UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2007 > Aug > Aug 7

Re: Why The Cover-Up?

From: Josh Goldstein <lovolution.nul>
Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2007 23:19:06 +0200
Archived: Tue, 07 Aug 2007 17:27:07 -0400
Subject: Re: Why The Cover-Up?

>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark.nul>
>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2007 13:03:09 -0500
>Subject: Re: Why The Cover-Up?

>>From: Paul Scott Anderson <paulscottanderson.nul>
>>To: ufoupdates.nul
>>Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2007 10:17:17 -0700
>>Subject: Re: Why The Cover-Up?

>>>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark.nul>
>>>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>>>Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2007 11:05:07 -0500
>>>Subject: Re: Why The Cover-Up?

>>I am not a Gehrmanism 'defender' per se, but I support his and
>>others' being able to put forward theories without being
>>labelled as 'cranks' etc.

>So you defend Gehrman's right to express himself as he wishes,
>while attacking critics for expressing themselves as they wish.

>I think, though, that a more productive line of discourse would
>be to provide reasoned arguments which document why Gehrmanism -
>- and here it doesn't matter whether you're a "Gehrmanism
>'defender' per se" - does not fit the profile, familiar to
>anybody who knows something about the rich, varied, and long
>history of cranks (about whom I once actually considered writing
>a book), defining crank discourse.

>I have yet to see anybody actually try to refute my or others'
>specific reasons for dismissal of claims deeply unlikely, to
>every available appearance, to be true, or to engage in an
>effort to explain why we should regard Ed Gehrman as among the
>profoundest thinkers in all of human history, as he would have
>to be if his beliefs are something other than rank fantasy. All
>I see instead are efforts to inform us critics that we have no
>right to speak what would be immediately self-evident to - sad
>to say - any educated observer outside ufology: that the tune is

>Until I see rationality and logic, as opposed to rhetoric and
>polemic, applied to refute the point that Gehrmanism is a strain
>of crackpot doctrine, I bow out of further discussion. Further,
>I apologize to patient Listfolk, who I'm sure long ago figured
>this out, for taking up time better spent on more productive
>intellectual reflection.

Aloha Jerry and all Listerians,

I am temporarily living in Germany (not Gehrmany) again while I
finish recording a new music album. I could not believe that
some young musicians wanted me to look at a CD named "Loose
Change". It is a person trying to make a case for a plot from
the US government to assist the terrorists in destroying the
World Trade Center on 09/11/2002. I knew about some of the
claims but I never saw the DVD.

Well, I watched the DVD and used what I was taught in the
detective academy regarding evidence and false claims. To me,
the person on the DVD tried to link past history events into a
connected evil scheme of the US government. He never presented
any real evidence that made his claim stand on evidence. It was
really an amateur attempt at one sided propaganda. I will look
into who is sponsoring that DVD.

I made notes of my criticism and then told them to the musicians
who had watched it and they still were convinced that it told
the truth. They had zero proof with the indocrination on that
DVD. I tried to teach them how to examine material for false
claims or supporting evidence.

They had never seen evidence from all the engineers who examined
the damage created to the World Trade Center and the Pentagon
after the catastrophe of 09/11/2001. They were convinced that
everyone except the author of the DVD were told what to say from
the US government. Just by looking at the DVD the young
musicians were convinced that they were being shown proof of an
evil conspiracy. I tried to get them to take a look at both
sides but they claimed they saw the proof in that DVD. To me
those "young Einsteins" had minds as hard as rock but minds that
could easily be molded like soft clay.

I am saying the above regarding Ed Gehrman's speculation. It is
fine to speculate but trying to claim the answer without having
any idea of what the speculation is really about means that the
claimant has turned into a fool. I am speaking in general, not
picking out Ed Gehrman. The speculation discussion I found to be
mildly humorous and interesting. Often the speculation will tell
the person who is listening to it more about about the
claimant's psychology than any evidence to support the claim.

Happy trails,

Josh Goldstein

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