Talk:Witness accounts of the Roswell UFO incident
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information. |
 |
This article was nominated for deletion on 2 May 2008. The result of the discussion was keep. |
 |
This article is being improved by WikiProject Rational Skepticism. Wikiproject Rational Skepticism seeks to improve the quality of articles dealing with science, pseudosciences, pseudohistory and skepticism. Please feel free to help us improve this page. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
The only thing that benefits from doubt is truth. |
|
[edit] New material added by Dr Fil
Again, you've added quite a bit of material without bothering to discuss anything. And, again, you seek to cast doubt on Cavitt's testimony. There is NO dispute whether he was actually at the scene or not. Your POV insertion would be relevant if there WAS doubt. Cavitt himself on numerous occasions told friendly interviewers that he got sick of the harassment from other researchers who basically called him a liar because he described balloon debris and not aliens, so he started to deny he was there. AGAIN, if we are to include this, then we should list the non-material discrepancies with statements from other witnesses, in particular those whose actual presence at Roswell has been put into serious doubt. For example, numerous witness statements found on this page have been completely discredited, like Kaufman's. Or Anderson's. Yet they are given here AT FACE VALUE. In the case of Haut, because he previously gave different statements in regards to what he said it is MATERIAL to include the different stories. But if he was tired of talking to researchers and on several occasions said "I wasn't there" to get rid of them, would we include those statements, thus planting the seed of doubt that this person actually wasn't involved at all? I wouldn't, and I'm getting sick and tired of your attempts to discredit one of the very few witnesses on this page whose presence has been confirmed by numerous others for the simple reason that he describes non-alien material.
Also, noting the "contrast" between Cavitt and Ricket seems out of place, since there are numerous discrepancies between witnesses on this page. Why not label all the others the same way? Why not point out that Haut's recent affidavit raises some basic questions as to why Marcel never claimed he saw aliens or debris which clearly was more "alien" in appearance than anything he actually described. I'll tell you why not. Because this page is simply "witness accounts." NOT "witness accounts with notes added to indicate which accounts are doubtful or contradict this other witness account."
I've said this a million times, Dr Fil: We are not here to make a court case one way or the other. There is no "cross examination" going on here. People claimed a) and b). And that's what we put here. Let the skeptics and the authors make the links and suggest why witness A and witness B are to be believed or not to be believed. You seem to pretend that only "skeptics" discount many witnesses here - in fact, many researchers who ACCEPT that aliens were present have serious questions about most if not all of the accounts to be found on this page. But to referee all that is not the function of the page.
As for the rest, I only feel now that the farm hand who describes having to go "a mile" out of his way as a description of the debris field is rather useless. All that indicates is the debris field was less than a mile across. Which could mean 5,000 feet, or could also mean 5 feet. It's a pretty useless and non-specific description. As for the other stuff, looks good to me. Canada Jack 17:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Rant
rant rant rant rant rant rant rant rant rant rant rant rant rant rant rant rant rant rant rant rant rant rant rant rant rant rant rant rant rant rant rant rant rant rant rant rant rant rant rant rant rant rant rant rant rant rant rant rant rant rant rant rant rant rant rant rant rant rant rant rant rant rant rant rant rant rant rant rant rant rant rant rant rant rant rant rant rant rant rant rant rant rant rant rant rant rant rant rant rant rant rant rant rant rant rant rant rant rant rant rant rant rant rant rant rant rant rant rant rant rant rant rant rant rant rant rant rant rant rant rant rant rant rant rant rant rant rant rant rant rant rant rant rant rant rant rant rant rant rant rant rant rant rant rant rant rant rant rant rant rant rant rant rant rant rant rant
S02178 (talk) 06:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)S02178
