UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 1999 > Jan > Jan 18

Re: 25 Rules of Disinformation

From: Roger Evans <moviestuff@cyberjunkie.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 12:57:51 +0000
Fwd Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 17:05:46 -0500
Subject: Re: 25 Rules of Disinformation


>From: Gary <galevy@pipeline.com>
>Date: Sun, 17 Jan 1999 19:44:06 -0500
>Fwd Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 11:13:39 -0500
>Subject: Re: 25 Rules of Disinformation

>>From: Greg Sandow <gsandow@prodigy.net>
>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>>Subject: Re: 25 Rules of Disinformation
>>Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1999 23:34:14 -0500
>
>My remarks in this message will be in response to Mr. Sandow's
>message of January 9th.  I have edited Mr. Sandow's comments
>for space.
>
>A few preliminary remarks are in order.  Here at last we get to
>something of actual interest from my critics, as lame as it is.
>First, we decline from "proof" to "real evidence," which I
>interpret as "evidence convincing to me," or in this case, to
>Mr. Sandow.

>Below we examine Mr. Sandow's remarks, preceeded by a single
>arrow.  My comments are immediately below.
>
>>Evidence is evidence and proof is proof. Sometimes they are the
>>same. Sometimes they are not. It all depends on the validity of
>>the argument that supports the evidence and vice versa.
>
>You know, this is the kind of thing that just stops one in his
>or her tracks.  As my young niece once said to me, "Some dogs is
>boy dogs, some dogs is girl dogs, and some dogs is just dogs."
>In any event, it is a breakthrough of sorts to have Mr. Sandow
>admit that absolute "proof" is not going to be obtained in this
>area and something like "weight of evidence" is going to rule.

Gary, Gary, Gary...

Above, you credit the following statement to Greg Sandow:

>Evidence is evidence and proof is proof. Sometimes they are the
>same. Sometimes they are not. It all depends on the validity of
>the argument that supports the evidence and vice versa.

Greg didn't write that statement. I did. But then again,
research was never your strong point, was it, Gary?

It was part of a post which challenged your interpretation of
"evidence". I can't help but notice that you didn't respond.
More to the point, you are taking the statement out of context
and preventing access of the reader to the supporting
information that surrounds it. So here is the same post, in
complete form:

>Re: 25 Rules of Disinformation

>From: Roger Evans <moviestuff@cyberjunkie.com>
>Date: Fri, 08 Jan 1999 20:23:07 +0000
>Fwd Date: Sat, 09 Jan 1999 14:28:35 -0500
>Subject: Re: 25 Rules of Disinformation

>>From: Gary Alevy <galevy@pipeline.com>
>>Date: Thu, 07 Jan 1999 18:32:44 -0500
>>Fwd Date: Fri, 08 Jan 1999 17:02:01 -0500
>>Subject: Re: 25 Rules of Disinformation

>Previously, gary offered this heap:

>>>-- What are the real issues in the dispute which broke out last
>>>month over Dr. Hynek? This real issues revolve around the fact
>>>that there is AMPLE evidence, evidence tantamount to proof, FOR
>>>ME, that Dr. Hynek was working both sides of the street in his
>>>later career as Godfather of ufology. What is proof? It is the
>>>evidence that convinces YOU. That is, there is no absolute
>>>proof available in this area, short of the individual at issue
>>>owning up in public

><snip>

>Gary,

>I really don't know where to begin. My head is still swimming
>from such a convoluted self justification for your position
>regarding Hynek.

>"Evidence tantamount to proof" is not proof.

>Evidence is evidence and proof is proof. Sometimes they are the
>same. Sometimes they are not. It all depends on the validity of
>the argument that supports the evidence and vice versa.

>For instance, if a gun is found at a murder scene with my
>fingerprints on it and the victim was killed by that gun, then
>an argument could be made that I killed the victim. However, as
>logical as this argument would be, and as damning as the
>evidence would seem, it is not PROOF that I fired the gun at the
>victim; only that the gun that was used has my finger prints on
>it.

>In fact, the only proof that exists in this increminating
>scenario is that I, at one time, held the gun in my hand. It
>doesn't even prove that I fired it, even once.

>Therefore the argument, though logical, is not valid even though
>the evidence is clear and uncontested. By extension, the
>evidence could not be considered proof.

>Using your logic, if the jury is convinced by the argument, then
>the evidence is therefore proof. Not so (though I might go to
>jail anyway). As we have seen by the lastest Stephens saga, some
>people were convinced by his arguments, others were not. Does
>that mean that the unconvinced are ignoring obvious proof? Of
>course not. The acceptance of an argument does not validate
>"evidence" and elevate it to "proof". Nor does it give validity
>to other arguments that might come up as a result of this
>acceptance.

>I will agree with you on one statement:

>>>That is, there is no absolute
>>>proof available in this area, short of the individual at issue
>>>owning up in public

>Finally, Gary gets it right...

>Later,

>Roger Evans

If you are going to argue something, Gary, at least know to whom
you should be speaking. As far as I'm concerned, your entire
argument regarding Hynek and Larsen is bogus, not because I'm a
big Hynek and Larsen advocate, not because I knew them (I
didn't), and not because of any "importance" that I feel they
play in the UFO arena.

Your argument is bogus of your OWN reasoning:

You maintain that Hynek and Larsen NEVER told anyone, not even
their closest friends, about the "true" nature of their work
concerning the subject of UFOs. Since they never told anyone,
not even you, especially YOU, then any conclusion you form is
JUST PLAIN GUESSING!

Get it through your head, Gary: "They never told anyone"

What part of this don't you understand? After all, it's your own
information, your own assertion. Considering you refuse to
address this issue, I can only conclude that you argue only for
the sake of argument; to see your own words. You offer no proof,
your logic is laughable, and you can't even keep track of who
said what within the simple confines of this list which casts
doubt on anything you might offer as "research".

Your position is a joke.

Later,

[ 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