Moderators: ryguy, chrLz, Zep Tepi
Alfredo wrote:The substitution, i.e 'planting' of a copied signature- containing the ‘white-out flaws’- for the original signature was done as an invitation to forensic analysts to impeach a single point of fact and thereby the entire testimony- in this case the field of Ufology in toto.
While in Roswell I had a chance, brief though it was, to talk to Stan Friedman. He had come up to me as I ate breakfast and suggested that I was probably correct about Robert Willingham which is surprising. Oh, not about Willingham because it’s pretty clear that he never served as an Air Force officer or a fighter pilot, but because of what it suggests about the MJ-12 documents. If Willingham’s tale is discredited, then MJ-12 is discredited because it mentions the Willingham story and there is no other source of information on Del Rio (or the El Indio – Guerrero UFO crash as it was disguised there).
When I said to Stan that there was no evidence of a Del Rio crash, he trotted out his propaganda argument that “Absence of evidence isn’t evidence of absence.”
My immediate reply was, “It is when due diligence has been preformed,” which, of course I had done (and which, of course, sort of attaches a legal term to the argument).
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests