>>> Part 1 of 2...
 -=> Quoting Ivy Iverson to Sheppard Gordon <=-
 II> After posting my previous reply to you, I saw and read your
 II> interminable debunking of the Roswell incident.
   Saw and read, but didn't completely understand, it seems.
   Sheppard Gordon didn't write the article, and it was not meant to be 
exhaustive; it was a summary of the points in a book the article's author has 
written about Roswell. On several occasions in the article, we are referred
to the book for more information (and presumably more details and more 
evidence). You even quote some of these referrals.
   By overlooking that single point, the plaintiff has severely crippled her 
case, m'lud.
 II> Is it not possible for the all-powerful American Trenchcoat Society,
 II> (FBI, CIA, ASA, NSA et al), who can leap tall buildings in a single
 II> bound, to alter all kinds of records, both military and civilian, forge
 II> signatures on all manner of documents and otherwise hide, cover up, or
 II> destroy any evidence they wish to keep hidden, and intimidate whomever
 II> they wish to say WHAT they wish?
   It's possible. So what?
 II> So all of the "But his college records showed..." and "His military
 II> records clearly said..." entries must be taken with a small pinch of
 II> sodium chloride.
   "must"? The article was looking at the evidence regarding the Roswell 
incident. Where is the evidence that the evidence has been tampered with?
 II> This fact casts the shadow of uncertainty upon at least 30% of your
 II> claims.
   Saying that the *possibility* of tampering is a "fact" is like stating "It 
is a fact that some UFO sightings might be caused by flocks of ducks wearing 
GlowZone stickers".
 II> I am not saying they are all fabrications of the Trenchcoat society,
 II> however I consider the possability.
   I don't know the author of the article, but I'm willing to bet that he 
considered the possibility as well, but dropped it because of insufficient 
evidence.
 II> Gee, I wonder if a well-equipped crime lab were to carefully examine
 II> the ORIGIONAL of said documents, would they conclude that the ink in
 II> that comments by his commander were the same age as the other documents
 II> in his record which carry about the same date?
   Gee, I wonder if this comment was made after considering the possibility 
that this may be covered in the book?
 SG> ... Major Marcel, when first interviewed, could not even
 SG> remember the year of the alleged UFO crash, let alone the month.
 SG> Indeed, Marcel's own answer as to when this supposed "snapshot memory"
 SG> event took place was simply "in the late forties"!
 II> I am in my 50's, and I clearly remember things which happened during
 II> my youth, but I'll be damned if I can tell you the year OR the month! 
 II> When was Sputnik launched?  I remember seeing it going overhead, but I
 II> could only say it was in the late 50's.  I remember when President
 II> Kennedy was shot, but damned if I could tell you more than "The 50's"! 
 II> When did our astronauts walk on the Moon?  I clearly remember watching
 II> them walking there on live TV, but I couldn't tell you just when,
 II> beyond "Late 50's."
   In fact, JFK was shot in late November 1963, and no astronauts walked on 
the Moon before 1968, but that just proves your point. I think.
 II> So your assertion about Marcel not remembering when doesn't hold a drop
 II> of water with me.
   Did you miss the point, maybe?
   As you in fact quoted earlier in the message, UFO researchers have claimed 
that the alleged witnesses have such clear memories of the event that their 
testimony, relying on memory alone, is sufficient evidence.
   The author of the article agrees with you that people don't have memories 
that good, even the "witnesses".
 II> And what's DuBose's claim to infallability?  For all I know, he could
 II> be employed by the CIA.
   I wouldn't go that far, but I suppose all the arguments about memory not 
improving over time may also apply.
   I dunno, maybe that's covered in the book.
   (A valid point! Quick, kill it before anyone notices! )
 II> To quote a tagline I have, "Skeptic's Cleaver: Hack off any
 II> nonconforming evidence."  In other words, Occum's Razor does NOT hack
 II> just the bull... it can also be used to hack off whatever the person
 II> weilding it chooses not to believe.  Can you deny this?
   First of all, there is no such thing as "Occum's Razor".
   Secondly, you seem to misunderstand what Occam's Razor means. (I assume 
that's what you refer to.)
   Occam's Razor is the principle that if you have two *equally applicable* 
explanations for something, you should go for the one that's less 
mplicated.
   At the risk of overdoing it, I give an example:
   There is nothing to suggest that the evidence regarding the Roswell 
incident has been tampered with by the "Trenchcoat Society". There are two 
possibilities that explain this observation equally well:
   1. The evidence has not been tampered with.
   2. The evidence has been tampered with in such a way that no indications 
of tampering are left behind.
   Unless further evidence surfaces to tip the balance one way or the other, 
Occam's Razor says to go with option 1.
 >>> Continued to next message...
--- Blue Wave/Max v2.30 [NR]
---------------