>>> Part 2 of 2...
 II> I agree that you "gotta call 'em as you see 'em," however your
 II> opinion, (Yes, OPINION!), based upon YOUR research on the subject...
 II> ...does not necessarily guarentee that YOUR version of what happened at
 II> Roswell is the total, 100%, absoloute facts!
   Ah, so Ivy Iverson is allowed to state as fact what she believes to be 
true, based on what she believes to be the best evidence available, but the 
"skeptibunker" isn't.
   Don't they have level playing fields on your planet?
 II> Ok, let's digress for a moment.  You have thoroughly debunked the
 II> "Weather baloon" story, (which few believed from the beginning), and
 II> have latched onto the "Project Mogul" story as gospel.  You have built
 II> a strong case supporting your views.  However you have totally ignored
 II> the OTHER half- dozen or so OTHER O-fishy explainations that have come
 II> out of the Pentigon in the last few years.
   And why should he not ignore them, since he found no strong case 
supporting *them*?
   I find it interesting that you accept his say-so when he's confirming 
something you believed all along, but when he tries to shake your beliefs 
he's spouting opinions based on questionable evidence.
   Now where have I heard that before?
 II> And why were these OTHER
 II> "official explainations" released over the last few years?  If they did
 II> not exist, I would consider the POSSABILITY that Mogul MIGHT be the
 II> correct explaination, however by handing us one pablum  story after
 II> another, they have TOTALLY destroyed any credibility they MAY have had
 II> in the matter as far as I am concerned.
   So, if the government came out tomorrow and said that they really had 
recovered a UFO at Roswell, you wouldn't believe that either.
 II>                      By playing with numbers you can definately
 II> "prove" that 3 equals 4,
   Prove it.
 II> and in a few minutes with a home PC, I could
 II> show you a picture PROVING that I can walk on water!
   No single piece of evidence counts as "proof", especially if it's known to 
be fakeable.
 II> In closing, I must say that while you have made a strong case, there
 II> are still some pretty sizable holes in it.
   And in closing, I will remind you that the article is only a summary, and 
that you can't criticize the argument or the evidence without having read the 
book.
Paul
... and that is how we know the Earth is banana-shaped ...  
--- Blue Wave/Max v2.30 [NR]
---------------