Not for a moment did i believe that you'd made anyting up. My contention all along has been that you've been taken in by those with a specific agenda . . .
Your
Rapport Cometa link leads you to a site, not by any agency of the French government, but one maintained by an individual, one Marc Angee. This is from the introductory page of his site, at which the UFO nonsense is just a part:
Ce site a pour but de faire l'apologie de la science contre toutes les formes d'obscurantisme.
De la science comme facteur de progrès pour l'humanité, non pas telle qu'elle est pratiquée, mais telle qu'elle devrait l'être, c'est à dire :
sans dogme,
avec une ouverture d'esprit constante vers la nouveauté, ( 1 )
en élargissant ses domaines de recherche, ( 2 )
avec plus de transparence et de démocratie.
Car la science, même si les scientifiques s'en défendent, a toujours été et est encore trop souvent dogmatique.
Ainsi, elle apparaît par bien des aspects comme une nouvelle religion :
Son Dieu se nomme hasard.
Elle a ses saints.
Elle a ses grands prêtres.
Elle a ses messes.
Elle a ses conciles.
Elle a ses inquisiteurs.
Enfin, elle a aussi ses hérétiques.
"This site has for its purpose the making of an
apologia for science as opposed to all forms of obscurantism. Of science as a factor of the progress of humanity, and not as it is practiced, but as it ought to be, which is to say: without dogma, with a constant openness of spirit toward novelty, and enlargement of the domains [or realms] of research, with a greater transparence and democracy . . . Because science, even though scientists will deny it, has always been and still is too often dogmatic. Thus, it appears in a great many aspects like a new religion: It's god calls himself chance, it has saints, it has high priests, it has masses [i.e., religious ritural proceeedings], it has its councils, it has its inquisitors, and, finally it has its heretics."
Your boy Marc here may preach a doctrine of which you approve, but he is obviously not to be taken for an established scientist. Were you to object that say as much makes me a dupe of some hidebound scientific community, it would matter little to me--you have nevertheless shown that you are relying upon a source which is not only not a part of that group which prepared the French report, but a source which declares himself to be inimical to the established scientific community whose work he has claimed to use. I consider him to be therefore a suspect witness, someone who brings an agenda to the examination of the material. He cannot be considered a reliable source. If you ever bother to provide a link to the report itself, i'd be interested to read. I have no interest in reading the report as filtered by someone whose stated purpose at the outset is to ridicule and belittle the scientific community you have claimed supports your thesis.
I'm not going to waste much time on the CUFOS site, because in going there, one of the first things which i noticed was their "Roswell page." In clicking on the link, i was taken to a PDF document which began with recounting the "UFO incident" by describing how it had been "seen flitting across the skies." No such claim was ever made anywhere. A hired caretaker found debris which he turned in to the United States Army Air Corps; and another major blunder in their specious text--there was no United States Air force until July 26, 1947--you may consider that minor, but the point is that they have twice shown themselves to be completely unreliable about facts within three paragraphs--Mr. Brazel picked up debris in the first week of July, and reported it to the USAAF, something he had done in the past. There are no contemporary reports of any UFO sightings in the sky near Rowell at that time. Rather than take at face value, i try to find out something about the authors, or i compare their material to other evidence. In so doing so far, i've found that someone you link for the Cometa Report is actually someone who is dedicated to an intellectual assault on the scientific community who you claim provide the evidence you've been touting. I go to the other link, and find a group making claims about themselves which i'm not prepared to believe, because the first document i find has numerous errors within the opening paragraph and is in direct contradiction of the recorded events of what has been blown out of proportion as the Roswell Incident, something which did not occur until 30 years after the event, and was accomplished by a man whose purpose was to write an sell a book, without regard for any sincere investigation of the truth. I can offer you links which debunk your crap as easily:
Committe for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal--Rowell Page[/color].
You have not yet provided a single reliable source. As for the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal, you should check them out, they are a fine resource, and i've taken the time to back track through all of their claims of credentials. They are legitimate--unlike the authors of the two sites you've linked. You've now twice posted here at A2K the following statement from your beloved CUFOS:
CUFOS wrote:In its conclusion, COMETA claims that the physical reality of UFOs, under control of intelligent beings, is "quasi-certain." Only one hypothesis takes into account the available data: the hypothesis of extraterrestrial visitors. This hypothesis is of course unproven, but has far-reaching consequences. The goals of these alleged visitors remain unknown but must be the subject of speculations and prospective scenarios.
In fact, only the expression "quasi-certain" is a part of the portion of the French text which i found at the site Walter provided above. The rest of this paragraph was made up from whole cloth by the authors of the CUFOS site, and
it is not a translation of any portion of the French report. You're being played for a sucker by people like this, and haven't the wit to realize it. Perhaps someday you will. If you can't come up with any better substantiation for your crap claims than that, i'll thank to refrain in future from sneering at me, or advising me to "grow a brain."
