UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2007 > Aug > Aug 2

Re: Why The Cover-Up?

From: Jerome Clark <jkclark.nul>
Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2007 12:06:04 -0500
Archived: Thu, 02 Aug 2007 13:24:13 -0400
Subject: Re: Why The Cover-Up? 

>From: Paul Scott Anderson <paulscottanderson.nul>
>To: ufoupdates.nul
>Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2007 23:37:24 -0700
>Subject: Re: Why The Cover-Up?

>>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark.nul>
>>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>>Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 09:41:55 -0500
>>Subject: Re: Why The Cover-Up?

>My point was specifically about _attitude_ only. I gave you a
>specific reference, how Chladni was _ignored_ and _ridiculed_
>for believing that meteorites must have come from space, and
>even Thomas Jefferson _declared_ that it couldn't be true. I
>realize that scientific understanding was much more modest back
>then of course, but it is still limited now, more than a lot of
>people would like to admit. There is still that knee-jerk
>reaction to blindly dismiss certain ideas, and, in some cases,
>scientists again end up with egg on their faces. The ones I
>respect most are the ones who are willing to admit when they are
>wrong (such as Stephen Hawking a while ago re black holes).

Uh huh, no argument. Scientists are human, and they can be
wrong, and they can behave foolishly and mule-headedly. (Surely
you're aware of scientists' concept of Type One and Type Two
errors, aren't you?) Aside from that self-evident, trivial
point, the larger reality is that science, if sometimes short-
sighted in the short term, ultimately works. Unlike much of
ufology, it is answerable to evidence in the end.

>The problem, as I noted before, is that modern science has
>increasingly come to accept the possibility of weird quantum
>physics, multiple universes, time travel, teleportation, etc.,
>yet I still see some ufologists who dismiss these kinds of
>notions to explain UFOs.

And who would they be? Instead of hand-waving, let's have
specific names and specific quotes.

>"Silly" ideas like this _are_ starting to become more a part of
>mainstream scientific thinking (among some scientists at least),
>so people who hastily debunk them need to get their heads of the
>sand. I don't understand researchers who promote serious
>scientific thinking (which is good) but then don't bother to
>consider some of the latest findings coming from that science; I
>guess because some of those findings are still too "weird" for
>them. Skepticism is one thing (and healthy) but there is the
>danger of crossing the line into debunkery.

Translated: One of the greatest thinkers in all of history, Ed
Gehrman, who if proved right will be ranked with Galileo,
Darwin, and Einstein because his ideas will change a wide range
of knowledge and understanding of the earth and its history, is
posting on a e-mail list catering to UFO buffs instead of
seeking to publish his staggeringly significant discoveries in
the scientific literature. And only we who have "crossed the
line into debunkery" suspect that science and Gehrmanism are not
likely synonymous. Actually, this debunker would express the
fervent hope that ufology and Gehrmanism are not synonymous.

>"If similar evidence was to be confirmed supporting a
>terrestrial explanation for some UFO reports, would you be
>willing to acknowledge you were wrong?"

Wrong about what, exactly? I wasn't aware that I was discussing
any UFO hypothesis - terrestrial, extraterrestrial,
interdimensional, psychosocial, or whatever - of my own. From
every available indication, you have no idea what I think about
UFOs and anomalies, though I have published on those subjects
surely as much as anybody in the history of the controversy.

Let me try one more time:

We are _all_ answerable to evidence, and evidence alone. When no
evidence exists for an ultra-extraordinary claim which, further,
contradicts untold masses of well-established knowledge,
rejection is the only option available to the sane and
reasonable. If arguably lamentable, ridicule in the face of such
lunacy is an understandable temptation.

And speaking of rejecting a claim out of hand:

I plead guilty when it comes to the one that would have us
believe the equivalent of Galileo, Darwin, and Einstein is
posting on UpDates, his genius unrecognized by other posters
heretofore never identified as debunkers. And I am happy to do

Jerry Clark

Listen to 'Strange Days... Indeed' - The PodCast