UFO Conjecture(s)

Wednesday, September 30, 2015

A Roswell response that is a gem!

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

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

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

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

Brian Bell said...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

19 Comments:

  • Good for Bryan.

    By Blogger Tim Hebert, at Wednesday, September 30, 2015  

  • You mean Brian, Tim.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Wednesday, September 30, 2015  

  • Your correct, good for Brian. I believe that Brian now has a sense as to why some of us have embargoed Kevin's site. Not because of Kevin himself, but because of the constant inane arguments that are fostered. BTW, its the same shit that has been gone over ad nauseam for a number of years on Kevin's site. I've seen nothing new or earth shattering to come out of the discussions.

    By Blogger Tim Hebert, at Wednesday, September 30, 2015  

  • Tim:

    I've posted something about Kevin's magazine articles over the years asking for Kevin's updates, if any. Nada.

    But then I see the regurgitated Roswell effluvia at his blog and wonder why he keeps repeating and allowing the nauseating, redundant commentary from Rudiak, CDA, Moody, Gilles, and other lesser lights, but won't take on new items, or tell us about some of his previous, interesting UFO articles.

    Kevin seems obsessed with revising his errant Roswell past with a yen to resuscitate the Roswell slide blokes.

    I don't get it. He's squandering his once lofty cachet.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Wednesday, September 30, 2015  

  • I've no problem if Kevin wants to revisit certain aspects of the case from the point of clarifications or to add something new to the mix. Unfortunately, there is nothing new that I can discern.

    Perhaps he was really banking on the slides as that something "new" only to be burned by the very ones that he had trusted. I know that it's slightly more complicated than that, but I believe it to be the essence of the situation.

    The "slides" debacle produced more collateral damage than what most had assumed. For me, I basically dropped off of the scene because of it. Being a skeptic, yet agnostic to a degree, I decided that if the slides were the best that could be offered in support of UFOs/ET, then it was time for both believers and skeptics to pack it up. Which is what I did for 4 months.

    BTW, it's your esoteric angle that intrigues with the subject matter...keep it up!

    By Blogger Tim Hebert, at Wednesday, September 30, 2015  

  • Randle's reply, which is spot on:

    "Sorry Brian but you're wrong. First, I'm under no obligation to remain neutral in these discussions and I don't understand why you would think that. I have a point of view and plan to express it.

    Second, while those of us who think the alien explanation is the best answer for Roswell have an obligation to present the evidence that leads us to that conclusion, that does not absolve you of the responsibility to provide your sources when challenged. You claimed people died during the "War of the Worlds" panic but have provided no documentation for that claim.

    In other instances, you were challenged and others provided the sources for you showing that elements of your claim were inaccurate.

    So, while it is true that we must provide sources for our claims, you have the same responsibility for yours. Instead of answering the questions, you divert the
    conversation into other arenas, pose other questions and cite other alleged facts."

    By Blogger Paul Kimball, at Wednesday, September 30, 2015  

  • Rich -

    I have no obligation to answer your questions but here's the thing. I haven't seen them. If so, I would reply and if you addressed an email to me, I would reply.

    As for your comment, "Nada," I would say that if you go back through your archives, you would find some replies to your comments.

    This reminds of the time I was called a coward because I hadn't responded to Kal Korff's call for a debate. He had made the challenge on a radio program and had not communicated with me personally. How can I respond if I don't know of the challenge. For those keeping score at home, once the challenge was accepted and the debate arranged, Korff bailed two or three hours before the show claiming some sort of terrorist activity that he had to deal with...

    So, I say again, if you have a question, it might be easier to get a response if you send me an email. Just a thought...

    Oh, and Tim, if you go back through my blog postings on the slides (and yes there are many) you'd see that I thought this would end badly. I had no idea it would end as quickly and badly as it did, but I suspected it... and in an email to Tom Carey in December, I asked specifically if the image could be a mummy. He said, "No."

    By Blogger KRandle, at Wednesday, September 30, 2015  

  • Thank you Kevin.

    I am enthralled by your many articles about the topic at hand in UFO magazines.

    I've noted several with no inclination to bother with a personal request to update some of them.

    I had hoped that you might spot one of two and do something at your blog, like the UFO movies piece I found.

    You seem re-absorbed by Roswell....which is somewhat baffling, as it is a dead issue for many UFO buffs, but I understand.

    I can't get away from Socorro or a few other UFO nemeses that haunt me.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Wednesday, September 30, 2015  

  • Kevin,

    Yes, you did provide numerous posts predicting the slides final outcome...so did others. It wasn't much of stretch to come to that conclusion. I was merely where in the story that it would all come crashing down. Yet we all "benefited" from that sordid spectacle as fodder for our own respective blogs. God only knows how much traffic (deservedly or not) I benefited from just by mentioning the subject...I also had to steam clean my site afterwards.

    BTW, these were trusted friends of yours that fostered the story? Minus Dew of course...

    Such is the state of affairs at present...

    By Blogger Tim Hebert, at Wednesday, September 30, 2015  

  • I assume the reason Kevin resurrects Roswell so often is that it still causes immense debate. It has the ability to endlessly fascinate people, whichever side they're on. I usually join in through the desire to re-emphasise my points. As do others. Emotions can, and do, run high, though I agree that we are getting absolutely nowhere. This is because NOTHING new ever emerges. The slides were meant to be something new, but they fizzled out. And I will repeat my views here, which are that nothing of interest happened, nothing new will ever emerge, and ten years from now we will still be debating Roswell - and getting nowhere. Meanwhile the search for ET life will continue, and maybe one day we shall even be drinking this water supposedly found on Mars. (Now THAT is something new, isn't it?)

    By Blogger cda, at Wednesday, September 30, 2015  

  • But CDA...

    There was water all along on Mars. Remember the canali (channels) seen by Shiaparelli.

    That they evaporated since 1877 is not surprising: Global Warming.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Wednesday, September 30, 2015  

  • I said drinking water!
    The 'water' discovered by Schiaparelli and Lowell was distinctly of the non-drinking variety. Have you tried drinking canal water?

    By Blogger cda, at Thursday, October 01, 2015  

  • I discovered, recently, that a friend's cottage, which I visit, had water coming through an old water-softener that hadn't been cleaned in years.

    I had been drinking the water there for five years or more, and just saw the scummy "reservoir" which the water supply was passing through, so, yes, I've tried drinking canal water.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Thursday, October 01, 2015  

  • i like both Kevin's blog and UFO Conjectures blog, and i see things that i dislike on both. I will continue to read both.

    By Blogger charles tromblee, at Thursday, October 01, 2015  

  • Thank you Charles....

    But what's to dislike? (I kid)

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Thursday, October 01, 2015  

  • As far as I know this guy favors a roswell explanation which has even less substance than the E.T.- theory.

    By Blogger Zak McKracken, at Saturday, October 03, 2015  

  • Zak;

    I'm not sure what Brian's position exactly is, even after reading his many comments at Kevin's blog.

    Brian isn't a "Roswell ET Crash" guy surely, but as for his understanding of the Roswell incident, that eludes me and he hasn't chosen to comment on this post or his views, here.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Saturday, October 03, 2015  

  • [Roswell] "has the ability to endlessly fascinate people, whichever side they're on."

    Count me out, I just don't get it at all. I've heard the narratives, seen the photos, and heard the arguments. Why anyone would think something extraordinary crashed in New Mexico in 1947 (or any other year) is a complete mystery to me.

    By Blogger zoamchomsky, at Sunday, October 04, 2015  

  • The mystery is a creation, a Holmesian kind of mystery, Zoam, but when one looks at the original event (or rather, incident), one is not as mesmerized as those who've bypassed the thing and came to it post 1978.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Sunday, October 04, 2015  

Post a Comment

<< Home