From: Stanton T. Friedman <firstname.lastname@example.org> Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1998 11:38:10 -0300 Fwd Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1998 17:24:07 -0400 Subject: Re: Occam's Razor and UFOs > From: RobIrving@aol.com > Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1998 08:09:47 EDT > To: email@example.com > Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: Occam's Razor and UFOs > >Date: Tue, 09 Jun 1998 20:28:06 -0300 > >From: "Stanton T. Friedman" <firstname.lastname@example.org> > >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <email@example.com> > >Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: Occam's Razor and UFOs > Stanton, > >I think Rob's comments are so much horse manure. > > You appear to be referring to the following comments, but your > reply didn't really address why, nor answer the question I > posed... > > >>With sufficient and clearly presented evidence I can't see much > >>of a problem. What exactly is the problem, in your opinion? I > >>personally don't accept the line that scientists are too worried > >>about reputation to involve themselves in ufology - that argument > >>doesn't hold water. > > I maintain that if the ETH were ever presented in a manner that > didn't rely on anecdotal and bogus documentary evidence, it > wouldn't face the stonewalling from the scientific community > that many imagine. > > If such evidence doesn't exist at present, so be it. Keep on > with the quest, but whining that you are not getting the > validation you feel you deserve, or perhaps simply crave, won't > help matters. > > Other revolutionary leaps in understanding have successfully > made it to acceptance; Evolution, Relativity, Quantum theory and > others - their main proponents achieving general validation in > their lifetime. > > That's not to say that others haven't had problems, or that > there are not good examples of the contrary, but it seems to me > that imagining that some kind of subtle or not so subtle > conspiracy exists to deny your 'truth' is indicative of the > classic descent into paranoia, usually occurring when belief is > dominant. > > So, Stanton, what exactly is the problem in your opinion? Why > can't we read your paper 'Flying Saucers ARE Real' in a science > journal? > > Rob The problem is that you and Peter constantly ask the wrong question (What are UFOs.. as opposed to "Are any UFOs ET Spacecraft"). You often make pronouncements not based on evidence, you constantly ignore the fairly obvious national security aspects of UFOs, you presume on other people's motivation (Did I say my goal was to publish "Flying Saucers ARE Real" in a science journal?.. though I gather you haven't read my items in Physics Today and Aeronautics and Astronautics or my congressional testimony. I mention my lectures to professional groups because the responses clearly indicate that they will pay attention to facts and data. You are wasting people's time with theoretical claptrap. The simplest explanation for the best observations(by competent observers, investigated by competent investigators like Jim McDonald, Bruce Maccabee, John Schuessler etc) whose appearance, texture, protuberances clearly indicate they were manufactured, and whose behavior-- high speed and no speed, sharp turns, lack of noise, exhaust, visible external engines indicates they were not made on earth, because if they had been in the 1940s, 1950s, we Earthlings would be using them as military craft. They would make wonderful weapons delivery and defense systems, able to fly circles around anything we have been flying. Since we are still building F-16,17,18, MIG 29, Mirage 5 etc, what was built back then wasn't built by us, therefore it was built at some Extraterrestrial location. Of course that doesn't answer all the questions. It just says "not made here". Occam's razor applies. ET vehiciles. Have any of you splendid writers done field investigations, visited archives, had a security clearance? Talk is cheap.
[ Next Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp