UFOs, Extraterrestrial Contact, Conspiracy, Exopolitics, Geopolitics, Paranormal, Crypto-zoology, Ancient History, Cutting-Edge Science & Special Guests.

Latest topics

» Immaterialism
Today at 9:58 am by cwallatruth

» Hello, Cy, OMF II - Part 2
Today at 9:34 am by whoknows

» Montage grokking
Yesterday at 9:53 pm by mion

» AP's YouTube vids
Fri Aug 10, 2018 6:38 am by 99

» What Music Are You Listening To ?
Thu Aug 09, 2018 5:35 pm by 99

» CC's Wacky World of Disclosure
Wed Aug 08, 2018 5:53 pm by 99

» Catalina Islands/4th Dimensional Portal/Kit Green
Wed Aug 08, 2018 12:18 pm by 99

» Could DNA prove that ancient Egyptians visited Ireland?
Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:48 pm by 99

» UFO Nuclear Missile and Reactor Site Incidents
Fri Aug 03, 2018 2:01 pm by 99

Headline Relay: Linda Moulton Howe Interview of Naval Officer - Antarctica

Wed Jan 10, 2018 11:13 pm by Cyrellys

Linda Moulton Howe Interview of Naval Officer - Antarctica  

MMR Twitter News

August 2018


Calendar Calendar

Farrell's Fallacies



Farrell's Fallacies

Post by Guest on Thu Aug 04, 2016 11:54 am

Joseph Farrell always says that if you read him carefully, Tom Van Flandern had doubts about the explosion of planets but he never did. I have the book, and signed by the author, and I read it carefully, and I also have carefully read his articles at MetaResearch and was a member, and nowhere, no how does he ever say, imply, nor suggest that he has doubts about the mechanism or process he proposes for the explosion of planets; he was a big believer in Le Sage gravity and stated unequivocally that it would provide more than enough power/energy required. I don't know if Farrell is deliberately promoting  a fantasy to shore up his theory or if he made some kind of error.

He also stated that the name Krypton for the exploded planet was coined in the 19th c., but it was actually coined in 1972 by Canadian astronomer Michael Ovenden, and it couldn't have been coined before  the Superman comics came out in  the 1930s. Also, Farrell's idea is implausible because the 6 exploded planets are in pairs, and the outer 4 would have been irrelevant to a war in the inner solar system. And it's also their moons that blew up (for 4 of them),  and people wouldn't be going around blowing up planets and their moons for nothing especially considering the energy that would be involved. All those other exploded  planets  he ignores.

Another one of his fallacies concerns  Roswell, of course. He has always had an emotional reaction towards any ET association with Nazi technology and came to this specific book topic with a very emotional, biased, and subjective attitude with the goal of attempting to discredit any ET connection to Roswell, instead of doing an objective presentation, which reduces his credibility as a scholar. To his credit, however, he does at least recognize the unimaginable stupidity and absurdity of the balloon explanations, and he does make a good case for his central premise, that what crashed near Roswell was Nazi technology (based on his comparison of the debris to Nazi technology recovered by the Allies, and the Schulgen Intelligence Collection Memo, and that it came from an extraterritorial base in Argentina). Also, he does not say all UFOs are terrestrial, nor that all are Nazi. But the book is predictably exploited by dogmatic skeptics to promote conventional explanations.

The other premise, that there is no ET component to it falls down flat. It is based on 3 completely invalid points.

1) That the descriptions of the occupants of the craft do not compel to an ET explanation, which is totally and absolutely false because the descriptions fit exactly the greys seen in other UFO cases especially abductions. The eyewitnesses to the bodies in the Roswell case almost invariably tell of small bodies, large heads, and large or slanted eyes, and when details are given, no mouth or a slit for a mouth, and no nose (or rudimentary nose), and no ears (or rudimentary ears), and 4 digits are reported. And the skin is variously described as pale, grey, brown, or yellowish, the variations probably due to different lighting conditions. Rowlette specifically said they are the greys. Farrell also suggests that the Redfern explanation, obviously disinformation, is correct, but progeria symptoms do not include large eyes, rudimentary mouth, nose, and ears, nor tetradactyly, and progeria is very rare (1 in 8 mln.), so the victims would be hard to find.

2) That the bodies were added to the story later on, which is totally and absolutely false, too. Inez Wilcox does say in her diary entry that there were rumours it was made by the Germans, but also rumours that it was from another planet (Birnes, 2004). On top of that, there is the Ramey memo photo enhanced and analyzed, which proves that the bodies were known at the time and not at all added later. Farrell presents the Houran-Randle critique, which says there was reader bias in analysis of the memo in favour of the ETH, but he fails to present its debunking, which shows the critique to be invalid because of experimenter bias and statistical errors (RoswellProof.Com). Randle is not a reliable ufologist as he casts aspersions on reliable evidence, has backed hoaxers (Ragsdale and Kaufman), defamed Donald Schmitt only because he had provided a piece of false information about himself, and has even gone into denial about the reality of abductions. Furthermore, there is the testimony of many, often with affadavits, who state that they saw the bodies at the time (6 1st hand witnesses: Lt. Walter Haut, Sgt. Frederick Benthal, P1C Eli Benjamin, W. Cully Holden (prof. emeritus at U. of Nebraska), Sydney Wright, and an unnamed archeologist), or that they heard of them at the time (about 15 2nd-hand cases, involving about 60 witnesses), and this is excluding hoaxes and dubious cases, which number about 10. Attempts to debunk each of the credible and reliable witnesses also fall flat.

3) That the witness testimony is unreliable, which uses the straw man argument that if 1 or a few are unreliable, they all are. Most are credible and reliable witnesses whose stories check out. Farrell claims the Glenn Dennis story collapses and that it is considered invalid by both sides, but this is totally and absolutely false because he provided a false name for his nurse friend only to protect her identity, and he is corroborated by 8 other witnesses (Roswell police chief L.M. Hall (with affadavit), S. Sgt. Milton Sprouse, Adam Dutchover, Rex Alcorn, Clifford Butts, Wm. Burkstaller, Garner Mason, and Beverly Ott) (RoswellProof.Com; Carey and Schmitt, 2009) and Carey and Schmitt consider him to be a very credible witness. The name of the nurse might be Lt. Adeline Fanton or Mary Lowe.

Farrell also states deathbed confessions are not admissible in court, but Carey and Schmitt contradict this. In any case, hearsay evidence is not admissible in court. But not all the evidence is hearsay and there are extenuating circumstances, being the very criminal cover-up. And in this vein, it should be noted that if science was based on legal standards, if it was based on evidence over emotion, which it should be, most of its major theories would have to be discarded or wouldn't be adopted in the 1st place. And if it was illegal to promote known fallacies most scientists would be in jail.

As well, he makes the argument that the saucer recovered at Roswell did not have interstellar capability, which is a totally hollow argument, even if true, because the saucers are carried on mother ships, which are well-known and often observed, saucers have bases underground, underwater, and on the moon, and since they use antigravity they would have interstellar ability anyways as they would be able to reach speeds of 100s or 1000s that of light (contrary to the myth, Einsteinian relativity is largely false; see, e.g., Requiem for Relativity by Michael Strauss, Subquantum Kinetics by Paul LaViolette, and Dark Matter, Missing  Planets, and New Comets by Thomas Van Flandern). Also, any inconsistencies or discrepancies in the testimony would be due to certain details not remembered accurately because it had been decades since the event, and in any occurence there are always discrepancies anyways.

Furthermore, a German connection to Roswell does not at all compel to a terrestrial explanation, and, in fact, bolsters the view of close coopereation between Germans and ETs. There is a close association between ETs and the NDA (Nazi Party) as the Nazis themselves said they got their technology from ETs, Barney Hill saw Nazis in the UFO, and some early contactees (in the '50s) told of the occupants speaking German. Also, the NDA originated in a secret society, the Thule Society, and had a connection with the Vril Society, if this one was a real secret society, and the SS was run as a secret society, and secret societies have a connection with space aliens (see especially Wm. Bramley and Vladimir Tersiski). The logical conclusion is that what crashed at Roswell that fateful July day in '47 was both ET and German, so to say it was German technology is a half truth.

Most of the above is a comment under a review for Farrell's book on the matter by me at Amazon as Benny Booker (the picture in my profile is me at 21 in '72).


Re: Farrell's Fallacies

Post by Guest on Thu Apr 12, 2018 11:54 am

In the '94 book, The Truth About the UFO Crash at Roswell, by Randle and Schmitt, there are drawings of descriptions of the recovered cadavers which depict very human-like beings, the only difference being the large (bald) head. Also, they say that the UFO was an airplane without wings, not a saucer, but was not the Horten flying wing, which was developed by the Luftwaffe.

    Current date/time is Wed Aug 15, 2018 10:17 am