UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2007 > Aug > Aug 3

Re: Why The Cover-Up?

From: Paul Scott Anderson <paulscottanderson.nul>
Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2007 00:04:48 -0700
Archived: Fri, 03 Aug 2007 11:42:09 -0400
Subject: Re: Why The Cover-Up?

>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark.nul>
>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2007 12:06:04 -0500
>Subject: Re: Why The Cover-Up?

>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.

It does work, yes, most of the time...

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

I was just referring to other previous references I had noted on
the List regarding how 'unlikely' those ideas are, according to
those who insist that the ETH must be true. I could look some up
when I get a chance. I agree that we have 'visitors' but whether
they come from another planet(s), another dimension or another
time is still an open question. Why is there so often this
_assumption_ that they must be from another solar system? It's
possible, there are just other possibilities as well. Even the
idea that they are physically terrestrial. I agree that is
probably much less likely actually, but it shouldn't be
dismissed prematurely, either.

>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.

Again, I was not referring to Ed's ideas alone or specifically,
I was just making a general observation.

>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.

I was just under the impression that you strongly supported the
ETH and were very skeptical of the terrestrial hypothesis...

>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.

I agree actually, when clear evidence exists to refute a claim.
In some cases though, available evidence is ignored or
trivialized because of prior, deeply imbedded bias (by both
believers and debunkers). I have argued against this, when it
comes to crop circle research; some people refuse to acknowledge
that there is a lot of hoaxing going on, even though the
'ground-truth' evidence indicates it in many cases. They want
the whole phenomenon to be wonderful and mysterious, and for
every formation to be something paranormal. I still think there
is a real, core, phenomenon, and I've had my own experiences I
can't explain, but there is also a lot of very human 'monkey
business' as well.


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