From: Gerald O'Connell <gac.nul>
Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2007 20:45:28 +0100
Archived: Fri, 03 Aug 2007 09:18:41 -0400
Subject: Re: The ETH


>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark.nul>
>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2007 08:16:47 -0500
>Subject: Re: The ETH

>>From: Greg Boone <Evolbaby.nul>
>>To: ufoupdates.nul
>>Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 09:36:19 EDT
>>Subject: Re: The ETH

>>>From: Gerald O'Connell <gac.nul>
>>>To: ufoupdates.nul
>>>Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2007 21:41:28 +0100
>>>Subject: Re: The ETH

<snip>

>>>We humans aren't all on the same page regarding genetics and
>>>intelligence.

>>Good point. Two-edged, but good.

- and I'd say becoming more and more two-edged as the discussion
grinds on...

>>Now that we've been indoctrinated into the ETH as though the
>>only hypothesis, and the only hypothesis that makes tons of
>>money, to suggest otherwise gets ridicule from ufologists?

Where does this 'indoctrination' idea come from? 99% of the
serious published Ufology I've read adopts the following stance:
'There's all this really convincing but anomalous evidence; we
can't explain it through conventional means; somebody's visiting
us from somewhere, but their technology appears to be so
advanced that we can't tell who and where from; shouldn't we be
throwing some seriously funded heavyweight resource at bottoming
it out?'

>Let's have some names and quotes, please. This is my second
>request. Otherwise, as I noted before, one can only assume
>you're beating a straw man.

Well, exactly Mr. Clark. And I hope, as a contributor to the 99%
to which I refer above, that you won't object to my little pen
portrait of your stance.

Surely, if the ETH gets adopted as a default explanation, then
that is because of its simplicity and obviousness, not as a
result of any deliberate or unconscious indoctrination?


Gerald O'Connell




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

See:

http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/sdi/program/