UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 1998 > Dec > Dec 22

Re: Sherman J. Larsen and Ufology

From: Leanne Martin <leanne_martin@hotmail.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1998 07:12:09 PST
Fwd Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1998 23:43:43 -0500
Subject: Re: Sherman J. Larsen and Ufology

>From: Roger Evans <moviestuff@cyberjunkie.com>
>Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1998 21:18:47 +0000
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>Subject: Sherman J. Larsen and Ufology

>>From: Gary Alevy <galevy@pipeline.com>
>>Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1998 00:03:19 -0500
>>Fwd Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1998 14:13:46 -0500
>>Subject: Re: Sherman J. Larsen and Ufology

>Previously, Gary wrote:

>>We should always keep in mind the fact that to my critics on
>>this list I am a ufological nobody making wild and totally
>>unsubstantiated charges. Please read that sentence again, and
>>compare it with what has been happening on this list for the
>>last several days. That is, my wild and unsubstantiated charges
>>have brought down a veritable hurricane of abuse, a level of
>>response seemingly far, far above that deserved by wild and
>>unsubstantiated charges. Why has this been? Well, as my
>>private mail has shown, there is reason for the reaction of my
>>critics and those list readers with experience in this field
>>know that full well.

>(Sorry, ebk, for the following response but I just can't stand
>it any more...)

>Gary, what a bunch of crap!

>You know, I had pretty much bowed out of this "discussion", if
>you can call it such, not because I couldn't match wits with
>your mental dexterity or your logic, but because you absolutely,
>pathologically, uncontrollably refuse to stick with the topic at
>hand or to answer one single question regarding the proof
>required to back up your "research".


>I never thought I see the day that I'd quote Ed Stewart, but the
>term "intellectual dishonesty" fits you like a glove. I'm sure
>your book is going great guns. It's easy to write when you don't
>have to back up any claims.

Roger (and, of course, List)),

That's exactly how annoying it is trying to talk
fact/science/data with some of the 'abductee/contactee' listers.
The more frustrating thing for you is that in this argument the
other side is too good at dodging the question/s. In my argument
("Return to the Herd" thread) it basicly boils down to the other
side being too close to the subject matter - too subjective,
with an understandable barrier against objectivity. It is
undeniably a touchy matter for them (their 'knowing' that they
have been abducted) and rightly so, yet in the name research for
the greater good, to help us all understand their plight, the
request for verifiable proof brings on the histrionics.

What you have asked for is proof of this author's claims and
what I have asked for is proof of 'abductees' claims. Neither
request is out of order, illogical or even denigratory, yet
those of whom we have asked have become over-defensive,
obdurate, even more illogical, and, strangely, showed real
offense that we dared to act as genuine researchers and search
for truth.

What I find hard to fathom, too, is the impression from the
other parties that I had attacked them (the true grammatical
structure of my text and its logic flow having escaped them
[there seems to be a problem with North Americans and grammar).
They seemed not too interested in asking me the obvious, for I
had not declared it, "do I believe that any alien intelligence/s
may have abducted humans for any  particular purpose?"

My answer is also in the obvious, to wit - I have no genuine way
of knowing as there are no _verifiable_ data to which I can
refer. Hence my 'bullying' request for the data/science/facts
and statements of any relavent research.

I have absolutely no doubt that the 'genuine abductees' (not in
it for the dollar/quid/yen, miscellaneous scam or movie deal)
are absolutely positively genuine in their beliefs. I have no
way of knowing whether their described experiences are
actualities, still, after all the heat and expended ammunition I
am no closer to a resolution save a very dubious X-ray image
that has been recently posted - oh, what we could ask of it, yet
only get ourselves into trouble for, on this list!

Let's be devils shall we?

OK here goes . . . .

Is it the only X-ray?

If so why?

What required the X-ray being taken? (Symptoms etc.)

It does appear, from a cursory glance, to the be locking clasp
of a 'string' type necklace widely available of Asiatic
manufacture. The one X-ray frame begs the question "Why were the
appropriate, and obviously required, X-rays not sequenced and
submitted?" That is the left lateral, right lateral and frontal
views - possibly also from the cranial view?

What is the determination of a neurosurgeon apropo the removal
of the device if it is in fact embedded in the spinal column
(must be verifiable!).

What tests (and where are the verifiable results) were performed
on this individual to ascertain the effect of this supposed
'implant' on their person?

Shall I go on (there seem, seriously, too many to ask . . .)

Roger, good luck in your search for _verifiable truths_ as it
seems a very hard road to hoe.  I am on the eve of 3.5 weeks of
annual leave and near the point of not givin' a fig (in the Oz
vernacular) as to how this thread ends [yawning vacuously] yet
really caring that logic is served (and a true answer is found)
{I feel about as dexterous as the pig  (yes that one) from the
Babe movies).

Leanne  ];-)

[ 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