posted by RRRGroup at
Tuesday, December 03, 2013
This has the impression of episodic television programming that is formulaic. One word that came to mind was “predictable” instead of revelatory. Another application of innuendo and inference as a lubricant to keep the rusting wheel turning that goes nowhere, except to turn around itself. Beyond this, its a harmless exercise in killing time in order to perpetuate a minuscule footnote blown up ten times normal size in light of all the other contrary aspects of the phenomenon left out of this portrait. Beyond this, the fuel of commentary to keep the barge afloat has the same qualities in opposition to this theory, a snowball fight with fluff.
By Bruce Duensing, at Tuesday, December 03, 2013
Ha, Bruce,You wax quixotic and poetical.RR
By RRRGroup, at Tuesday, December 03, 2013
And rather than reveal his father's death bed confession to the world, he instead imparts the information to a hodge-podge of people, non of who were in a position to really do anything with it.Oh, and having been given this information, it seems nobody bothered to follow up with further questions.
By Ross, at Tuesday, December 03, 2013
I feel AJB simply has to cling onto whatever trivia he comes across in his investigations. This in order to keep a dying cause alive, even if it is still in a deep coma.In a way it is reminiscent of all those 'mysterious' deaths of people connected (however remotely) with the JFK assassination. If you are a conspiracist, each one adds a small piece to the great conspiracy conundrum. But for, shall we say, the more clearer & rational thinking persons, none of these deaths mean anything at all.
By cda, at Tuesday, December 03, 2013
RichYesterday I read Robert Kennedy's essay in Rolling Stone which was full of disturbing documented insights into the conflict between JFK, the CIA and the military which resulted in a series of overt attempts to sabotage him. All of it documented as compared to this latest episode from the land that time forgot.Its simply gossip frozen in time that as taken on a life of it's own..it's all suggestion. What do you do with this? Well..nothing. There no revisionism it's simply more gossip atop gossip.The contrast between this AJB post and the Kennedy essay is striking. The latter makes you wonder while the former could be likened to "art for art's sake"..So theres a minority of obsession over an unsubstantiated fantasy versus actual history. A word that comes to mind is "quaint"
Ross wrote...“…he instead imparts the information to a hodge-podge of people, non (sic) of who were in a position to really do anything with it.”You’re right. He should have given the information to someone important—like maybe a four star Air Force General.
By Larry, at Tuesday, December 03, 2013
CDA-Would you dishonor your father's legacy with lies?AJB
By Anthony Bragalia, at Tuesday, December 03, 2013
Anthony"In an respectful, honorable relationship, your rejoinder to CDA is valid.However, there are often exigencies between fathers and sons that belie respect and honor.I won't apply Freud here, but do suggest Turgenev's book, Fathers and Sons, to make a point.Sometimes fathers don't deserve honor or respect, and sometimes sons may hate their fathers.And, as you provided privately to me, there are circumstances in the Twining story that do not make his son's secondhand confessional a truism.CDA and others see the problem, as so I.RR
Let's remember that there is independent confirmation that General Twining made a previously unscheduled trip to Alamogordo AAF on July 7, 1947. The infamous IPU report alleges that he was there to see the "craft" that had crashed. There is also independent confirmation that he visited Kirtland AAF on July 8th to allegedly view "the power plant." He flew back to Wright Field on the 10th of July, 1947. Does all of this mesh with his son's assertions about what his Dad told him aliens? Sure does.
By Dominick, at Tuesday, December 03, 2013
Dominick:You say: "Sure does"Sure doesn't. Robert Todd dealt with all of this a decade ago. His visit had no connection with the 'incident' whatever. Just more of JFK-like stuff?
More "evidence" from the "he said someone else said that a guy who might have been alive at some point claimed" school.Even the prosecutors at a Stalin-era show trial would be embarrassed to call this "evidence."
By Paul Kimball, at Tuesday, December 03, 2013
Since publishing this piece I have received even more confirmation that Nathan Jr did indeed say these things to a select number of people.Now, CDA, Paul K, Bruce, Ross, there are only two possibilities:1) Nathan Jr. was telling lies about his father2) His General father told his son lies about RoswellNathan Jr. is by every available indication a stand-up guy who was truthful in business and in life. He loved his Dad, speaking fondly of him to many- and he inherited a fortune from him. Not the kind of guy to defame his father. And the fact that Nathan Jr. told these things to only a very few- and did not seek fame by coming out with this with great fanfare publicly is yet another reason to believe the man.Why don't you?AJB
AJB:The reason I don't believe him is that no such thing as the crash- landing of an ET craft at Roswell ever happened. Simple, isn't it?By the way, there are more than the two possibilities you mention. You ought by now to be able to figure these out yourself, but I fear you can't.Suffice to say that there are a lot of shades of grey between black & white.
Simple. Because you have ZERO reliable evidence that Twining's son said what you think he said about what his father allegedly said to him about what allegedly happened at Roswell (i.e. aliens). You have some woman named Jo Walters relating a story she claims to have heard from Twining Jr.That and $5 will get you a Starbucks latte. But nobody - NOBODY - with an ounce of common sense nor an understanding of how real research with real evidence is conducted would view it as anything other than what it is - uncorroborated third hand storytelling.
AJBIt would be superfluous to add anything beyond that of CDA and PK..the only rejoinder is to reemphasize what I said in the beginning..theres nothing to refute beyond fluff and suggestion and that keeps this exercise frozen in time afloat.Its a game of ping pong less the ping pong ball.
Is it not about time that we had an "evidence" discussion on this blog? What is "evidence"? Most of the skeptics assert that what Tony has provided is not "evidence" or at least not "reliable evidence" as Paul Kimball puts it. Kimball makes the point, correctly, that the story that Tony provides is hear-say...and far removed from the alleged original source. Reliable evidence in a court of law? Probably not. But there are degrees of evidence that correlate, perhaps, with degrees of proof. Hard, direct physical evidence ("best evidence" in legal jargon) is the gold standard for evidence and offers the most probable indication that some particular allegation is true. (Even here, of course, there can be disputes over provinance, measurement,etc.). First hand testimony would be second best "evidence" but it, too, is open to challenge and interpretation. Is it "evidence"? Sure it is, but it's reliability is certainly on a lower scale than direct physical evidence. Then, of course, there is "hear-say" (evidence) and regardless of what has been said above, it is also "evidence" of a sort but at a far lower (reliability) level than, say, first hand evidence. Indeed, there are several situations (even at law) when hear-say evidence is taken...and taken seriously. Could it be simply "uncorroborated third-hand storytelling" as Kimball asserts? It could be...but it does not HAVE to be. Indeed, I would rate it higher (in terms of reliability) than, say, "circumstantial evidence" which has often been employed to prove guilt in some criminal case.The point of my comment: There are degrees of proof (and degrees of reliability) and it's not all black and white when it comes to substantiation of some hyupothesis. We certainly want "gold" if we can get it. But in the absence of gold (evidence) we must pay some attention to the other kinds of evidence (or stories if you will)that appear from time to time and warrant our attention.
CDA-There are in fact only two possibilities- Nathan Jr or Nathan Sr lied.Some things are black and white.AJBPS Do not say that Nathan Jr "misinterpreted" what his father told him- what was said was unambiguous.
AJB-"There are in fact only two possibilities- Nathan Jr or Nathan Sr lied."AND there are in fact at least more two possibilities- some woman named Jo Walters lied or some woman named Jo Walters made an honest mistake of recollection.Some things are grey, Earl.
By Kurt Peters, at Tuesday, December 03, 2013
AJB:You say, based on 2nd or 3rd hand testimony, that the live Roswell alien communicated with General Twining by telepathy.Tell me please: 1. Have you any reason for supposing that Twining had telepathic powers? Is this documented anywhere? 2. Have you any reason for supposing the ET also had telepathic powers?No such thing as intelligent life outside the earth is known to science; no such thing as telepathy is accepted by science either. Yet you go one step further and tell us that not only do ETs exist and have visited our planet but that they can also communicate with us by telepathy! Come back Adamski, all is forgiven.
Theres another example of non existent allegations. " There is also independent confirmation that he visited Kirtland AAF on July 8th to allegedly view "the power plant." Allegedly view the power plant. He either did or he didn't view the power plant. Beyond that, who did he meet with? Who was he scheduled to meet with? You just don't wing this kind of thing. So we have innuendo on top of inference. Another words..nothing.
CDAIts obvious that AJB doe not know the difference between and an allegation and circumstantial evidence. They are two different things. And so it goes.
"Its obvious that AJB doe not know the difference between and an allegation and circumstantial evidence. They are two different things."...as an old Hoosier, I seem to recall being taught as a pup about differentiating between a minor excavation into the Earth's crust, and my own personal gluteus maximus....
By Kurt Peters, at Wednesday, December 04, 2013
Mr. Braglia can't process that Ms. Walters could be wrong or lying. Rather, he states flatly that to express doubt is to slander the Twinings.If those are AJB's ground rules, I'll offer this:My dead father told me many years ago that the live Roswell alien told him that Jo Walters is lying.If you disagree, there can only be two possibilities!(repeat as necessary)
By Terry the Censor, at Wednesday, December 04, 2013
Post a Comment
A group of media guys
View my complete profile