-2 Test Program may offer some additional clues…

2254.6/410 11/10/64 Final T-2H Test Phase Report QA-I Model RADVS Testing on the Bell 47G Helicopter

228103 4/30/65 T-2N Vehicle System Functional Test Plan Vol. I

2254/204 5/65 T-2N Model and Functional Description

225462 Rev. A 10/14/65 T-2N Tethered Test Plan, Vol. I

n/a 11/11/65 T-2N-1 RADVS Problems, Special Review at AFMDC

2254/273 6/66 T-2N-1 Surveyor Test Vehicle Descent Test No. 6 Mission
Report


SSD 68154I 6/66 T-2N Surveyor Test Vehicle Mission Report Descent Test No. 8 - T2N-I Descent No. 5

SSD 68149R 7/66 T-2N Surveyor Test Vehicles. Tether and Descent Test Series Final Report


I'd love to study those materials. :)

More than suggesting, could you produce them for us? It would help the Science along. ;)


Access Denied wrote:
…or perhaps it wasn’t documented for some reason.

[I can think of at least one lol]


Invoking the Uncertainty Principle, I can think of another explanation:

It just didn’t happen? ;)


Access Denied wrote:
Serpentime wrote:
Access Denied wrote:(assuming, among other things, they weren’t simply a clever diversion created by the crew of the Bell 47G or anyone else) "Holes-In-The-Ground". :D


As you stated, that is an assumption. ~ Unless further evidence exists that can prove / establish such a "deception operation"?

~ As I stated earlier (quoting Carl Sagan, of course...:)):

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. :)


Will a 12 to 16 inch wide shovel that was operational in 1964 do? :D


Sure, but ya gotta’ locate it in the Hughes version of Batman’s Utility belt, first… :D


Access Denied wrote:
Serpentime wrote:Besides, the absconding "crew of the Bell 47G or anyone else" must have paid much more attention to positioning these "Holes-In-The-Ground" at near 90 degree axes to each other, than they did to creating any semblance of a reasonable (non-trapezoidal?) "landing gear" arrangement - given all of the activities they must have been responsible for within the span of about ten minutes (?), or less, on the ground.


OK now you’re scaring me… I’m sorry but that sounds like something Hoaxland would say. Should we also be looking for any 19.5 or 33 degree angles and cross-checking the latitude and longitude in relation to the positions of Sirius and Orion on the horizon on that date? :roll:


No, you’re scaring me! :D ~ Besides, I forgot my sextant, and I don’t know where Hoaxland is, anyway. :( Maybe the Hughes guys could help? They’re pretty clever, don’t you think? ;)

And I thought that Surveyor sighted off of Canopus, anyway. :D


Access Denied wrote:
Just how long do you think it would take to dig four 2 inch deep holes in soft sand? I’m thinking not much longer than it would take to walk between each one and take one scoop with a shovel and fling it. This isn’t a crop circle we’re talking about.


O.K. But it might take a minute or two more to erase all of the footprints that the helicopter “blast effect” didn’t make disappear.

But I guess they still missed some anyway.


Drat. :(


Access Denied wrote:
Serpentime wrote:They must have brought some digging tools, too? ;)


Well now that you mention it, assuming they didn’t go out on their own, somebody had to put out those fires. Hmm… four burn marks and four “Holes-In-The-Ground”. Coincidence? :lol:


Smokey the Bear says: ”Only YOU can prevent Greasewood and Snakeweed fires.”


Or at WSMR:

Always field-strip your rocket engine fires when testing off-base. :D


~ Now that’s a “development paradigm of simplicity” too be proud of! :D


Access Denied wrote:[sigh]

At this rate I’ve never going to finish working on my rebuttal…

[then again if this keeps up maybe I won’t have to lol]


Don’t give up, AD!

There’s a lot more to talk about, yet. :shock:

Sure, it’s frustrating here, sometimes – but it’s not THAT bad! ;)




God love ya’

Serp :D



> And people say I don’t have a sense of humor. ;)

I know you're smilin’…:D
"Life's fantasy... To be locked away, and still to think you're free."

-- Ronnie Dio
User avatar
Serpentime
Valued Contributor
 
Posts: 416
Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 6:38 pm
Location: The Tree of Knowledge

Postby Access Denied » Thu Sep 13, 2007 9:33 am

Serpentime wrote:~ No clear evidence has been presented that places a helicopter at Socorro.

~ No evidence has been presented that places any variation of a Surveyor test vehicle at Socorro.

So in a nutshell you completely deny the considerable volume of circumstantial evidence that has been presented here so far… wow.

OK well in that case I really don’t see much point in continuing this debate with you any longer.

As promised I will post my rebuttal when it's finished.

Later,

AD
Men go and come but Earth abides.
User avatar
Access Denied
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 2740
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 7:32 am
Location: [redacted]

Postby Serpentime » Sun Sep 16, 2007 2:01 am

Access Denied wrote:So in a nutshell you completely deny the considerable volume of circumstantial evidence that has been presented here so far… wow.


Aw, c'mon now... :D

You might be very surprised to realize that I really do comprehend the Surveyor theory. Certainly, at least some circumstantial evidence exists with which to construct a circumstantial argument. And you might also be surprised to understand that I have no problem whatsoever with Surveyor testing accounting for this incident - if such testing actually occurred.

The only problem that I see (and, please - I don't mean this personally in any way...) is that while some of the available evidence may serve to support this theory, I also perceive significant "loopholes" in it, which I honestly - and in the interests of Science - simply can't sweep under the "rug".


Briefly, allow me to cite the following passage from Ruppelt's Report on Unidentified Objects, in which he reflects on the outcome of the Robertson Panel hearings:

From pp. 224:

Each of the fifty of our best sightings that we gave the scientists to study had some kind of loophole. In many cases the loopholes were extremely small, but scientific evaluation has no room for even the smallest of loopholes and we had asked for a scientific evaluation.

When they had finished commenting on the reports, the scientists pointed out the seriousness of the decision they had been asked to make.

They said that they had tried hard to be objective and not to be picayunish, but actually all we had was circumstantial evidence. Good circumstantial evidence, to be sure, but we had nothing concrete, no hardware, no photos showing any detail of any UFO, no measured speeds, altitudes, or sizes - nothing in the way of good, hard, cold, scientific facts.

To stake the future course of millions of lives on a decision based on circumstantial evidence would be one of the gravest mistakes in the history of the world.


Yet in order to be objective, this same standard must be applied to all arguments - from each side - in this very "high stakes" field. For as Dr. Frank Wolfs previously reminded us :

The lesson is that all data must be handled in the same way.



When it is offered that "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence", this is certainly a valid scientific expression. But we must also (ironically?) remember that many of those interests and individuals who support the Extraterrestrial Hypothesis for cases like Socorro - and others - frequently cite this very same mantra. :shock:

So, without "good, hard, cold, scientific facts", all that we are left with then, in these instances, are two simple sets of diametrically opposing beliefs.

And this is why - when presented with incomplete data sets, paired with potentially paradigm altering outcomes, that it is only scientifically correct and honest to insist that all of the proverbial "i"s be dotted, and that all of the proverbial "t"s be crossed.


The Robertson Panel scientists would obviously agree. :)


Access Denied wrote:OK well in that case I really don’t see much point in continuing this debate with you any longer.

As promised I will post my rebuttal when it's finished.


Actually, I've genuinely enjoyed the discussion. Personally speaking, I've found the exchange of ideas that we've engaged in here to be to be very interesting, enlightening, and thoroughly thought provoking. :)

Regardless of our disagreements, I'd honestly like to thank you for what I believe to be one of the best intellectual "jousts" that I've had with anyone out there as of late! In my opinion, you deserve a lot of credit for some very hard work that has been very well accomplished. :D


If you'd like, I'll pause here while you finish your rebuttal. Following that, I have one more presentation regarding David Thomas' ideas to present, and then perhaps we can each offer a concluding statement?



Best,

Serp :)


"I've hawked my brains... headed west."
"Life's fantasy... To be locked away, and still to think you're free."

-- Ronnie Dio
User avatar
Serpentime
Valued Contributor
 
Posts: 416
Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 6:38 pm
Location: The Tree of Knowledge

Postby ryguy » Tue Sep 18, 2007 5:01 pm

Serpentime wrote:But the challenge we are presented with in the case of the Surveyor hypothesis is NOT to rule Surveyor OUT as an explanation for the Socorro sighting, but rather to rule it IN.

After all, as we know, the purpose of a scientific hypothesis is not to prove a negative, but instead to prove that said hypothesis can be positively validated by the demonstration of verifiable evidence.


I haven't yet read this entire post, so my reply here might be premature. I'm having lunch and I'll need to read the rest tonight, but in skimming I read this first part and just wanted to reply quickly.

As I understand it, the scientific process demands that a hypothesis is tested in order to disprove it....not prove it. I know it's counterintuitive, but that is how the scientific process does work.

In other words, a hypothesis can never be completely "true". It can only be supported by the fact that there is no evidence available to disprove it. That doesn't mean that any hypothesis without evidence to disprove it means that it's a strong hypothesis - because a hypothesis must be first and foremost, testable. If it isn't testable, then it's essentially worthless.

For example - let's say your computer won't start. Because of some of it's behavior (flickering on and off when you jiggle the power cord), you create a hypothesis that the power cord is faulty. You test the hypothesis by changing the cord. In other words you try to prove your hypothesis wrong by developing results that show it to be incorrect. If the new cord doesn't fix the problem, you've just disproven your hypothesis, and you can move on to create a new hypothesis with the new data that you now have at hand.

However, if you conduct a test, and can't prove your hypothesis wrong, then you develop further tests to try to disprove it. Once you've conducted enough tests and simply can not obtain any results that go against your hypothesis - you can conclude that the evidence strongly supports your hypothesis. However - all another scientist needs to do is to test your hypothesis and develop any evidence that contradicts your hypothesis - and thereby weakens it.

In this case - AD has a hypothesis, and our goal should be to present evidence that weakens the possibility of that hypothesis. So far - what we've seen is that there were a multitude of experimental ongoing test flights during this time period. There is a document trail of known classified tests - as well as enough circumstantial evidence to support the possibility of unknown classified tests.

However, with that said, I think Serp was headed down the right road with the diagrams that overlayed the surveyor footprint over the known footprint from the Bluebook documentation. If the glove don't fit...you must....nevermind - bad joke.

But the fact is, the process you guys are going through here is the right one. As frustrating as it can be for the one who has presented a hypothesis, it's important to try to test it in order to disprove it. I think the Surveyor hypothesis specifically has been somewhat weakened by some of the analysis here - but I also think that given these tests, AD now has a perfect opportunity to regroup, taking this data and information into account, and to refine his hypothesis.

With that said...I'll try to get to reading the rest of Serp's post... I should be finished by the end of the week. ;)

Cheers,
-Ry
---
"Only a fool of a scientist would dismiss the evidence and reports in front of him and substitute his own beliefs in their place." - Paul Kurtz

The RU Blog
Top Secret Writers
User avatar
ryguy
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 4920
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 3:49 am
Location: Another Dimension

Postby ryguy » Tue Sep 18, 2007 5:25 pm

Serpentime wrote:

Each individual is, of course, fully entitled to their own beliefs regarding unresolved questions about the nature of reality – and as we know, such beliefs may be myriad. But as we have also come to understand, such beliefs do not always reflect fact.

It is for this reason that Science ultimately exists – to separate fact from belief.



That is true Serp - but I find it much more dangerous when people ignore the direction that a large quantity of circumstantial evidence points, in order to avoid heading in a direction that they prefer not to head.

The process of developing a testable hypothesis includes taking into account all evidence, circumstantial or not, in order to put forth a possible explanation that can be tested. If our "beliefs" are going to reflect "fact" - and if we are honest with ourselves - then despite an underlying belief that this particular sighting might represent something unearthly, a real scientist takes all available evidence (including circumstantial), in order to formulate a hypothesis.

This is why I maintain that AD has come closest, in his hypothesis about this case, in presenting a very strong hypothesis for an experimental test flight - an earthly cause. By ignoring all of the circumstantial evidence and declaring the hypothesis already disproven only reflects the kind of bias you've defined above.

At the start of a difficult study, sometimes all scientists have to go on is a mountain of highly circumstantial evidence....as is often the case in epidemiology. However, the process of selecting the correct road to head down at the very start - that seperates the scientist who uncovers the facts and discovers the truth, from the one who doesn't. Should we ignore the road that the circumstantial evidence points to....or should we base our hypothesis, instead, on a deeper desire to maintain a belief that this case is truly unexplainable?

Somewhere in another thread, Carl Sagan was quoted as stating:

I don’t want to believe, I want to know.



Yes - however Carl Sagan surely understood the difference between a "belief", and a "hypothesis".

-Ry
---
"Only a fool of a scientist would dismiss the evidence and reports in front of him and substitute his own beliefs in their place." - Paul Kurtz

The RU Blog
Top Secret Writers
User avatar
ryguy
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 4920
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 3:49 am
Location: Another Dimension

Postby Serpentime » Wed Sep 19, 2007 3:10 am

ryguy wrote:As I understand it, the scientific process demands that a hypothesis is tested in order to disprove it....not prove it. I know it's counterintuitive, but that is how the scientific process does work.


Thank you, Ry. I stand corrected. :)

But, perhaps, the point that I was trying to make suggests that key components of the Surveyor Hypothesis (as currently advanced?) have been contradicted, or are not testable.


For example, the notion that the four rectangular (?) “Holes-In-The Ground” were created, or manipulated, to conceal the nature of the incident appears contradicted by the documented evidence found in the official file:

Namely that Sgt. Chavez of the New Mexico State Police appears, by all (undisputed?) accounts, to have discovered these features within only minutes of the occurrence, and to have characterized them in a way that is consistent with all subsequent documentation.

~ In other words – the chain of provenance for these features is established rapidly, protected, and maintained, throughout the immediate investigation from which the relevant data is drawn.


To my logic, this evidence (as I presented in Part One) appears to select against the component of the hypothesis at hand that accounts for the Air Force’s inability to “solve” the case due to a “cover-up” – which appears to be strongly elemental for the “object” to have come from White Sands Missile Range and apparently remain unaccounted for.


Alternately, the proposal that the alleged flight crew of the alleged vehicle altered the physical evidence at the site appears untestable to me, unless we could actually – somehow – examine those features and determine whether they appear to be consistent with the workings of either unspecified tools, human hands, or of some other mechanism?



~ In addition, many statements contained in the file, and offered by the investigators on the case, appear to select against the hypotheses of a “deception operation”, an incomplete investigation on their part, or any vehicle of any type from WSMR / Holloman Air Force Base / Air Force Missile Development Center, being present near Socorro.

Some of these statements have already been presented earlier in this thread, and others are still yet to be demonstrated.


Further, also, as described in the official Surveyor documentation that we have previously reviewed, evidence contained therein suggests that no Surveyor helicopter flights were equipped with any sort of propulsion mechanism that could have produced the high heat effects that were observed at the site.



Rather than declare the Surveyor hypothesis disproven, I only suggest that significant established evidence weakens it to the point of insolvency, as I perceive it.


Further testing of this hypothesis will be accomplished in Part Two of my presentation, as I have not yet, either, concluded my own experiments.


ryguy wrote:I think the Surveyor hypothesis specifically has been somewhat weakened by some of the analysis here - but I also think that given these tests, AD now has a perfect opportunity to regroup, taking this data and information into account, and to refine his hypothesis.


I agree completely. :)



Serp :)
"Life's fantasy... To be locked away, and still to think you're free."

-- Ronnie Dio
User avatar
Serpentime
Valued Contributor
 
Posts: 416
Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 6:38 pm
Location: The Tree of Knowledge

Postby Access Denied » Wed Sep 19, 2007 3:39 pm

Serpentime wrote:Rather than declare the Surveyor hypothesis disproven, I only suggest that significant established evidence weakens it to the point of insolvency, as I perceive it.

LOL… i.e. you’re suggesting that your interpretation of the evidence is subjective. My point exactly. :D

[a point that will hopefully made clearer in my rebuttal]

Again, your patience is appreciated. I haven’t had enoug time to work on it as I would like lately and to be completely honest, deconstructing the logic you use to make your arguments has become well… to put it politely… tedious.

I suggest perhaps you’re in denial. :)

AD

P.S. Thanks for your comments Ry. I will have more to say shortly…
Men go and come but Earth abides.
User avatar
Access Denied
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 2740
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 7:32 am
Location: [redacted]

Postby ryguy » Wed Sep 19, 2007 5:19 pm

Serpentime wrote:To my logic, this evidence (as I presented in Part One) appears to select against the component of the hypothesis at hand that accounts for the Air Force’s inability to “solve” the case due to a “cover-up” – which appears to be strongly elemental for the “object” to have come from White Sands Missile Range and apparently remain unaccounted for.


I've read and re-read through both sides of this debate carefully at this point and I have to disagree somewhat. The evidence strongly supports the component of the hypothesis at hand that accounts for the Air Force's inability to "solve" the case being related to many things - only one of which was the AF using the project as a method to "brush off" all sightings in one fell swoop - and thereby get rid of a long-time headache.

Serp, I bet you would find this research paper extremely interesting (if you haven't already read it). It is an Air Command and Staff College Research Study (Report No. 0450-74) submitted in 1974 by two officers:

William E. Brummett, 310-40-5845FR, Major, USAF
Ernest R. Zuick, Jr., 549-46-3888FR, Captain, AF, CA ANG

It was titled AIR COMMAND AND STAFF COLLEGE - SHOULD THE USAF REOPEN PROJECT BLUE BOOK?.

It is a well-written and well-presented paper, and it lays out both the arguments supporting the termination of Blue Book and the arguments supporting the reopening of Blue Book. The most relevant parts of their research related to our discussion at hand are the reasons they offered for reopening Blue Book.

They were:

(1) Priority of Project and Selection of Project Chiefs

The Class 2A priority originally assigned to Project Blue Book at its inception in 1947 seemed to indicate the Air Force placed a high value on the project, but the fact that junior officers possessing little, if any, scientific background and no graduate or research experience were repeatedly chosen to head the project presented a dichotomy of action on the part of the Air Force.(14:268) Lack of experience and scientific training, however, can often be overcome by time and true dedication, but time was a rare commodity to Project Blue Book's officers. The first decade of Project Blue Book's existence witnessed six project chiefs, each averaging less than two years at the helm - far too little time to develop a firm foothold much less an expertise, regardless of the depth of their dedication.


(2) Project Chiefs' Lack of Dedication

Unfortunately, dedication appeared to be a commodity as rare as time where most of Project Blue Book's project chiefs were concerned. Dr. J. Allen Hynek, currently Chairman of the Department of Astronomy at Northwestern University and formerly the Air Force's chief scientific consultant for Project Blue Book has stated that some of the project's directors constantly thought only of promotion or retirement and felt it wise not to "rock the boat" where such a controversial subject as UFOs was concerned.(l4:l86)


(3) Insufficient Staff

"But like any other organization the actual strength fluctuates."(24;file) The sad truth is that the actual staff of Project Blue Book was generally headed by a junior officer who was usually assisted by a Lieutenant and sometimes only by a sergeant. For one period of time a sergeant with little technical training was given the duty of evaluating most of the incoming reports. This small staff was not only expected to investigate the nearly fifty UFO reports received monthly, but had to devote much of its time to answering correspondence and filing.(14:182) Even taking into consideration the fact that some of the UFO sightings were immediately explainable, the large number of credible reports, if analyzed scientifically, would often have demanded many days and even weeks of research. In all fairness to the staff of Project Blue Book, their workload was awesome and much too great for so few to handle properly. The mere fact that the project was usually headed by a junior officer gave little leverage for its leader to initiate the tape of investigation often requested by its scientific consultant.(14:182)


(4) Non-Scientific Approach

The official attitude toward UFOs in 1949, for reasons unknown even to Captain Ruppelt, had become "they didn't exist, they couldn't exist."(29:83) There seemed little chance for Project Grudge, struck by bias after only two years, to survive at all. Captain Ruppelt admitted after leaving the Air Force that good UFO reports continued to come in at the rate of approximately ten per month during his tenure as Project Blue Book's chief. Unfortunately, according to Ruppelt, these reports weren't being verified or investigated. In fact, most of them were discarded.(29:92)


(5) Outside Influence

Project Blue Book managed to struggle along for another fifteen years despite the conclusions of the Robertson panel, but Project Blue Book's staff was not as fortunate. Al Chop, the Pentagon's civilian Public Information Office expert on UFOs resigned his position less than two months after the Robertson panel adjourned. Captain Ruppelt quit the Air Force in September 1953 less than eight months after the Robertson panel released its conclusions, and Major Robert Fournet, Ruppelt's associate in Project Blue Book quit the Air Force at the end of his tour.(30:106) Although many felt the effect of the Robertson panel was the cause for there mass resignations, it should be noted that this was mere speculation. No official reason was ever released.


(6) Poor Structure and Methodology of Project Blue Book

Dr. Hynek insisted that Project Blue Book's methodology was completely unscientific since no scientist would test only for a preconceived hypothesis and rule out the possibility of another hypothesis. Yet this was common practice with Project Blue Book. The Project Blue Book staff would consistently dismiss case after case because the local air base had reported that no aircraft were in the vicinity at the time of the UFO sighting. Dr. Hynek suggested that a scientific approach would have been to "manifest scientific curiosity about the matters in hand" and to "attempt to find patterns in data rather than handling each datum as though it existed in a vacuum".(14:266) The Project Blue Book staff should have been researching for a solution that was consistent with the basic data of the report and not with the working hypothesis."(14:267)


(7) Poor Cataloguing Procedures

During his five year's in the job, Lt. Col. Friend and Dr. Hynek organized a panel of scientists which met to assist in evaluating various UFO sightings, but this effort lacked backing from the Air Force and was short-lived.(14:198)

[snip...]

The research performed by this writer indicates the latter assumption is probably correct. Methodology at this time was no better than before. One needs only to look in the Project Blue Book files between August 1963 and December 1969 to realize the new Project Blue Book methodology was poor. A considerably greater number of sightings were labeled "identified" during this period since the words "possible" and "probable" were consistently dropped from most UFO reports - a method familiar to, but more sparingly used by, previous Project Blue Book management. During the final years of Project Blue Book, it was not unusual to see three or four explanations for the same UFO sighting with no reason given for determining the final selection Since the final Project Blue Book Director's successful tenure and promotion was apparently not due to his excellence as a scientifically disciplined researcher, one can only assume that he was projecting the attitude and approach towards UFO investigations desired by the Air Force.



The report above makes an impressive case for the lack of importance the Air Force actually gave Project Blue Book, both in resources, and in response time and support from the various bases that were sent requests from project Blue Book.

This report analysis the Betty & Barney Hill investigation as one example (emphasis is mine):

There is no indication that the Hills were ever contacted by the Air Force after this report was filed. This is particularly strange since Project Blue Book files show that a UFO was spotted and tracked by Air Force radar operators at nearby Concord AFS, Vermont less that seven hours prior to the Hills' sighting. Another UFO was sighted by Pease AFB precision approach radar only two hours following the Hill visual sighting. The report of the first radar sighting was not wired to the Project Blue Book staff at Wright-Patterson AFB until nearly three days after the actual sighting took place. Personnel at the N. Concord AFS, Vermont sent their TWX on 22 September 1961 at 0234Z. The radar sighting took place on 19 September at 2122Z.(26:file)

The report of the Barney and Betty Hill sighting containing an additional comment regarding the UFO spotted and tracked by the Pease AFB radar was not wired to Project Blue Book headquarters, despite the fact that it was normal USAF policy to do so. Instead, the Directorate of Administrative Services at Pease AFB mailed the information to Project Blue Book on September 29, 1961 - eight days after the original Hill report was filed , An accompanying memo sent by Pease AFB explained that "Non-availability of observers for early interrogation precluded electrical transmission of report."(26:file) This is a particularly puzzling statement, since the Hills were readily available for interrogation at any time. Conversations with the Hills were concluded on September 21, 1961.


---

I would like to say that I'm not taking sides in this debate - however it's important to recognize that the evidence, as the writers of the above report indicated, do show that the Air Force did not appear to give this project the importance and attention it needed - and from all indications it appears that it's highly likely that Blue Book investigators would not have been told the truth if/when particular sightings may actually have been top secret experimental craft.

Further testing of this hypothesis will be accomplished in Part Two of my presentation, as I have not yet, either, concluded my own experiments.


Excellent - looking forward to that. :)

AD wrote:

"Again, your patience is appreciated. I haven’t had enoug time to work on it as I would like lately and to be completely honest, deconstructing the logic you use to make your arguments has become well… to put it politely… tedious."


We've known Serp for a while now, since 2005 actually, and I can assure you that his persistence is a dogged determination to get to the truth - while it appears tedious, I personally have always termed it "tenacious", and I've always admired him for it.

Both of you are brilliant analysts and excellent writers - I have a lot of respect for the level of insight and analysis that you've both displayed here in this thread. 12,000+ views indicate that many readers out there seem to agree...

-Ry
---
"Only a fool of a scientist would dismiss the evidence and reports in front of him and substitute his own beliefs in their place." - Paul Kurtz

The RU Blog
Top Secret Writers
User avatar
ryguy
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 4920
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 3:49 am
Location: Another Dimension

Postby Serpentime » Thu Sep 20, 2007 3:02 am

ryguy wrote:Serp, I bet you would find this research paper extremely interesting (if you haven't already read it). It is an Air Command and Staff College Research Study (Report No. 0450-74) submitted in 1974 by two officers:

William E. Brummett, 310-40-5845FR, Major, USAF
Ernest R. Zuick, Jr., 549-46-3888FR, Captain, AF, CA ANG

It was titled AIR COMMAND AND STAFF COLLEGE - SHOULD THE USAF REOPEN PROJECT BLUE BOOK?.



Excellent find, Ry. :)

Actually, I have a hard copy of that report that I picked up back in February of 1996. I studied the entire paper and took some notes on it, too. :)

Additionally, I have two other theses prepared for the Air Command and Staff College regarding the UFO “problem” that were submitted by Major John R. King, USAF, and Captain Darrell L. Stanley, USAF, that were included in the same bound volume.


Ironically, the conclusions of all three of those studies are decidedly Pro-ETH.


From Brummet and Zuick:

pp. 95:

There are many fascinating and convincing arguments both supporting and refuting the existence of UFOs. Advocates of both positions have one thing in common: they are very often rigid in their beliefs and inflexible to arguments which conflict with their hypotheses. But after pro and con evidence has been weighed, after the scientific dogmatism has been eliminated, after explanations of natural phenomena have been accounted for, and long after the facade of obvious deception has been stripped away, one entity remains obvious: there have been literally thousands of credible UFO sightings that have lacked satisfactory explanation. Millions of respectable people have witnessed something in the heavens that simply cannot be explained as natural phenomena.


pp. 102:

The writers feel that their research has proven a new UFO study is definitely warranted.


pp. 104 - 105:

…This possibility together with the increasing credibility of current UFO sightings, some even supported by hypnosis and sodium pentothal, could possibly convince congress that there is indeed a definite need to support a new UFO investigation.


Recommendations:

As a result of this study, the following specific recommendations are made concerning Project Blue Book:

1. A new UFO study should be initiated under the guidance of a congressional sub-committee. No Defense Department agencies should be directly involved in the study.

2. A national UFO organization should be created whose membership is comprised of scientists and astronomers with respected professional reputations and proven ability to conduct serious scientific research.

…After more than a quarter of a century of evasion, procrastination, and unsatisfactory explanations by the Air Force, the American public has a right to demand and receive an unbiased, scientific UFO investigation. The writers feel that such an investigation conducted by an organization comprised of prominent scientists and astronomers free from political influence is an idea whose time has arrived.



From King:

pp. 91:

Based on an exhaustive review of the literature available to the public, the writer of this paper comes to the following conclusions:

2.) Many objects reported as UFOs are space vehicles.

a. These vehicles originate extraterrestrially.

b. These vehicles are controlled by some intelligence either on board the vehicles or at some extraterrestrial location remote from the vehicle.



pp. 93 - 94:

Recommendations:

1. Conduct an open congressional hearing with the Air Force, NICAP, APRO, and the University of Colorado represented.

2. (c) Establish a nationwide official UFO investigative organization independent of the Air Force.

4. After establishment of the new investigative organization, the United States should actively try to establish contact with the UFOs and determine motive.



And from Stanley:

pp. 46 - 47:

1. Over the years, the evidence on UFOs has continued to mount; and as it has, the reality of UFOs as material, foreign, artificial objects has become increasingly more credible.

2. UFOs are evidently not of terrestrial origin; i.e., it was reasoned persuasively that UFOs are not some secret, advanced development from the U.S., the Soviet Union, or any other nation on the planet.

8. It does not appear possible in the near future to disprove that UFOs originate from outer space.


Recommendations:

1. The United States Government should promulgate greatly increased measures to gain more information about UFOs.



But – as you have noted:

ryguy wrote:The report above makes an impressive case for the lack of importance the Air Force actually gave Project Blue Book, both in resources, and in response time and support from the various bases that were sent requests from project Blue Book.


…all three papers are, indeed, critical of Project Bluebook, and the apparent lack of priority that was given to the investigation of Unidentified Aerial Phenomena.


Then again as Dr. Hynek, himself, observed:

http://www.footnote.com/image/8694587/#8695751

http://www.footnote.com/image/8694587/#8695766

The Air Force is not primarily a scientific organization, and its concern in these matters is to determine whether UFO reports contain any hostile element. If they do not, it is not in the Air Force charter, so to speak, to conduct lengthy investigations as to the nature of the stimulus that gave rise to the report.




But the Socorro case was different from any of these others – mainly in the fact that it received almost immediate, serious, national-level attention, which – in turn – brought (very?) unwanted pressure from private UFO lobby groups (i.e. NICAP) to hold Congressional hearings into the entire UFO matter, and the Air Force handling of it.

In fact, the Air Force Scientific Advisory Board – and the Colorado study itself, became a direct outgrowth of Socorro, and if any case from the Bluebook file required an priority explanation to “call off the dogs”, so to speak, this was definitely it.


At the risk of appearing repetitive, I will again refer to an inquiry received by FTD from the office of Chief of Staff (General Curtis Lemay) USAF:

http://www.footnote.com/image/8694587/#8694656

Numerous inquiries concerning Air Force investigation and evaluation of the recent UFO sighting at Socorro, New Mexico, 24 April, continue to be received from news media, from the Office of the President, and members of Congress.

This HQ is unable to respond properly pending receipt of your conclusions.

Request appropriate action be taken to insure that reports of personnel assigned to investigate and evaluate the sighting be completed and forwarded immediately.


In simple terms, therefore, Socorro WAS a priority investigation – with CSAF, SAF, Congress, and the President, all very anxious for positive (or negative, perhaps? ;)) answers.



Unlike, perhaps, other directors of Project Bluebook, Hector Quintanilla possessed a degree in physics, and he allegedly told researcher Alex Chianetti that Socorro was Bluebook’s “most important case”.

According to Quintanilla he conducted his investigation in this manner:

http://www.nidsci.org/pdf/quintanilla.pdf


During the course of the investigation and immediately thereafter, everything that was possible to verify was checked. The communications media must have been waiting for a case like this, because immediately after Zamora reported his sighting all hell broke loose. The telephone at my house was ringing off the hook.

I went to my office so that I could direct the investigation from there and at the same time contact Kirtland, Holloman, and White Sands via our telephone communications system. As I walked into our building, and turned into the hallway towards my office, I could hear the telephone ringing, ringing, ringing. The operator informed me that I had ten or twelve calls waiting for me.

I decided not to accept the calls until after I had talked with my UFO investigating officer at Kirtland. Major Connor was my primary investigator at Kirtland, but he was inexperienced. Fortunately, my chief analyst, Sgt. David Moody was on temporary duty at Kirtland. I asked Major Connor to get in touch with him and for Moody to get in touch with me regardless of the hour.

It was hours before the investigation could be organized and on its way. A Geiger counter had to be found and the base photographer had to be called. The staff car, which had been provided for the investigation had a flat tire midway between Albuquerque and Socorro. Socorro is located fifty-five miles south of Kirtland Air Force Base.

The Stallion Range Officer had already conducted a preliminary investigation and had also interviewed Zamora. This information was turned over to the Air Force investigators as soon as they began their interview with Zamora. Connor and Moody kept in touch with me and provided me with good information, but there was nothing from which we could draw a definite conclusion or a decent evaluation.

The news media was on SAFOI’s back and SAFOI was on my back. I didn’t have any idea as to what Zamora saw and reported, but by God, I was going to find it. Because of the pressure from the news media, I decided to send Dr. J. Allen Hynek, Project Blue Book consultant, to Kirtland to help with the investigation. I felt that Hynek could concentrate on Socorro while Connor and Moody could check all other activity at the other bases in New Mexico.

In the meantime, Marilyn Beumer Stancombe, my secretary, and I began checking for some sort of positive activity. Radiation had been checked by Connor and Moody, and the readings were negative. I checked the Holloman AFB Balloon Control Center for balloon activity. All local weather stations and Air Force bases in New Mexico were checked for release of weather balloons.

Helicopter activity was checked throughout the state. Government and private aircraft were checked. The reconnaissance division in the Pentagon was checked.

I checked with the immigration division hoping they might help. Finally, I was at my wits end, so I told Marilyn, “Get me the White House Command Post”. She looked at me with those beautiful blue eyes of hers like I was nuts. I said, “Yes, Marilyn, the White House Command Post”.

She never asked me a question, she just started dialing. I was afraid she would ask me how she could reach them, but she didn’t. It took her five or six calls, but she got me the Command Post. A Major General answered and I explained to him my situation. He was very sympathetic, but off hand he couldn’t recall any type of activity in my area of interest. However, he’d check and call me back.

Fifteen minutes later the General called back and told me that the only activity which he had was some U-2 flights. That was no help, so I thanked him for his cooperation and put my thinking cap on again. It took days for us to check all of these agencies and activities.

I finally received Dr. Hynek’s report; it was one of his typical reports which contained few technical details and added practically nothing to what had already been submitted by Connor and Moody. Actually, Hynek added very little to the investigation, however, his typical press interviews added more flame to the fire. The more press coverage the sightings got, the greater the number of sightings which were reported throughout New Mexico.

I was determined to solve the case and come hell or high water I was going to find the vehicle or the stimulus. I decided that it was imperative for me to talk to the Base Commander at Holloman AFB. I wanted to interview the Base Commander at length about special activities from his base. I needed help to pull this off, so I called Lt. Col. Maston Jacks at SAFOI. I told him what I wanted to do and he asked, “Do you think it will do any good?” I replied, “God damned it Maston, if there is an answer to this case it has to be in some hanger at Holloman”.

He went to work from his position at the Pentagon and the approval for my visit came through. Colonel Garman was the Base Commander during my visit. He was most cooperative and told me that I could go anywhere and visit any activity which interested me.

I went from one end of the base to the other. I spent four days talking to everybody I could and spent almost a whole day with the down-range controllers at the White Sands Missile Range. I left Holloman dejected and convinced that the answer to Zamora’s experience did not originate and terminate at that base.

On my way back to Wright-Patterson, I hit upon an idea. Why not a lunar landing vehicle? I knew that some research had been done at Wright-Patterson; so as soon as I got back I asked for some briefings. The briefings were extremely informative, but the Lunar Landers were not operational in April 1964. I got the names of the companies that were doing research in this field and I started writing letters. The companies were most cooperative, but their answers were all negative.

It was now time for me to pass judgment on the case after a careful review of all the information at hand. I hate to use the word “judgment”, but that is exactly what it boils down to. As President Truman used to say, “The buck stops here”, and in the world of UFO’s my desk was the end of the line. It was time for the Air Force to make a formal decision on the sighting of Socorro, New Mexico.

I reviewed the Air Force Materials Laboratory Analysis of the soil samples which were gathered at the alleged landing area. Conclusion: no foreign residue. Laboratory analysis of the burned brush revealed no chemicals that could have been propellant residue. Radiation was normal for the alleged landing area and for the surrounding area. There was no unusual meteorological activity, no thunderstorms; the weather was windy, but clear. Although we made an extensive search for other witnesses, none could be located.

There were no unidentified helicopters or aircraft in the area. Radar installations at Holloman AFB and at Albuquerque observed no unusual blips, but the down-range Holloman MTI (Moving Target Indicator) Radar, closest to Socorro, had been closed down for the day at 1600 hours. All the findings and conclusions were negative.

The object was traveling at approximately 120 miles per hour when it disappeared over the mountains according to Zamora’s best estimate. I labeled the case “Unidentified” and the UFO buffs and hobby clubs had themselves a field day.


…Which he effectively concluded by stating:

In spite of the fact that I conducted the most thorough investigation that was humanly possible, the vehicle or stimulus that scared Zamora to the point of panic has never been found.



~ And all of this in spite of the fact that Quintanilla possessed a Top Secret clearance…

http://www.footnote.com/image/8694587/#8694646

Captain Quintanilla is cleared up to and including Top Secret.


…and an apparently strong and significant priority to solve the case.




Following on from all of the above, therefore – and from Quintanilla’s position that:

http://www.nidsci.org/pdf/quintanilla.pdf

Everybody gave me the fullest cooperation, nobody refused, from the high level agencies to top laboratories to which I requested for help.


…regarding his six year tenure as Bluebook director, I must respectfully disagree with this statement:

ryguy wrote:…however it's important to recognize that the evidence, as the writers of the above report indicated, do show that the Air Force did not appear to give this project the importance and attention it needed - and from all indications it appears that it's highly likely that Blue Book investigators would not have been told the truth if/when particular sightings may actually have been top secret experimental craft.


At least in the instance of the Socorro sighting that we are presently discussing.


Further however, the notion of a “cover-up” of a “top secret experimental craft”, continues to beg the question of why such a sensitive project was allegedly tested in such a highly populated and public area?

On the surface of this proposition, such a salient contradiction between an allegedly high security status and the public testing of such a “craft” appears to be highly counterintuitive, if it were?


~ And if the Surveyor “craft” became worldwide public knowledge when Surveyor One landed on the Moon on May 30, 1966, then why wasn’t this “secret” revealed in order to head off the dreaded specter of a congressional hearing, that still hung over the Air Force at such a time when Hector Quintanilla was still director of Project Bluebook?



For these reasons, the logic and the relevant evidence of the case do not conclusively support a “deception operation”, if they do not outrightly contradict this hypothesis.




Respectfully,

Serp :)
"Life's fantasy... To be locked away, and still to think you're free."

-- Ronnie Dio
User avatar
Serpentime
Valued Contributor
 
Posts: 416
Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 6:38 pm
Location: The Tree of Knowledge

Postby Serpentime » Thu Sep 20, 2007 3:52 am

Ry,

Just for fun, I thought that I might expand on your computer testing analogy for constructing a hypothesis:

ryguy wrote:For example - let's say your computer won't start. Because of some of it's behavior (flickering on and off when you jiggle the power cord), you create a hypothesis that the power cord is faulty. You test the hypothesis by changing the cord. In other words you try to prove your hypothesis wrong by developing results that show it to be incorrect. If the new cord doesn't fix the problem, you've just disproven your hypothesis, and you can move on to create a new hypothesis with the new data that you now have at hand.


…And see if I might construct a new analogy that was more specific to the Socorro case?


In the best of humor :):


~ I, Serp, have parked my car outside of a baseball park while a game is in progress. Leaving my car, I go off, out of sight, to accomplish a few personal errands.

On returning to my car, I immediately notice that my windshield is cracked, and generate a circumstantial hypothesis that a baseball that was hit out of the stadium is responsible for the damage.

Testing this hypothesis, I observe next – on closer inspection – that the impact cracking in the glass is not the circular pattern that I would anticipate from a baseball. Instead, the damage is oblong (or some other) shaped.

Hailing a passing policeman, I bring the matter to his attention – which in turn causes the police officer to call for a “backup” of other officers and a detective.

Studying the damage, also, is a senior member of the stadium staff who has responded to the commotion.

Determined to solve the “case” the detective – with the help of the officers, the stadium official, and the full cooperation of the staff – proceed to interview everyone of significance who was at the game. The players are questioned, along with other stadium personnel, and the fans that were sitting in the nearby area of the stands.


ALL OF THE RESULTS ARE NEGATIVE.


No balls were hit out of that part of the park.

None of the fans or staff noticed anything unusual.

None of the people who were interviewed knew anything about the incident.


~And yet, because of the strong local circumstance of the baseball park, the baseball game, and their proximity to my car, I modify my hypothesis as follows:


A baseball broke my windshield.

Because the baseball player who hit the ball and broke my windshield did not want to get himself in trouble, either he – or his proxies – found their way out to my car and struck the existing circular windshield crack with a bat (or other unknown implement?), in an attempt to hide his culpability for the incident and confuse both myself and the investigators.

The guilty player has not been identified by the official investigation because everyone at the game lied to protect him.



With respect to your statement regarding the selection of the “correct road”:

ryguy wrote:At the start of a difficult study, sometimes all scientists have to go on is a mountain of highly circumstantial evidence....as is often the case in epidemiology. However, the process of selecting the correct road to head down at the very start - that seperates the scientist who uncovers the facts and discovers the truth, from the one who doesn't.



…Is my continued circumstantial focus on the ballpark a reasonable, or testable, course of inquiry after all of the investigative results contradicted it?


Or might the answer lie outside of the immediate circumstance?



With greatest respect, I would value your opinion of my hypothetical “hypothesis” generation. :)



Best,

Serp :)
"Life's fantasy... To be locked away, and still to think you're free."

-- Ronnie Dio
User avatar
Serpentime
Valued Contributor
 
Posts: 416
Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 6:38 pm
Location: The Tree of Knowledge

Postby Access Denied » Thu Sep 20, 2007 5:01 am

Serpentime wrote:In fact, the Air Force Scientific Advisory Board – and the Colorado study itself, became a direct outgrowth of Socorro, and if any case from the Bluebook file required an priority explanation to “call off the dogs”, so to speak, this was definitely it.

And yet ironically it was not included in the Condon study... go figure.

Serpentime wrote:~ And all of this in spite of the fact that Quintanilla possessed a Top Secret clearance and an apparently strong and significant priority to solve the case.

And yet nobody was apparently willing to fess up… go figure.

Serpentime wrote:Further however, the notion of a “cover-up” of a “top secret experimental craft”, continues to beg the question of why such a sensitive project was allegedly tested in such a highly populated and public area?

And yet nobody was apparently willing to fess up… go figure.
Last edited by Access Denied on Thu Sep 20, 2007 5:43 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Men go and come but Earth abides.
User avatar
Access Denied
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 2740
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 7:32 am
Location: [redacted]

Postby Access Denied » Thu Sep 20, 2007 5:06 am

ryguy wrote:I think the Surveyor hypothesis specifically has been somewhat weakened by some of the analysis here –

Perhaps but the attentive observer will note that Serp chose to only test a small subset of my hypothesis, including a rather lengthy analysis of one aspect of it that I had already rejected, and “triumphantly” declared the Surveyor hypothesis null and void. Why Serp chose to do that is beyond me. Essentially it amounts to much ado about nothing.

ryguy wrote:but I also think that given these tests, AD now has a perfect opportunity to regroup, taking this data and information into account, and to refine his hypothesis.

Indeed… my rebuttal is currently 22 pages long in Word (with illustrations)… and growing.

Serpentime wrote:The only problem that I see (and, please - I don't mean this personally in any way...) is that while some of the available evidence may serve to support this theory, I also perceive significant "loopholes" in it, which I honestly - and in the interests of Science - simply can't sweep under the "rug".

Why would I take it personally? Unlike Quintanilla, who’s job it was to solve this case and you’re so fond of quoting, I’m not “frustrated” by the fact that whoever was responsible for the Socorro sighting apparently didn’t leave behind a “smoking gun” in the form of a paper trail (or otherwise) for him (or us) to find (at least not easily) and has never come forward… obviously if they had this “mystery” would have been solved a long time ago. I disagree with Quintanilla’s characterization of this case as “important” although I can certainly understand why he would feel that way given the pressure he was under. I think you’re mistakenly interpreting this as an “admission” on his part that the physical evidence “defies” explanation. I see no evidence to support such an assertion… everyone, including Zamora, thought it was a conventional craft of some sort.

As far as any “loopholes” you perceive go, although difficult to prove/test, all are readily attributable to my own satisfaction to a number of non-extraordinary possibilities… although again I can certainly understand why anyone who’s emotionally invested in the “outcome” of this case might have a hard time with that.

Serpentime wrote:When it is offered that "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence", this is certainly a valid scientific expression. But we must also (ironically?) remember that many of those interests and individuals who support the Extraterrestrial Hypothesis for cases like Socorro - and others - frequently cite this very same mantra.

It doesn’t work both ways… you’re attempting to turn the Scientific Method on it’s head by proclaiming that selecting a non-ET hypothesis in this case (and “robbing” it of it’s perceived “importance”) based on the available evidence is the equivalent of making an “extraordinary’ claim that requires “extraordinary” evidence… it isn’t.

Serpentime wrote:So, without "good, hard, cold, scientific facts", all that we are left with then, in these instances, are two simple sets of diametrically opposing beliefs.

Not true. There are several “good, hard, cold, scientific facts” (i.e. data points) that validate the Surveyor hypothesis… you merely choose to ignore them in favor of these perceived “loopholes” i.e.

“If a straight line fit is required, obtain only two data points.”

In Science such “loopholes” (spurious/anomalous data points) when present can be attributed to measurement error and given enough data points a “solution” can still be found via statistical means (with some corresponding degree of confidence).

If I had to put some numbers on my confidence at this point, it would probably be something like this:

Surveyor Hypothesis: 90%
ET Hypothesis: 0%
Lonnie Zamora’s Testimony: 50%
Physical Evidence: 25%
Blue Book’s Investigation: 50%

Of course that’s always subject to change.

Serpentime wrote:And this is why - when presented with incomplete data sets, paired with potentially paradigm altering outcomes, that it is only scientifically correct and honest to insist that all of the proverbial "i"s be dotted, and that all of the proverbial "t"s be crossed.

Absolutely…“Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”… however attributing this sighting to misinterpretation and a subsequent “cover-up” is NOT an “extraordinary” claim and in the absence of any evidence to support the ET hypothesis no paradigms are at risk. Furthermore, it’s both impossible and unreasonable to expect that all the "i"s be dotted and "t"s be crossed given the incomplete data set we have to work with in this case… especially when what data we do have can variously be described as contradictory, misleading, ambiguous and of questionable accuracy.

[I will elaborate on this last point further in my rebuttal]

Serpentime wrote:If you'd like, I'll pause here while you finish your rebuttal.

Promises, promises. :)

Serpentime wrote:Following that, I have one more presentation regarding David Thomas' ideas to present, and then perhaps we can each offer a concluding statement?

We’ll see how it goes. In the meantime I would like to take Ry up on his generous offer to try and contact the originators of this hypothesis on our behalf to see what, if anything, they might have in the way of additional information to offer. We can discuss that elsewhere though.

Serpentime wrote:The notion that the four rectangular (?) “Holes-In-The Ground” were created, or manipulated, to conceal the nature of the incident appears contradicted by the documented evidence found in the official file.

So it would appear however let me remind you again (in case you missed it) that somebody else (in addition to the “UFO occupants”) with both the opportunity and a potential motive (they “wrote the book” on this incident) to do so WAS present at the scene…


Wendy Connors wrote:First notified was Mr. Burns of the FBI who notified 1st Lt. Hicks, Executive Officer of Co. C, USAF about the incident. Hicks notified Captain Richard T. Holder, the Up-Range Commander. Holder then stopped and picked up Sgt. Castle of the Military Police and they headed to Socorro. Before they got there, Coral and Jim Lorenzen of APRO arrived. Holder interviewed Zamora AFTER Jim and Coral. Burns had already done a short interrogation of Zamora.

To my knowledge no official documentation is available that accounts for what happened between the time Officer Chavez arrived and “secured the scene” and the military arrived (a hour or more later?). In particular we don’t know when Chavez first noticed (all of?) the impressions and took the (apparently missing) Polaroids. Moody acknowledges the Lorenzens early presence in his report but I don’t think Burns (FBI) or Holder (Army) did. At any rate, I find it interesting that the Lorenzens apparently didn’t acknowledge their early presence either in their book.

[the “Holes-In-The-Ground” will be addressed in more detail in my rebuttal]

ryguy wrote:We've known Serp for a while now, since 2005 actually, and I can assure you that his persistence is a dogged determination to get to the truth - while it appears tedious, I personally have always termed it "tenacious", and I've always admired him for it.

If there’s a method to his madness I will admit that perhaps I’ve yet to fully come to appreciate it. :)
Men go and come but Earth abides.
User avatar
Access Denied
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 2740
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 7:32 am
Location: [redacted]

Postby ryguy » Thu Sep 20, 2007 4:25 pm

Serpentime wrote:…Is my continued circumstantial focus on the ballpark a reasonable, or testable, course of inquiry after all of the investigative results contradicted it?


...it would be much more reasonable, and testable, Serp - than entertaining and doggedly focusing on a hypothesis that a small cigar-shaped object of extra-terrestrial origin fell from space and cracked your windshield. A hypothesis that not even the circumstantial evidence supports.

It's a matter of rating the probability of hypothesis Serp. The ETH has far less evidence to support it than the terrestrial hypothesis...yet you clearly (from your last post) prefer that hypothesis in this case.

Oh...and btw...if you re-read the quote you pulled from the report I mentioned to you, you'll notice that the quote from that report did not mention anything about the the liklihood of the sightings being extra-terrestrial in nature....they just make the point that there were far too many unidentified craft sightings, which could and should have been solved, but weren't - to justifiy the re-opening of Blue-Book. An argument I have to agree with.

one entity remains obvious: there have been literally thousands of credible UFO sightings that have lacked satisfactory explanation. Millions of respectable people have witnessed something in the heavens that simply cannot be explained as natural phenomena.


I agree with that...I see natural phenomena as being defined as ball-lightning, "swamp"-gas, etc... There is nothing natural about man-made craft. I do not see their statement as outright supporting the ETH...although those who believe in ETH take comfort in the fact that this report in many ways trashes Blue Book. Which is fine in this case, because it also helps us to prove that Blue Book did not always accurately "conclude" their cases....and that includes cases classified as "unexplainable"...not only those given earthly causes. Can't have it both ways - they were either fully supported by the AF and given full access and resources, or they weren't. I agree with this report, that they weren't, across the board.

I'm not sure about the other quotes you offered, but I'll have a look. I try to avoid analysis that might be one-sided....the reason I quoted this particular report was because it was balanced and provided an argument for and against reopening Blue Book. But there are many other reports out there where the writer clearly has an underlying bias from the start for one hypothesis or another - even military folk (sometimes especially) are susceptible to the "alien" viral meme, just as civilians can be. It takes a special kind of person to remain immune, especially when cases are odd and seemingly unexplainable.

Ironically those who entertain the ETH and the Terrestrial hypothesis both agree on one thing (at least those of us here do) - Blue Book did not accurately resolve all of the questions. This has caused far too many people to apply the ETH to those cases that remain "unsolved"....while it is far more likely that those sightings are actually tied to programs that the AF would prefer the public know nothing about.

Question - clearly at least a few sightings investigated by Blue Book must have been related to classified test flights..maybe 1%, 5%, 10%?....so tell me this: how did the Blue Book investigators deal with those? Are there any examples of this (where the AF "admitted" that a sighting was experimental and top secret )?

-Ry
Last edited by ryguy on Thu Sep 20, 2007 5:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.
---
"Only a fool of a scientist would dismiss the evidence and reports in front of him and substitute his own beliefs in their place." - Paul Kurtz

The RU Blog
Top Secret Writers
User avatar
ryguy
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 4920
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 3:49 am
Location: Another Dimension

PreviousNext

Google

Return to Best Evidence

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests