TRUTH           ENGINE

                      TRUTH ENGINE HOME                              TO ROSWELL CONTENTS                                IKON                                COMPANY/CONTACT                        

to page:    1   1a    1b   1c    2    3   4   5   6   7   8    9   10  11  12 

to next page

to previous page











The following argument is, in my opinion, the strongest argument against the notion that the Roswell debris was exotic or alien. But I believe that there is a good rebuttal to it, and that in the process of rebutting it, we learn something new about the visitors' intentions. The skeptic might say, at this point:


Skeptic. [vs. 89 (p. 1c.)] You claim (see 89) that "an alien spacecraft crashed and left the debris on the Foster Ranch." The following is an argument against that claim: 400 Dr. Albert Crary, in his log for June 4, 1947 (see 271-286, p. 8), describes the launch of a "regular sonobuoy" in a cluster of balloons. 401 This cluster was, according to available records, never recovered. 402 Believer, none of the arguments that you articulate above clearly show that the cluster of June 4 did not carry ML-307 radar reflectors. In fact, there are good reasons for thinking both that it did and that it did not. 403 If it did carry such reflectors, however, then there is every reason to believe that they had tape with purple floral designs attached to them. 404 Furthermore, there are good reasons (see above, 293, p. 8) to think that this flight was heading toward the Foster ranch when it disappeared and good reasons (323-328) to think that it wasn't. There is now no way to reconstruct its flight path, using meteorological data or from memory, with any degree of certainty. 405 Therefore, it remains a distinct possibility that on June 4, 1947, a flight carrying ML-307 radar reflectors was released and was heading toward the Foster ranch when it disappeared.

Now consider the following: 406 If the train of such a balloon cluster had landed on the Foster ranch, and been shredded by the surface winds, then its remains would consist of short balsa-wood beams, quite possibly with tape--with purple floral designs on it--attached to the beams, metal foil, paper (backing on the foil), nylon twine, and possibly a box for ballast or plastic parts of such a box. 407 But this matches exactly the gross properties of the Foster ranch debris. 408 The actual Roswell debris, as everyone agrees, consisted of light balsa-like beams with purple designs on them, metal foil, a paper- or parchment-like material, tough string, a small box, and a bakelite-type material. 409 If the Roswell debris was from a crashed alien spacecraft, then this amazing Mogul match was coincidental. 410 But the chances are infinitesimally tiny that a crashed exotic craft would just happen to leave wreckage that so closely and coincidentally matched, even in gross appearance, what may well have been the parts of a balloon train attached to a balloon that may well have disappeared in the same area at roughly the same time. It's ridiculous to believe that such a fantastically incredible coincidence occurred. 411 So, no alien craft crashed near Roswell in 1947.*

412 [vs. 87, p. 1c.] Believer, you say (see 87) that "the materials that were recovered near Roswell in July of 1947, the bodies, and the ship itself were exotic, otherworldly." But as Believer agrees (see 88, p. 1c.), 413 if the material was exotic, then a saucer crashed. And so,  414 the materials were not exotic.* [ 415]


415 [vs. 413] In fact, I agree with the skeptic (see 410) that "it's ridiculous to believe that such a fantastically incredible coincidence occurred," and that, therefore (see 411), "no alien craft crashed near Roswell in 1947." But he (see 413) repeats the claim that if the material was exotic, then a saucer crashed. But, again, this is not proven (nor is  88, which I adopted only provisionally). For instance, (as I noted above, in relation to the "flying saucers wouldn't crash" argument--see 183, p. 3) if the debris were left by aliens to simulate a crash, i.e., if they staged the "crash," then the debris could be exotic without there having been a crash (i.e., 413 (& 88) would be false). The skeptic, however, might respond:


Skeptic. 416 [vs. 415 and vs. 183] As I noted in response to your earlier argument, it's certainly within the realm of possibility that it was staged by aliens. But when I said (414) that the materials weren't exotic, I meant, of course, that the chance of their being exotic was miniscule, and not worth considering.*   417 But, as before, you seem to be suggesting not merely that the idea that it was staged is possible, but that it is actually plausible. But that's ridiculous. Ockham's Razor simply rules it out. You have no reason to attribute the Roswell incident to aliens.* [ 418]


418 [vs. 417] But if that was all there was to the argument, then the idea of "alien staging" would, indeed, be ruled out by Ockham's Razor. But the following argument forces us to accept alien staging: First, let's assume that you're correct in saying (see 413) that "if the material was exotic, then a saucer crashed," and see where that gets us: 419  i If the material was exotic, then a saucer crashed, but ii if the material was not exotic, then the testimony of Major Marcel and the other witnesses is unreliable. 420 Either i the material was exotic or ii it was not exotic. 421 Therefore, either i a saucer crashed or ii the testimony of Marcel and the others is unreliable.*

422 But 421 seems (probably) false--that is, it seems that both 421i and 421ii are (probably) false. (You showed (see 410) that the debris at Roswell (very probably) didn't come from a crashed saucer, and BELIEVER showed (see 86, p. 1c.) that the witness testimony (probably) is reliable).*

423 But if the conclusion (421) is false, then at least one of the premises (419 or 420) must be false. 424 The false premise can't be 420, because it's just simply true that the debris was either exotic or not. 425 Therefore, it is 419 that is probably false--but which part of 419?  426 Clearly, 419ii is true: its simply true that if the debris wasn't exotic, then the witness testimony was not reliable. 427 Therefore, probably, what's false is 419i; i.e., it must be false to say that if the debris was exotic, then a saucer crashed. That is, it's true that the debris was exotic, yet there was no crash. 428 This forces us to conclude that the "crash" was staged by exotic beings. [ 429]

The skeptic could say:


Skeptic. 429 [vs. 428] You can solve this dilemma in one of two ways: first, you could do as you do, and question the truth of 419i; but, alternatively, you could say, contra your 422, that 421 is not false, that, even if it seemed improbable, 421ii is true; that is, that the witness testimony is, in fact, unreliable. 430 It seems more reasonable to do it the second way. [ 431]


431 [vs. 430] But I think that its more reasonable to do it the first way. The idea of alien staging was rejected (417) only because of Ockham's Razor, it was not deemed improbable. That the witness testimony is unreliable, however, is improbable.




411.  409, 410 MT

414.  413, 411 MT.   from an argument by Kent Jeffrey: J pp. 10-11

416. 414 clarification

417.  logical principle: Ockham's Razor

421. 419, 420 ECR

422. Thus, this Constructive Rule pattern turns into a Constructive Dilemma.




to page:    1   1a    1b   1c    2    3   4   5   6   7   8    9   10  11  12 

to next page

to previous page



© Richard Crist, 2007