UfO's Created the Debunker

Interview with former Pentagon Colonel Philip J. Corso:
The following interview of Philip J. Corso and William Birnes, authors of "The Day After Roswell," was conducted by CNI News Editor Michael Lindemann on July 5, 1997, in Roswell, New Mexico, during the 50th Anniversary of the Crash at Roswell.

(ML = Michael Lindemann / PC = Phil Corso / WB = William Birnes)

[interview cut]

Well if that wasn't the biggest load I've read in a long time. Have you ever heard of logical fallacies? That whole interview was LOADED with them. Question begging, appeals to authority, popularity and prejudicial language, arguments from ignorance and personal incredulity, the list goes on and on and on.

I think Wolf needs to check out this logical fallacies list and re-evaluate his claims, they're just getting silly.

Get of your cross. This is an interview with an officer who was for years the head of the secret Pentagon R&D. You couldn't beg answers even if you tortured him. Corso has written a book, by the way, releasing similar information as in the inverview.

wolf, you just commited another fallacy: a fallacious appeal to authority.

Please do read the list.

Aha, reinforcements, finally. Der über-creep joins in. I know that list, it's dug up at every ufo discussion on the web. It could be used to discredit everything, and it treats testimonies as if they are irrelevant to any issue, or as if whistleblowing revelations have a moot impact.

Let's see how the troop of debunkers get their heads around this:

1. Point out that very large percentages of things reported as UFOs turn out to have conventional explanations (but don't talk about individual observers' varying abilities or how believers screen and investigate cases).
2. Always refer to them as UFO believers or ET believers, implying that their position is faith-based.
3. Argue that any given case could have been something conventional and we will never know because we never have all the facts (but don't acknowledge that well-qualified observers have reported unexplained craft-like objects displaying extraordinary performance totaling in the hundreds or thousands).
4. (Corollary to 3): Avoid any mention of the patterns of appearance and behavior in unexplained cases worldwide for many decades.
5. Focus on the well-known problems and limitations of human perception (but never mention that people are incarcerated on the basis of eye-witness testimony, that our court systems could not function without it, and that if human perception were as inadequate as claimed, nobody would dare to cross a busy street or fly an airplane).

I wish I produced more bullshit, it would attract less flies. How paradoxal.

wolf, why are you acting so petulant today? You normally are not as caustic. If your arguments are sound you shouldn't have to resort to calling me a creep.

I'll take number 2:

You ARE a UFO believer.

You ARE an ET believer.

You readily admit to it.

Yes, I believe it's probable ufos to be extraterrestrial, but this is based on the belief in the witnesses and the validity of the studies, not on blind faith.

wolf,

All beliefs require a certain amount of faith. Certainty does not exist with only one exception.

I'm gonna leave the UFO/ET thing for now and ask you something else.

You claim to be discerning, indeed, I have seen you discount many UFO sightings while embracing others.

But why then, do you cling to some of the more readily debunked ones?

For example, the claim that the Bush "security council" sues Microsoft to try to get a backdoor in Windows so that tehy can spy on people.

Claims like that are obviously false, the lawsuits were initiated before Bush took office.

In those cases if you do not cede being wrong when it is apparent to you then it's only fair for others to label some of your beliefs as dogmatic in nature.

Your claim about the US government installing backdoors in firewalls is another example. Look at the code, or hire a programmer to.

You don;t need to take my word for it you can have a look and verify for yourself.

Then you compare this to a buffer overun vulnerability, that is a common vulnerability that when found can be exploited by anyone, not just the US government.

In short what I am saying is that there are times in which it's patently obvious that you claims range from outlandish to downright false.

I'm not talking about abstract arguments about UFO data. I'm talking about you making a claim that a software has code in it when it doesn;t. You can simply look inside and see for yourself (or, if you do not know how, have someone else do it for you).

In those cases where there is no "jugement call" and simply verifiable facts, your complainst about being derided for a faith-based belief are not relevant. Your beliefs are demonstratably false in those cases and your belief in them can't be factual, so what else other than paranoia and faith can it be?

Note that paranoia is not always bad, and neither is faith.

A bit cheap, your line of thought there. You insert a discussion from another thread to discredit my presence here. There is not much I can respond, except that I don't like this.

wolf, I am not trying to discredit your "presence here" I am just trying to get a handle on some things about you that I find inexplicable.

Some of your beliefs can be demostrated as false (and i used as an example something from another thread when you claimed Bush was behind something that preceeded his presidency). In those cases do you not agree that you were hasty in your allegation and that it was not factually supported?

Now follows the character assassination. Oh well.

Poppy Bush has money, influence in circles and motive enough to steer policy in certain directions. He's considered as a guardian angel for large parts of the CIA. None of my allegations about him are unfounded.

But do stay on topic, Webmeister.

wolf,

Can you recommend a way in which I can disagree with you without it being "character assasination" and without resulting in your sarcasm?

I made an earnest question, do you not agree that when wrong (and we all are sometimes) you need to rethink? Or risk having your opinions be dismissed as dogma?

Again, an earnest question.

When wrong what? I just refuted to be wrong, as far as George HW Bush is concerned.

The more you try to fight me, the more you draw attention to yourselves. If I were really a loonie with loonie proposals this thread would have been on the bottom of the page since long.

What will the customers say, masta De Kere?

wolf, i am not trying to "fight" you. You did not "refute to be wrong".

You claimed that Bush was trying to isntall a backdoor in Windows and the evidence was the lawsuits against Microsoft.

I noted that the lawsuits preceeded the Bush administration.

And you are wrong about loonies, indefatigable loonies almost always enjoy a healthy level of activity on their threads.

And I said



A half brain would suffice to understand that this influence includes periods outside official administrations. The best example being the evolution towards the presidential takeover in 2000. Bush wasn't in power either, but got his son in the White House.

I'm starting to get tired of your 'who's got the longest' duel. This thread deserves better than your disturbing interference.

wolf,

It, to me, hasn't been a duel. We don't have to discuss it anymore.

Stay safe.

Reading is fundamental
Don't be left out of the loop - Reading is fundamental