UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 1999 > Apr > Apr 2

Re: Friedman vs. Krauss Debate

From: John Rimmer <magonia@magonia.demon.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 2 Apr 1999 17:36:57 +0100
Fwd Date: Fri, 02 Apr 1999 14:24:21 -0500
Subject: Re: Friedman vs. Krauss Debate


>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>From: Serge Salvaille <sergesa@connectmmic.net>
>Subject: Re: Friedman vs. Krauss Debate
>Date: Thu, 01 Apr 1999 21:23:24 -0500

>>Date: Thu, 1 Apr 1999 15:13:35 -0800 (PST)
>>From: Scott LeGrand <varelse@best.com>
>>To: updates@globalserve.net
>>Subject: Re: Friedman vs. Krauss Debate

>>One short comment: isn't it possible that some of these scientists
>>that looked at the evidence, actually did so in an objective way,
>>and concluded that it was lacking?  Why is it the minute someone
>>expresses skepticism about the reality of UFOs, they're accused
>>of losing their objectivity?  That doesn't sound very objective
>>to me...

Absolutely not...

>Hello Scott,

>To express skepticism towards the existence of UFOs generally
>implies ignorance of the data available during the last 50 years
>or so.

Most of the sceptics I know, certainly those in Britain, have
come to their conclusions _after_ spending many years in UFO
investigation. People like Andy Roberts, Dave Clarke, Peter
Rogerson and myself all started in the UFO field genuinely
looking for something unknown and probably extraterrestrial. As
the lack of evidence piled up, so our views became more and more
sceptical. This applies to most of the French researchers as
well. So don't paint all sceptics as outsiders pushing their way
into the UFO field to "debunk" it!

>All, and I mean ALL, the 'skeptical' opinions I have ever read
>or heard regarding the reality of UFOs presented one or all of
>the following flaws:

>1. Ignorance of the data at hand;

>2. Deliberate ignorance of the data at hand.

>Can an opinion based on ignorance (deliberate or not) be
>considered objective?

>No.

>Can it be considered scientific?

>No.

>Of course, we are not talking here about specific cases

Of course we're not talking about specific cases, because as has
been proved over and over again here on UpDates, the ETHers are
unable to come up with any cases that they are prepared to list
as evidence for extraterrestrial intervention. Instead we get
airy-fairy armwaving about the "weight of evidence".

Unfortunately the weight of an awful lot of nothing is nothing.

How can we possibly have any rational discussion of the UFO
phenomenon if we do not discuss specific cases and weigh them
individually?

I know it's a hopeless question, and Serge Salvaille has
specifically ruled himself out from answering it, but I'll try
again: can we have a list of the ten UFO cases giving the best
evidence for an extraterrestrial origin for the UFO phenomenon?

I won't hold my breath.

--
John Rimmer
www.magonia.demon.co.uk
Abandon hope all ye who press Enter here



[ 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