UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2007 > Aug > Aug 4

Re: Expert Opinions

From: Paul Scott Anderson <paulscottanderson.nul>
Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2007 09:51:48 -0700
Archived: Sat, 04 Aug 2007 13:04:41 -0400
Subject: Re: Expert Opinions

>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark.nul>
>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2007 10:26:52 -0500
>Subject: Re: Expert Opinions

>The well-traveled quotations (snipped; see Anderson's post if
>you want to read them yet again) are none of them pertinent, I'm
>afraid. They deal with predictions related to physics and
>technology, proving only that some prominent scientists have
>been lousy prophets about what technology will make possible -
>sort of like, say, the Gehrmanists when they predict that
>interstellar travel will never happen (my own non-prophet's
>guess, by the way, is sometime in the late 21st Century). Even
>the wisest among us, alas, cannot predict the future. Or the
>silliest, either.

>Aside from its dogmatic beliefs about what the physics and
>technology to come will or won't be able to accomplish,
>Gehrmanism is not about future prediction but about projection
>into the past, where the evidence, if it existed, would be
>massive and sufficiently recoverable that no serious observer
>would have to wave his hands through empty rhetorical space to
>explain away its absence, aside from the (pause for belly
>laughs) alien-autopsy film.

>Next time, Anderson might try quoting from crank literature. I'd
>be good for laughs, obviously, but it would also be instructive
>- and a whole lot closer, I think, to the point.

This post was only meant to be a somewhat more light-hearted
note on how arrogant and short-sighted scientists can be
sometimes. And _again_, it was not about Gehrmanism
specifically, it was a general observation only. Why can't you
just take it as that without going onto the 'Gehrmanist soapbox'
yet again?


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