From: Jean van Gemert <firstname.lastname@example.org> Date: Sun, 28 Jun 1998 17:08:59 +0200 Fwd Date: Sun, 28 Jun 1998 20:57:07 -0400 Subject: Re: MAGONIA ETH Bulletin #4 >Date: Fri, 26 Jun 1998 22:53:23 -0400 >From: The Duke of Mendoza <email@example.com> [Peter Brookesmith] >Subject: MAGONIA ETH Bulletin #4 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <firstname.lastname@example.org> >MAGONIA ETH BULLETIN > >No. 4, June 1998 >Editor: JOHN HARNEY [...] >There is also a tendency to believe that >when the sceptical explanation doesn't fit (some sceptics >are rather too keen on force-fitting explanations), then one >is justified in accepting the ET explanation, rather than >looking for another likely solution to the problem. And PSH supporters are of course the informed authorities when it comes to choosing the most "likely solution to the problem". :) >The one great weakness of the ETH is the notion that it is >supported simply by failing to find satisfactory explanations for >puzzling UFO reports. Translation: Puzzling UFO reports that are consistent with the ETH can't be true therefore the ETH supporters have not looked long and good enough for "satisfactory explanations". [...] >example, serious ETHers tend to pick out radar-visual cases >as strong evidence to support their cause, because these are >obviously neither hoaxes nor hallucinations. Jerome Clark >thinks that the RB-47 case of 17 July 1957 is a good >example. Yes, but hasn't Philip Klass, after a great deal of >research, provided a detailed explanation for the incident? No, but I wouldn't place bets on John Harney to know about any rebuttal in the first place. Even *without* Sparks' recent massive response to Klass you'd would be hard-pressed not to notice the obvious omissions of crucial sighting data in Klass' account, but only if one bothered to compare it to original reporting of course. But John Harney seemingly never did that, and which brings me back to the point I intend to make. PSHers want ETH-supportive cases dead (their desperation obvious from their refuge to Klass' writings) killing off those cases that don't fit their PSH. >ufologists, what do we get? Nothing, apart from a few very >old cases, nearly all of which were satisfactorily explained >years ago. Well, In John Harney's imagination perhaps. >In fact, Clark doesn't like dwelling on particular cases, as >they always fall apart when subjected to careful, critical >examination - literary or otherwise. Harney should take off the blindfold and start reading Clark's book properly, a number of "classic" cases are discussed in great detail. [...] >If we look at the UFO literature we can see that the few >good books are written by those who favour the PSH. Some >potentially good books are badly flawed and rendered >practically worthless to serious students of the subject >because they have had the ETH clumsily grafted on to them, [...] >American ETH enthusiasts appear to be much better educated >and more intelligent. This means that they can retail their >lies, fantasies and pseudo-scientific gobbledygook more >smoothly and effectively. However, I suspect that the >American public are beginning to become bored with their >absurd posturings and intellectual dishonesty. Translation: "I am right, anyone who dares to disagree is an idiot". If this is the quality of PSH discourse nowadays I'm glad I'm not one of its supporters, with their awfully inflated sense of importance and unrestrained disdain to those with whom they don't agree. Harney's self-righteous outburst just serves to establish the point that reason is not on their list of priorities.
[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp