UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2007 > Dec > Dec 23

Re: Penniston NP Conference & King

From: Richard Hall <dh12.nul>
Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2007 08:33:23 -0500
Archived: Sun, 23 Dec 2007 20:06:32 -0500
Subject: Re: Penniston NP Conference & King

>From: Joe McGonagle <joe.mcgonagle.nul>
>To: ufoupdates.nul
>Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 16:55:11 +0000
>Subject: Re: Penniston NP Conference & King


>I thought that Dick's response was untypically subjective, and

>Dick ought to be more aware than most of the concept of 'myth',
>and how myths develop. The case in point is an excellent
>example, and I would like to go into more detail, but can't
>spare the time. Suffice to say that changed or 'refined'
>testimony over time is a significant factor, as any historian or
>psychologist ought to realise.


Thanks for the lecture. I didn't respond to your rather
insulting remarks initially, but since you persist in your
quaint views as to what consitutes objectivity,

I will now. At least you are specific in calling Rendlesham
Forest a myth. How I would love to see you sit down face to face
with Halt and Penniston and say that directly to them.

When someone responds to my comments with smart alec remarks
like Martin did {e.g., "If you say so"), I see nothing
inappropriate about citing some of my credentials for holding
that opinion. Whereupon I am called "pompous" and worse by both
of you. Name-calling is not rational discussion. I think you are
dead wrong about the Rendlesham Forest case, and I have read and
studied literally a boxful of documents and records on it and
interviewed Col. Halt about it in depth. Anyone's opinion no
matter how logically and rationally based technically is
"subjective." Yours included. I guess "objective" means agreeing
with you and Martin. Sorry, I strongly disagree.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion. At least I have
taken the time to respond to and comment on the alleged changes
in testimony in some detail. Both of you, in my humble and
misguided and subjective opinion, are grossly exaggerating the
degree and signficance of changes in testimony. Further, I
supplied simple and logical alternative explanations for the
initial withholding of details that are well-grounded in both
human psychology and the history of UFOs and ridicule. I see no
reason why we can't agree to disagree in civil fashion.

A myth? Bah, humbug!

Merry Christmas,


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



[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |

UFO UpDates Main Index

UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp

Archive programming by Glenn Campbell at Glenn-Campbell.com