UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 1998 > Jun > Jun 21

Re: UFOs are not BVM-acabras

From: Donald  Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
Date: Sat, 20 Jun 1998 14:38:17 +0100
Fwd Date: Sun, 21 Jun 1998 05:18:52 -0400
Subject: Re: UFOs are not BVM-acabras

> Date: Sat, 20 Jun 1998 06:15:54 -0700
> From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
> To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
> Subject: UFOs are not BVM-acabras!

> to: Mark, Rob, et. al:

> If I may interrupt with a difficult question, a bit off topic I
> suppose..

> Let's say I have a friend I enjoy discussing all sorts of things
> with and the topic of UFOs come up. I think they are well worthy
> of serious (and possibly costly ) study. My friend thinks they
> are just bunk, all things considered .. the usual list of
> misidentifications, hoaxes, wishful thinking .. you name it.

> BUT! I interject. "Have you studied the literature? .. Have you
> heard about (this) case or (that) sighting? How about Trans-en-
> Proivence France for example!

> It turns out that all my friend knows about is the crap on TV,
> and what he reads in the papers i.e. nothing solid.

> Naturally, I point out that one cannot begin to make value
> judgements of this sort without studying the serious data!

> My (hypothetical) friend will not study the data because the
> whole topic is bunk, and it is bunk because he has not seen the
> more solid studies!

> A "vicious circle" you say? No! This is a relatively benign
> circularity. (I forget the word .. tautology perhaps?)

> The more vicious circle closes when my friend starts asking me
> about astrology, scientology, shamanic ritualism, BVM sightings,
> chupacabras or anything else I cannot (yet) take seriously.

> He hits me with the same arguments I just used!

> Has Larry Hatch read about BVM sightings and the miraculous
> cures associated with them? .. "Well. er. no. " I am forced to
> admit.

> " Who the hell has time for that sort of crap! " (I clumsiliy
> bluster, nearly spilling my beer)

> "My point exactly!" Says my skeptical friend.. " Now you know
> why I don't read the so-called 'serious UFO stuff'. "

> .. And there I am, stuck for an answer.

> Don't tell me it is useless to argue with this guy, I know that.

> I want a more intelligent response than "UFOs are not as goofy
> as Chupacabras, the BVM and so forth".

> Evidence? The Mormons have all sorts of evidence.

> Witnesses? Try the Jehovahs Witnesses.

> Scientific measurements? The Scientologists have a $3000
> ohm-meter they sell as a "stress analyzer" or some such.

> What do I say to this not-so-hypothetical friend?

> Its not such an easy question as it may seem.

> - Larry Hatch

You bring up an interesting point Larry, one I have pondered
myself. There seems to be no slick, snappy comeback for many of
the questions we are asked or arguments we are presented with. It
pisses me off no end that some reporter or inteviewer can present
you with some question about "little green men from Mars' and you
have to spend the precious time available trying to do a quick
"history of UFOs catchup" just to put the audience in the proper
frame of reference because the reporter or interviewer has
immediately put you on the defensive.

We need someone with a great deal of money to hire a marketing
agency, it seems, that can come up with responses to the usual BS

Don Ledger

[ 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