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: Why The Cover-Up?

From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99.nul>
Date: Sat, 04 Aug 2007 17:44:42 +0000
Archived: Sat, 04 Aug 2007 15:53:31 -0400
Subject: Re: Why The Cover-Up?

>From: Ed Gehrman <egehrman.nul>
>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2007 14:25:29 -0700
>Subject: Re: Why The Cover-Up?

>>From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99.nul>
>>To: ufoupdates.nul
>>Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2007 12:40:39 +0000
>>Subject: Re: Why The Cover-Up?

>>>From: Paul Scott Anderson <paulscottanderson.nul>
>>>To: ufoupdates.nul
>>>Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2007 10:40:48 -0700
>>>Subject: Re: Why The Cover-Up?

>>>>From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac.nul>
>>>>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>>>>Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 10:07:51 -0400
>>>>Subject: Re: Why The Cover-Up?

>>>>Bottom line: Theories have been known to bite the dust in the
>>>>face of ovewhelming evidence.

>>>>The 'theory' that 'they can't get here from there' (whoever
>>>>'they' are, wherever 'there' is) appears to have bitten the dust

>>>True. And I always thought that the old 'they can't get here
>>>from there' line was one of the weakest and stupidest arguments
>>>made by debunkers. Again, a case of making too many assumptions
>>>based on our still limited human technology, as well as, as I
>>>noted before, the newest findings and thinking in quantum
>>>physics, etc.

>>Meanwhile, Mr. Gehrman states quite explicitly that they can't
>>get here from there, therefore they must come from here.

>Hi Dick,

>I say there's no evidence that they come from other star
>systems. I don't believe they can get here from, but I don't
>care if others believe. I also don't believe (have faith) in
>fairies, ghosts, other dimensions, time travel or god, but It's
>not a problem for me when other folks have these beliefs.
>They're only a problem when they limit my beliefs or actions.

>>False assumptions make for wonderfully 'logical' but quite
>>erroneous real-world deductions.

>What is my "false assumption"? I agree that we are being
>visited. You have faith in the ETH, without any evidence that it
>could be true and no scientific underpinnings. I have suggested
>that a better possibility is an ancient hominid civilization.
>There are no scientific reasons this hypothesis is false.


I stated quite clearly what your false assumption is (and others
on the List have too): That they can't get here from there. You
are also making another false assumption: That you think you
know what my beliefs are. I do not take anything on faith, and I
do not insist that ETH is the answer. It is in my estimation one
of the very few viable hypotheses and needs to be thoroughly

And your chutzpah score goes off the scale when you claim the
ETH has no scientific undepinning while claiming ancient
hominids are a better explanation. Ahem, where is the scientific
underpinning for that?

>I realize that it hasn't been sanctioned by an authority, but
>there's nothing inherently false about it. It may not be what
>you want to believe. I don't mind. But if you're going to imply
>the hypothesis is false, then supply reasons and evidence. Many,
>perhaps the vast majority, on this List disagree with my
>assumptions but that doesn't mean the hypothesis is false.

The obvious test of yout hypothesis is physical evidence of this
alleged past civilization (and apparently hidden current
civilization). Where is it? And how convenient to accuse people
who disagree with you of believing what they want to believe
despite the `obvious' (to you only) superiority of your
groundless, evidence-less hypothesis. Well, Ed, to turn the
tables on you: If that's what you want to believe, go right

 - Dick

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