From: Alfred Lehmberg <Lehmberg.nul> Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2004 07:46:50 -0600 Fwd Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2004 09:23:14 -0500 Subject: Re: Review Of Sight Unseen - Lehmberg >From: John Harney <magonia.nul> >To: <ufoupdates.nul> >Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2004 21:15:29 -0000 >Subject: Re: Review Of Sight Unseen - Harney >>From: Stuart Miller <Stuart.Miller4.nul> >>To: <ufoupdates.nul> >>Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 17:27:53 -0000 >>Subject: Re: Review Of Sight Unseen >>>From: Luis R. Gonzalez <lrgm.nul> >>>To: <ufoupdates.nul> >>>Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 00:08:05 +0100 >>>Subject: Re: Review Of 'Sight Unseen' By Hopkins & Rainey >>>>From: Gildas Bourdais <gbourdais.nul> >>>>To: <ufoupdates.nul> >>>>Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2004 15:42:28 +0100 >>>>Subject: Re: Review Of 'Sight Unseen' By Hopkins & Rainey >>With respect gentlemen, I think you are missing the point here. >>I am not suggesting that the book should not be subjected to >>analytical review, but by the very nature of the subject matter, >>it will inevitably fall down on that score. I am sure there are >>countless holes in it that can be picked till they bleed. >>I regard the book, which I enjoyed enormously, as a very brave >>attempt by the authors to take the subject of abduction one >>stage further. And in doing so I think Hopkins and Rainey have >>taken a massive and admirable gamble with their professional >>reputations. >Hopkins has a professional reputation as an artist; what he does >or does not believe about UFOs is hardly relevant to it. >>If Hopkins is convinced of the veracity of a witnesses testimony >>(and as he revealed, he has various means of checking) and yet >If he _really_ has various means of checking why doesn't he tell >us what they are? >>the story falls outside even the parameters of the extremely >>broad boundaries that this subject already imposes, then what is >>he to do? Given his intellect and experience, he will attempt to >>offer some "reasonable" explanation, and that is exactly what he >>and Carol have done. All that Carol, on the science side of >Reasonable explanation? What reasonable explanation? You're >joking, surely? >>things has done is to pull together a number of both existing >>and original ideas, as well as solid facts, put them together in >>a reasoned and thought out manner, and then say, "This is what >>might have happened". She's not saying, "This is definitely what >>happened". It's placed before you gentlemen for your reasoned >>and considered opinion. As I read it, they don't want you to >>take what they say as fact. These are ideas, intelligently >>posited and thoughtfully constructed and laid before the reader >>to think about. Of course, it is your choice to reject or >>accept. >The ideas are utterly crazy and incoherent. It isn't a question >of accepting or rejecting - Hopkins and Rainey's pseudo- >scientific speculations just don't make sense. >>Hopkins admits that it took him, as I remember, close to two >>decades to get his thoughts in order on this. He's aware of the >>risk he's taking, and it appears, not without some discomfort. I >>for one applaud his and Carol's bravery. I think it is a >>landmark book and, as I mentioned in my own review, I think >>their ideas will gradually, over time, gain acceptance and >>filter through into mainstream thinking. Rip it apart, >>gentlemen, by all means, but I will not be looking at the detail >>too closely. My preference is to stand back and take a broader >>view. >That's right - so long as it's a good read, why bother with the >details or whether it makes sense or not? If you like fantastic >yarns, why not read science fiction? Your unsurprising assessment is smug, superior, elitist, assumptive, uninformed, arrogant, insulting, and shallow. This is forgetting that it is hollow, ignorant, fallacious, convenient, unbalanced, biased, and canted. You are the needless hurdle to our advancement sir, raising and lowering your evidentiary bar in an arbitrary manner to serve ends increasingly more specious and fatuous and cross purposed. Ridicule and derision don't discourage people anymore, sir. It just pisses us off. Your criticism is as vacuous as mine is 'supposed' to be, Mr. Harney, and decidedly less inspiring. A report from the field. Lehmberg.nul EXPLORE "AlienViewGroup" at its HostPros URL. http://www.alienview.net JOHN FORD RESTORATION FUND -- John will be released eventually. He'll need a tax free cash stake to get on his feet. Let's put one together for him; the bigger it is -- the more attention he gets. It could have been you. E-mail for detail. $450.00 pledged -- $200.00 collected! "I cleave the heavens, and soar to the infinite. What others see from afar, I leave far behind me." - Giordano Bruno, scourged by the scabrously specious scurrilous.
[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp