UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 1998 > Jun > Jun 18

Re: The Ten Cases

From: RobIrving@aol.com
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 1998 21:38:04 EDT
Fwd Date: Thu, 18 Jun 1998 22:05:14 -0400
Subject: Re: The Ten Cases

>  Subject: UFO UpDate: Re: The Ten Cases
>  From: Mark Cashman <mcashman@ix.netcom.com>
>  Date: Thu, 18 Jun 1998 00:46:02 -0400
>  To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>

Mark,

>  And, Rob, you seem every so often to forget exactly what
>  the point was of listing these cases. It wasn't to prove that
>  UFOs exist. It was to list cases "suggestive" of ETH.

Actually, my memory appears to be considerably clearer than
yours. Here's Dennis's original challenge...

>> Date: Sun, 7 Jun 1998 18:46:27 -0500 (CDT)
>> To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>> From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
>> Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: Occam's Razor and UFOs

>> Yes, the British blokes are being both obnoxious and vexing,
>> aren't they? At the same time, their original question remains
>> unanswered. So, Jerry and Greg, take but a minute to tell us
>> which ten cases you would consider most indicative and evidential
>> of extraterrestrial visitation. That's all; just the ten specific
>> *cases* that you personally would want to defend in the court of
>> public (or scientific) opinion. You know, the ones that support
>> your case. Just ten.

I can't find "suggestive" anywhere. "Indicative and evidential"
was the crucial phrase. How's your memory? Or did you quietly
move the goal posts while no-one was paying attention?

>  Further, the
>  fact that between 1 and 2 percent of cases have been found to be
>  hoaxes tends to lower the probability of this case being a hoax.
>  Finally, the presence of corroborating physical traces at the
>  site, which were apparently not normal for the area, adds
>  additional weight to the report.

For reasons you may or may not be aware of, this segment was of
particular interest to me. Can you explain the methodology by
which you determine 'hoaxing'? How was this 1-2% arrived at?

>  To argue that a case is invalid because a hoax is easier to
>  accept than the content of the report is ridiculous.

I have never argued that. It's ridiculous to suggest that I have.
I have no opinion on whether the Valensole case is 'genuine' or
otherwise.

>  To claim
>  that the police simply shrugged concerning this case is a claim
>  with no evidence.

Similarly I have never claimed that. I asked you to tell me if
there is any evidence that the police gave credence to the
farmer's story.

>  You suggest that this case is not necessarily any different from
>  "sea-serpent" stories. Yet, why choose this analogy, except to
>  follow a standard debunker's line of guilt by association?

That analogy was one of three.  Instead of illuminating us with
your reactionary side, why not confront the issue. What is the
difference between reported 'visions' of, say, the BVM, and
reported sightings of extraterrestrials? Is it simply because you
- that's you Mark - are more inclined to believe one than the
other?

Rob


[ 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