UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 1997 > Nov > Nov 6

Re: that ol' Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis

From: Greg Sandow <gsandow@prodigy.net>
Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 09:13:19 -0500
Fwd Date: Thu, 06 Nov 1997 20:52:09 -0500
Subject: Re: that ol' Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis

Dennis....in a word.....a very Jewish, very New York word.....feh.

> To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
> From: Dennis <dstacy@texas.net> [Dennis Stacy]
> Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: that ol' Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis

> Greg & List:

> My problem with the ETH isn't that it isn't a viable UFO
> hypothesis, but that it simply doesn't know when to stop. Hence
> underground bases, vats of floating body parts, missing fetuses,
> governments in league with ET, California hot tubs, the creation
> of the transistor and integrated circuits, hybrid babies, crashed
> saucers all over the place, the abduction of the Secretary
> General of the United Nations, dead fish on a beach at night,
> environmental catastrophe(s), social collapse, the coming
> Apocalypse, Hale-Bopp, remote viewing, crop circles, animal
> mutilations, ancient astronauts, black helicopters, Men in
> Black...hell, where do I stop? That ain't a *theory,* that's a
> way of life.

This fish stew -- whose ingredients you enumerate -- isn't the
ETH. The ETH is the simple proposal that UFOs might come from
other planets. What you're objecting to are specific beliefs,
factual allegations made by certain people who believe the ETH.

Feel free to crusade against some or all of these (as if I could
stop you!). But if disgust with abducted secretaries-general
leads you to trumpet theories by Mike Davies, simply because they
cast doubt on the ETH, then you've eaten too much stew. Logically
and scientifically, the ETH has no relation to anything anyone
thinks is going on underground at Dulce, NM.

And as for mainstream science....

> Until ufology cleans up its ETH by pruning all the excess
> baggage, it isn't going to get anywhere with mainstream science,
> and the sooner it realizes that the better. It ain't the Rodney
> Dangerfield of 20th century science for no good reason, you
> know?

I think you've got it backwards. Mainstream science -- or,
anyway, the leading mainstream scientists who've paid unfavorable
attention to UFOs -- gets irrational the moment UFOs are
mentioned. That's been true since the beginning. The likes of
Sagan and Menzel needed no help from Hale-Bopp crazies to distort
and misunderstand everything ufologists say, while introducing
hilarious irrationalities of their own.

If you ask me, the excesses of ufology exist partly because
mainstream science has neglected UFOs. If scientists had been
serious about UFOs, the study of UFOs would be a scientific
subject, and people who talk about vats of floating body parts
would have the same standing in ufology as inventors of perpetual
motion machines have in physics. Thanks to scientific neglect,
ufology became a cottage industry, with all kinds of dotty
relatives making up dotty theories in the back rooms of the
cottage.

Why don't you just ignore all that, and concentrate on the
ufology you think makes sense?

Greg Sandow


Search for other documents from or mentioning: gsandow | dstacy

[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |

UFO UpDates Main Index

UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp


Archive programming by Glenn Campbell at Glenn-Campbell.com