The Fair Skeptic Registry

Membership Application Closes at 15:00 CST (21:00 GMT)

You have roughly 8-9 hours left to actively state in this thread if you wish to be a member. Yesterday the decision was made to close membership within 24 hours for several reasons, but chief amongst them is that our membership is already rather large, and very soon after we go "Open For Business", everyone and their brother is going to want to be a member. Future admissions after closing will be on an invitee basis, based on those we find within threads who show they exhibit the standards of fairness and presentation of findings. We need to start getting organized, and until membership is closed, the bickering over what FS "needs to be" isn't going to stop. It might not even stop then, but we stand a better chance of eventually opening for business this way.

New Members:

Please welcome to our newest members, CaptainLazy, Shawnna, lost_shaman, and SwatMedic.

Current Members (26 Confirmed):

CaptainLazy
Shawnna
lost_shaman
SwatMedic
Gazrok
supercheetah
Spreadthetruth
sigung86
Sophismata
Springer
FredT
eaglewingz
ignorant_ape
behindthescenes
ArMaP
cheepnis
spines
Dracotic
jritzmann
Outrageo
skip_brilliantine
Beachcoma
torbjon
wswbkbroiler
Scramjet76
Toasty

Not on the list?

Better reply in the thread quick if you want to be in the Fair Skeptics. Your post needs to actively state you wish to be a member. If you've posted that you want to be a member, and I just happened to have missed your name, please let me know.

Multiple Replies

Originally posted by behindthescenes
So, does anyone have any idea what our debut analysis will be?

I actually have an idea if anyone is interested....

To be honest, I haven't gotten that far yet. The FS has turned into a creature of its own past a certain point. What started as a crazy diplomacy/research idea is becoming an organization with almost 30 members so far. If you or anyone else would like to start suggesting cases, that'd be great. However, I feel compelled to mention we aren't officially open for business yet, and probably won't be till sometime in January.

Originally posted by Gazrok
How is it planned to differentiate such postings from others? Perhaps "Fair Skeptic Case Review - Casename" in the subject line?

I haven't gotten that far yet, but this is definitely something to think about. I'm thinking something along the lines of creating a link nest in each area we open up to. For instance, in the Alien and UFO forum, we have a "Fair Skeptic Review Requests Nest", or something like that, and basically introduce ourselves, and invite people to give a link to their case threads that they want reviewed by the Fair Skeptics. There will be other differentiating factors for FSes, but we'll get that once we've got open enrollment closed and a TAC/Method agreed upon.

Originally posted by nightwing
Membership Application Closes in 24 Hours==thelibra

It would appear you have also placed a time limit on my initial data
collection, but I doubt it affects the results of this first test.

(snip)

I am not applying for membership unless that method is
scientific in nature. And even then, the demonstration I have
begun carries a probable risk that I may NOT be around to
be a member.

Nightwing, this has nothing to do with putting a limit on your data collection. It's a command decision to get the ball rolling on getting our rears in gear and setting down a specific TAC to go with the Mission Statement, and to get the members to start agreeing on, yes, a scientific process.

However, in answer to your question, what in the world made you think we would use anything other than the scientific method? I kind of thought the words "scientific method", "empirical data", and "conclusions based upon the data" more or less summed it up, but in answer to your question, YES, WE WILL ABSOLUTELY BE USING SCIENTIFIC METHOD.

Now I'm very sorry about the post that can't be located, but frankly, I just don't care. It is neither an impediment nor even an obstacle to overcome for the Fair Skeptics to be a damned fine organization. Once our membership is locked, we will then begin devising, like what sigung86 suggested, a manual of sorts, and it will include the scientific process, and how to go about it.

I hope that answers your question.

Originally posted by IsaacKoi
While I consider the proposed Registry to be an interesting (and hopefully fruitful) idea, I have some reservations about the distinctions apparently being drawn.

(snip)

The use of the term "fair skeptic" in relation to those on the Registry would appear to exclude those that wished to remain neutral, or support the ETH (regardless of how rational and critical they are, e.g. if they haven't made their minds up or consider that 99.99999% of sightings are due to misperception, hoaxes or delusions).

The term "fair analyst" would be fine.

Isaac, being as you are a barrister, I can understand your reservation about specific semantics. However, the point of the thread, and indeed, the organization itself is combat the perception that skeptics are unfairly biased against UFO and/or alien evidence. Skeptic has been increasingly used as a dirty word and I intend to change that. Skepticism used to be a respectable term, just like "barrister" or "lawyer", though perhaps "judge" or "jury" would be more apropos.

As for what I meant by UFOlogist, I don't know... A UFO is a UFO... Unidentified Flying Object. It doesn't mean it's alien in nature, and it doesn't mean it's not. I actually consider the two to be mutually exclusive, because I've absolutely positively 100% seen a UFO before, but I'd also be about 99.99% inclined to say it was a test flight of some military craft. Why? It's not because I don't believe in aliens, but rather because we have a Lockheed Martin, an Air Force Base, and two major airports right nearby. But I'll never forget the look of the thing, the size, or the speed. It was incredible, beautiful, and I can see why some people spend all their free time chasing UFOs to get photos or video. However, no evidence = no case. As you, a barrister, well know, personal testimony is the weakest form of evidence there is. So I suppose, ultimately, that a UFOlogist, in my humble opinion, means "someone who persues evidence of UFO sitings".

HOWEVER... the more our scope increases, I don't think we'll end up just limited to UFO cases. Something tells me that paranormal presenters will also want Fair Skeptics to examine their evidence of "ghosts" or "chupacabra" or whatnot. 9/11 people will probably want us to examine their evidence of the WTC explosions. Conspiracy theorists will probably want us to examine their cases and research, and so forth. For now, we start small. UFO cases. As we get into the groove, become organized, and learn what we are capable of, we can expand to other areas from there.

Ultimately, though, the term "Fair Skeptic" stays. Just because "skeptic" currently carries negative connotations outside our circle doesn't mean we can't change that through our example. And the educated will not see "Fair Skeptic" as an oxymoron, but rather a redundancy.

On a Final Note

For those that are still sitting the fence on whether or not to join, because you aren't sure if you will be able to agree with some policy or some one or some phrase used, you can always drop out. I should also mention that you can also be kicked out should it become neccessary because of a repeated failure to meet the minimum levels of quality in FS-reviews and respect for your fellow members. So for current, new, and future members, leave your bias at the door.

[edit on 12/28/2006 by thelibra]

Originally posted by thelibra

Isaac, being as you are a barrister, I can understand your reservation about specific semantics. However, the point of the thread, and indeed, the organization itself is combat the perception that skeptics are unfairly biased against UFO and/or alien evidence. Skeptic has been increasingly used as a dirty word and I intend to change that.

Hi thelibra,

Well, I can certainly understand and respect your position.

I wish you (and the fellow members of your Registry) all the best, and look forward to seeing how the Registry develops.

Kind Regards,

Isaac

thelibra..


If you are willing to add one more to the tally, count me in.
I like the sound of this.

Originally posted by nightwing
I am being careful with the risk because
if I am banned, I want that very act to be the correlation and
validation of that particular hypothesis to be tested.

What are you going on about?

What "risk"?! There is no risk unless you violate the Terms and Conditions of this site...

You think we're going to ban you because you're upset a thread was accidentally deleted?! Please, give it a rest...

Why don't you focus some of that "ruthless data collection" on finding a copy of that thread?

Now THAT would be a valuable contribution!

S...

If it's not too late I would love to help out any way I can. I work at [Edit one of the facilities identified in the Disclosure Project Briefing Document as being "related to the UFO/Extraterrestrial matter"] so presumably I should know a thing or two about engineering ARVs (Alien Reproduction Vehicles) and “free energy”.

I shall be very interested to see how this group works. I hope that it won't degenerate into some kind of CSICOP witch-hunt, and the "fair" in "fair skeptics" is no doubt intended to ward off criticism of that kind.

It will be interesting to see what data will be allowed to stand, and what will not. By the looks of things, virtually any photographic or video data will be debunked, and un-corroborated witness testimony will equally fail. What, then, will people be left with?

I consider myself an agnostic rather than a skeptic, because skeptics have their own belief systems by which they measure the validity of data. I admit my own personal experiences and use them as my yardstick. I therefore am forced to believe (or reject my own sense-data, which I am not minded to do) in the "reality", however defined, of certain psychic phenomena. I suspect that many other posters in this thread would consider themselves "hard-headed", and myself "soft-headed" as a result.

Those who would like to see the kind of damage that a certain kind of skepticism can do to the scientific method might care to check out this thread.

I see from re-reading the first post in that thread that I have already contradicted myself. Oh well, you live and learn

Is there really a need for a "Fair-Skeptic" group?

If yall are going to be SERIOUS researchers--please do me a favour..leave the Meier Case, Reptilian World Order and other obvious Junk that seems to be frequent here on ATS, alone.

Welcome new members: Irma and Saviour Of The Real.

That makes 28. I'll generate a new member list after 3pm CST. For now, some replies.

Originally posted by rich23
I shall be very interested to see how this group works. I hope that it won't degenerate into some kind of CSICOP witch-hunt

The advantage to reading through a thread before posting is that you don't address a point that has been repeatedly addressed already. In summary, no, it's not going to be a witch-hunt, and no, the point of the Fair Skeptics is to suspend their own belief systems and apply the scientific method to evidence without bias towards verifying or debunking it.

If you'd care to know more, I invite you to read the previous pages of the thread in their entirety, but trust me when I say, it's been discussed, addressed, and you needn't concern yourself further unless you intend to become a member or have a case that needs reviewing.

Originally posted by DigThat
Is there really a need for a "Fair-Skeptic" group?

You tell me. We've got almost 30 members, one of which is a founder of this very web site, the thread has been viewed just shy of 2000 times, active for over two weeks, and the reasons for the founding have been discussed throughout the entire thread, including the original post, as well as in other threads.

Now was there really a need for that question?

Originally posted by DigThat
If yall are going to be SERIOUS researchers--please do me a favour..leave the Meier Case, Reptilian World Order and other obvious Junk that seems to be frequent here on ATS, alone.

If someone approaches us and says "I have hard evidence that Black Triangles are being piloted by Reptilian Psychic Vampires from Atlantis! and I'd like my case reviewed," then if I am to truly call myself an unbiased skeptic, I have to at least give their data the same empiracle rundown I would give Gazrok if he approached with a series of notorized FOIA documents. Otherwise, what's the point?

If you click that link, you'll see exactly how derisive I have been in the past about Reptillians previous to this, but to be fair, I never gave any case the time of day. To be fair, I have to be open to any and all possibilities and let the data tell the story, not my personal bias or beliefs. If I truly feel so adamantly that some particular subject is such absolute rubbish that I can't be bothered to review it, then I'll simply bow out of that case and let more open minded people examine the data for that case.

Anyone else care to play devil's advocate before open enrollment ends?

Originally posted by thelibra
The advantage to reading through a thread before posting is that you don't address a point that has been repeatedly addressed already. In summary, no, it's not going to be a witch-hunt, and no, the point of the Fair Skeptics is to suspend their own belief systems and apply the scientific method to evidence without bias towards verifying or debunking it.

I did read the entire thread and I'm, er, skeptical, as the standards of evidence and belief systems of the reviewers are as yet undefined. There's been vague talk about the "democratic" merits of the average or mean of a range of opinions... but, well, I'm not reassured. I'm a skeptic about objectivity, in fact. I don't believe it exists and I am suspicious of those people who would lay claim to it. Everything we say or do is influenced by often unconscious or tacit belief systems and any attempt to get around that fact will prove to be futile. It just sounds like a bunch of people forming an in-group, and your reply to me strengthens that suspicion.

Did you read the thread I posted on the subject of skepticism? From your reply, I doubt it.

Here's something from one of your recent posts, in evidence of your belief system:

I've absolutely positively 100% seen a UFO before, but I'd also be about 99.99% inclined to say it was a test flight of some military craft. Why? It's not because I don't believe in aliens, but rather because we have a Lockheed Martin, an Air Force Base, and two major airports right nearby.

Another viable alternative is that exactly these installations attract the attention of ET UFOs. How is a neutral "objective" position to be established? And would a test flight of a secret military aircraft be conducted near two major airports? That, to me, seems unlikely. But who am I to say? I'm simply playing devil's advocate.

...and you needn't concern yourself further unless you intend to become a member or have a case that needs reviewing.

That, frankly, sounds very snotty and high-handed. Not a good omen, imo. As previous posters have pointed out, the strength of ATS lies in the fact that anyone can post anything as long as they're not rude. I have enough faith that people will make up their own minds on the basis of the evidence presented and how the arguments raised are congruent with, or conflict with, their own belief systems.

Originally posted by rich23
As previous posters have pointed out, the strength of ATS lies in the fact that anyone can post anything as long as they're not rude. I have enough faith that people will make up their own minds on the basis of the evidence presented and how the arguments raised are congruent with, or conflict with, their own belief systems.

That isn't going to be affected by this group in any way so I am confused as to what you're worried about? The point here is to use scientific methodolgy, to the best of our abilities, in order to determine if a data set is viable in that sense.

Objectivity has no traction in the scientific method. Hypothesis, test, proof or fail. That's it. There will be much that won't be reviewed. We couldn't possibly review a belief could we?

Where there is data that can be tested it will be tested without regard to belief, it happens everyday in engineering and scientific research labs all over the world. I completely disagree with your position that beliefs and subjective elements of the person doing the test/review are unavoidable and detrimental to the outcome.

2 plus 2 most definitely equals 4, no matter what I believe personally.

Springer...

I completely disagree with your position that beliefs and subjective elements of the person doing the test/review are unavoidable and detrimental to the outcome.

With all due respect Springer.....They might not be detrimental to the outcome but there is an observer bias that can effect the results of an experiment.

Sure there are steps that can be taken to minimize it but I'm unsure if it can ever be eliminated

The observer-expectancy effect, in science, is a cognitive bias that occurs when a researcher expects a given result and therefore unconsciously manipulates an experiment or misinterprets data in order to find it. Because it can skew the results of experiments (especially on human subjects), double-blind methodology is used to eliminate the effect.

A cognitive bias is any of a wide range of observer effects identified in cognitive science and social psychology including very basic statistical, social attribution, and memory errors that are common to all human beings. Biases drastically skew the reliability of anecdotal and legal evidence. Social biases, usually called attributional biases, affect our everyday social interactions. And biases related to probability and decision making significantly affect the scientific method which is deliberately designed to minimize such bias from any one observer. An English proverb, 'Watched pot never boils', might be highlighting one of the classic examples.

en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by rich23
I did read the entire thread and I'm, er, skeptical, as the standards of evidence and belief systems of the reviewers are as yet undefined.

en.wikipedia.org...

I have, repeatedly, stated that the scientific method will be used as the foundation for our diagnosis. I don't know how to spell it out any clearer than that.

Originally posted by rich23

...and you needn't concern yourself further unless you intend to become a member or have a case that needs reviewing.

That, frankly, sounds very snotty and high-handed.

No, Rich, it's just blunt honesty. If you aren't intending on being a member, why do you care, and why should I devote time out of my day to addressing your concerns when they've been repeatedly addressed? I'm sorry your feelings got hurt because I don't have time to re-state everything I've already said, much less to restate it to someone who is just arguing for the sake of argument.

Not everything is writ in stone yet. And even when there is a defined TAC, Mission Statement, etc, it doesn't mean that those won't grow and change along with the needs of the organization. If people don't like it, they'll leave. If it fails, then FS will be nothing more than a flurry of activity in December on ATS. I fail to see where the Earth-shattering problem is.

Yes. The members are human. Yes, some people are going to have personal biases one way or the other. However, the point of the organization is to apply methods and mentality that remove bias from the picture as much as possible. It's not going to be perfect, but I figure the average results of a few dozen people comes pretty close.

Originally posted by Springer
Objectivity has no traction in the scientific method. Hypothesis, test, proof or fail. That's it.

Except that it's not possible to prove a scientific theory. All you can do is accumulate evidence that supports it - but then evidence that disproves it can come along, and, if attached to a theory that people like, will cause the old theory to be discarded. And that if-clause is important, and it's where people's belief systems come into play. (Nobody's read that thread I linked to, which is not a surprise - there's only so many hours in the day, after all. I'd really recommend it, though. It will help you understand what I'm getting at here.)

If the data is not attached to a theory that people like, then it will be discarded. If a theory goes against the grain of the current paradigm, it will be discarded, even if it turns out, in the long run, to be correct. The true explanation of how bats navigate in the dark was ignored for a hundred and fifty years because it ran counter to then current common sense. This is all in the thread I posted on skepticism and disinformation.

Theories have value in so far as they are able to predict future events, or allow one to influence the outcome of a series of events. I don't see that anything that will come out of the "fair skeptics'" review process will be empirically testable, beyond the occasional revelation that a photo or video is indeed a fake, which would happen on an average ATS thread anyway.

There will be much that won't be reviewed. We couldn't possibly review a belief could we?

Actually, that's kind of what I intended to do when I quoted thelibra's belief about the nature of his UFO sighting. His belief influenced the hypotheses he chose to make about the nature of what he saw (of which he is - love those decimal points, they make it seem so accurate! - "99.99% certain").

Where there is data that can be tested it will be tested without regard to belief, it happens everyday in engineering and scientific research labs all over the world. I completely disagree with your position that beliefs and subjective elements of the person doing the test/review are unavoidable and detrimental to the outcome.

I daresay you do. I'd prefer to say that such beliefs, while unavoidable, are not necessarily detrimental, only that they can be. And theories are very difficult to distinguish from beliefs, as any student of Korzybski will be only too willing to testify.

And it was nice of thelibra to link to the Wiki article on the scientific method, like I've never heard of it. Since Karl Popper's [The Logic of Scientific Discovery and Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, there is growing consensus that the position you take is simplistic and not a good fit with how science is done. Kuhn coined the phrase "paradigm shift" and

... argues that rival paradigms are incommensurable -- that is, that it is not possible to understand one paradigm through the conceptual framework and terminology of another rival paradigm.
en.wikipedia.org..." target="_blank" class="postlink">Source

The investigation of UFOs using what Kuhn calls "normal science", which is what you seem to be propounding, is going to run into trouble on the basis of such incommensurability, imo. I would say that the subject, to use Kuhn's terminology, requires a more revolutionary approach.

And thelibra, no, my feelings aren't hurt. It is possible to view your post as being rude without taking it personally. However, this statement

Yes. The members are human. Yes, some people are going to have personal biases one way or the other. However, the point of the organization is to apply methods and mentality that remove bias from the picture as much as possible. It's not going to be perfect, but I figure the average results of a few dozen people comes pretty close.

ignores the fact that the average is distorted because the group is self-selected on the basis of an attraction to the word "skeptic". And while admissions of humanity are laudable, equally well I'd say that it's more honest to admit that everyone has personal biases, not just "some".

As I said, I distrust those who profess their objectivity, as it suggests to me that they are simply blind to their own biases and hence unable to take account of them in how they weigh and review evidence.

Good luck with the project, though, sincerely. I shall watch with fascination.

Originally posted by rich23

As I said, I distrust those who profess their objectivity, as it suggests to me that they are simply blind to their own biases and hence unable to take account of them in how they weigh and review evidence.

Good luck with the project, though, sincerely. I shall watch with fascination.

I am saddened to hear you say that you automatically distrust those who profess their objectivity.



Objectivity, by definition, requires one to put aside their emotional connection and/or personal bias.

I would agree that many lack the self-awareness required to recognize when their own emotional connection and/or personal bias are playing into their position formation - whatever the issue.

However, there are many of us who are quite self-aware and capable of making sure that our own personal bias is not interfering with our analysis of the information at hand.

Always,
Shawnna


[edit on 28-12-2006 by Shawnna]

Open Enrollment Now Over

I'm sorry if you missed the deadline, we had to have a cutoff point somewhere before we could go any further. This isn't the end-all be-all of who's in and who's out, and such. Some people might be kicked out if they fail to meet the basic standards of what's expected from a Fair Skeptic. I'll be happy to hear complaints, but I can't promise I'll make everyone happy all the time. I figure if you can make half the people happy half the time, and not piss anyone off most of the time, it sorta works out in the end.

I don't want to close this thread just yet, for three reasons: I need to make sure there aren't any hard feelings, or that I didn't completely miss someone's request to join, and I want to post a link to a new thread at a later time so we can get along with figuring out exactly what standards we'll expect from each other, how to keep from upsetting people who don't quite get what we're about, and what good presentation and such looks like.

Anyway, if I completely upset anyone, or you honestly feel like I haven't satisfactorily addressed an issue, post it here. Reword it if possible so that I don't think I already answered it. I really hate to repeat myself, and I'm sorry if I got snippy there at the end, but I really do feel like I was beginning to say the same thing over and over again. It was the Babylon thread, all over again.

I'll be on vacation till Jan 2nd, and only checking ATS occasionally, if at all. After that, I'll answer the replies as best I can, then I'll post the link to the new thread on the last post of this one, and maybe the thread could be locked at that point, so people checking back later on know where to go to discuss FS and that membership is no longer open.

I do, however, believe that 2 slots should remain open specifically for Skeptic Overlord and Simon Gray if they decide they'd like in. I don't care if they're late, or if they wanted to see where this goes first, or what have you. I extend all three of the Amigos an open-ended invite, because without them, there'd be no site, and I respect their work a great deal. I guess the invite is kinda redundant in Springer's case, but the same sentiments apply.

...and so, without further ado, and subject to change...

The Founding Members of The Fair Skeptics

(in no particular order)

thelibra
Irma
Saviour Of The Real
CaptainLazy
Shawnna
lost_shaman
SwatMedic
Gazrok
supercheetah
Spreadthetruth
sigung86
Sophismata
Springer
FredT
eaglewingz
ignorant_ape
behindthescenes
ArMaP
cheepnis
spines
Dracotic
jritzmann
Outrageo
skip_brilliantine
Beachcoma
torbjon
wswbkbroiler
Scramjet76
Toasty

The Future...

Start thinking about what exactly you want to put into this, and what you want to get out of it. How casual vs. how organized, and so forth.

Why don't you focus some of that "ruthless data collection" on finding a copy
of that thread? Now THAT would be a valuable contribution! ==Springer

Been there....done that. I have been contacted with info that indicates it MAY
be possible, and as a direct result of THIS thread.


"What are you going on about?

What "risk"?! There is no risk unless you violate the Terms and Conditions of
this site... You think we're going to ban you because you're upset a thread was
accidentally deleted?! Please, give it a rest" == Springer

Unfortunately, its time for the starting gate to open. The biggest obstacle to bias
correction is perceptions. Everybody suffers from this, and Springer is therefore
no exception. He percieved an INSULT from my first post which quickly
rolled downhill to the ONLY person who EVEN questioned it.
(The data he provided showed my hypothesis TRUE while he claimed
my insinuations were FALSE. - his perception. Apology, Springer, but
you just cant have it both ways. It was a true or false hypothesis test.)
I believe all insults start with perceptions and devolve from there. See the
interchange between thelibra and rich23 above. rich23 is someone who
has demonstrated rare "control" of knee jerk perceptions. Another loss here
is Isaac Koi. His legal background mixed with scientific methods is
a blend that must occur for examination of sureal events, and his self
education in this area (he provided me with his reference document)
is unique.

For thelibra, the LAST time a less formal collection of skeptical types
happened here, an unusual collection of circumstances occurred which
indicates either by accident or design, it was destroyed.
As my original post outlines, beginning with their first project, the
thread itself is gone, the originator is banned, at least one other
participant, and NONE of the others who are still here will touch
this with a ten foot pole. Instead, sponsorship, protectionism,
thread bumping is applied to the exact opposite of your endeavor.
Warning, such threads bite !
But I wish your efforts well.


[edit on 28-12-2006 by nightwing]

Ummm, okay then. Whatever.

Now on to the business at hand, I'll be happy to lock this thread after thelibra's final post and save it as a reference for future candidates and an easy means by which to locate the new thread on the subject.

Springer...

Before you lock this thread I would like to say that I am surprised that there are a number of folks who would rather sit around and give 10,000 reasons why something can't or shouldn't be done. All it takes is 1 reason to do it.

Just because something failed before doesn't mean it has to every time. Wasn't it Edison who took so many different attempts to find out how not to make a light bulb?

For better or worse, I think we have that one reason, and for better or worse, for those who have signed on for it... We're going to try.

Originally posted by nightwing
For thelibra, the LAST time a less formal collection of skeptical types
happened here, an unusual collection of circumstances occurred which
indicates either by accident or design, it was destroyed.
As my original post outlines, beginning with their first project, the
thread itself is gone, the originator is banned, at least one other
participant, and NONE of the others who are still here will touch
this with a ten foot pole. Instead, sponsorship, protectionism,
thread bumping is applied to the exact opposite of your endeavor.
Warning, such threads bite !
But I wish your efforts well.


[edit on 28-12-2006 by nightwing]

Perhaps no one will touch the issue of the destroyed 24 page thread and the banned author (whether destroyed by accident or design) is because questioning the motives for anything that happens on ATS usually leads to some significant backlash.



Always,
Shawnna

The "Roswell Proof: Where is it?" thread MAY be recoverable through Google cache. It's somewhat hit and miss, but here's a few pages:

Page 9
Page 11
Page 10
Page 20


[edit on 12/28/2006 by eaglewingz]