* Roger Nelson Said to, Sheppard Gordon something like:
 SG> In a message dated 01-30-98 Roger Nelson wrote to Sheppard Gordon:
 SG> SG> But it's most amusing to see you choose to parrot certain stories 
ou
 SG> SG> don't appear to understand well (like the Tehran case and the MJ-12
 SG> SG> hoax) -- it reminds me quite a bit of Laurie's repostings of
 SG> SG> messages that he didn't quite understand and couldn't reply to by
 SG> SG> himself....
 SG> RN> Maybe each of them are searching for enlightenment.
 SG> By parroting stories that each doesn't understand yet vehemently
 SG> defends? By ignoring evidence contrary to the stories each believes?
 SG> By __repeating__ the same stories, over and over in numerous
 SG> echoes - unchanged - in spite of such evidence having previously
 SG> been presented?
 SG> No, Roger. Your guess seems rather far-fetched.
 Let have a look at your and a fellow Skeptics actions on Majestic-12 and the 
Tehran sighting.
       1)  You posted up the Tehran sighting stating it was a top 
explanation.  After carrying on about insignificant issues with me, you 
failed to address the most important part of the postings - the 
interpretation of the event by Klass.   How does the meteor explanation work 
when Klass got it wrong with the DIA memo...specifically, Klass interpreted 
the memo as stating that the U.F.O fired a conventional missiles at the f4 
and missed, yet this is not what the memo states (and thats where he got his 
information from).  The memo states that 2 object emerged.  One emerged and 
followed the U.F.O but RETURNED to the main object while the second emerged 
to move straight down to the ground to produce a soft landing.  Klass builds 
his meteor explanation on this interpretation, yet you fail to address these 
issues, instead going into victory speeches.
   2) The Majestic-12 documents were calimed to be debunked by another 
skeptic, yet when I address all his question with a chapter Friedman made on 
Klass, he was out of explanations.  Instead of proving himself that the 
documents were debunked, he relied on Klass to do the work and when question 
ed on the issue, he expected me to write to Klass himself.  I relied on 
Friedmans work no doubt, however, unless you can prove to me that one 
character is more honest then the other, the debunked documents claim is 
invalid.
--- FMail 1.22
---------------