UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2007 > Aug > Aug 11

Re: Expert Opinions

From: James Horak <jchorak7441.nul>
Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2007 13:14:59 -0700 (PDT)
Archived: Sat, 11 Aug 2007 10:49:14 -0400
Subject: Re: Expert Opinions

>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark.nul>
>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2007 09:05:02 -0500
>Subject: Re: Expert Opinions

>From: James Horak <jchorak7441.nul>
>To: ufoupdates.nul
>Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2007 19:32:53 -0700 (PDT)
>Subject: Re: Expert Opinions

>>From: From: Jerome Clark <jkclark.nul>
>>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>>Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2007 15:52:25 -0500
>>Subject: Re: Expert Opinions


>>That has never been at issue. What seems to be at issue is the
>>right of those who reject that "theory" as absurd and
>>unscientific to be heard.

>As any sincere searcher for truth will tell you, Mr. Clark, it
>well suffices to state you don't subscribe to the theory of
>another, not to disparage with epithets such as,
>"absurd"... perhaps even that of, "unscientific".

>In other words, no proposition is too outlandish, too evidence-
>deficient, too contrary to mountainous bodies of established
>knowledge, too unsupported by any actual scientists, to merit
>anyone else's calling it "absurd" and "unscientific." All ideas,
>however loopy on their face, merit respect and "debate." I guess
>that explains why ufology remains, at best, frozen in place -
>that's a generous assessment; a less generous one would place
>it even farther out there on the fringes of irrelevance - after
>60 years.

Mr, Clark, pardon me for not addressing more of your post but,
since it logically follows a premise found in the first
paragraph that I do not accept, I hope you understand why I do

If you were no debunker you would have arrived at the point
where you fully grasped that many UFO anomaly cannot be
explained in conventional terms... and not just by definition,
by frame of reference. In other words, they are, by scientific
standard, inextricable to define.

Just as was almost the whole cosmological view of the universe
held by those that placed the earth in the center of everything,
when held up to a Copernican model.

We, as true seekers of truth do not begin by eliminating what a
thing is not when we scarcely agree on its very presence. It is
beyond me why you, and others like you, feel compelled to do
that. I know why it was done to Galileo. He could back up his
theories with a telescope. Entire belief structures felt
threatened, most long needing the challenge.

In truth, it is no different today. You are not stupid, mean-
 spirited, unintelligent. But you are not going far beyond your
own mindset either. And, although you may, as your colleague,
find it insulting, your approach is stifling and backwards.

That is part of your milieu, something for which I feel too.
Good science, like good medicine, requires constructs to address
anomaly that are not being made by either. Instead they are
avoided until the avoidance becomes so catastrophic in
consequence, evidence starts being lost, suppressed, hidden
away. It is a hard thing to face, but you need to face it.
Science today is failing itself. despite someone's fantastic
claims, despite people that some may want to deem as unworthy

I know many reports that come from good decent people where
details have been confided to me that they were reluctant to
divulge to others. Would you, if investigating, have
circumscribed what those people experienced to fit your own

I think you might. I know damn well Mr. Hall would.

Now that, IMHO, is absurd and unscientific.


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