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

Re: Why The Cover-Up?

From: Ed Gehrman <egehrman.nul>
Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2007 16:37:05 -0700
Archived: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 08:06:48 -0400
Subject: Re: Why The Cover-Up?

>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark.nul>
>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2007 09:52:50 -0500
>Subject: Re: Why The Cover-Up?

>>From: Ed Gehrman <egehrman.nul>
>>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>>Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2007 11:32:41 -0700
>>Subject: Re: Why The Cover-Up?

>>I don't think Ray is saying that I'm Galileo, but that your
>>attitude of condemnation toward my research is similar to the
>>mind control found during the inquisition.

>In other words, anybody who dismisses an idea he finds extremely
>unlikely to be true, and with which otherwise he does not wish
>to waste his and colleagues' limited time and resources, is an
>advocate of "the mind control found during the inquisition."


If this is the way you wish to read my statement, so be it. I
realize that you find the hypothesis that UFO are piloted by
civilized ancient mammals to be absurd. But what I don't
understand is why . Why can't you give me a single reason for
your opinion? What about convergent evolution? Is that also
something that wastes your colleagues limited time? And for the
record, the Galileo and inquisition references are Ray's alone.
I don't have a persecution complex..

>You are not a serious man, Ed, and your rhetorical style is as inept
>as your critical acumen.

You don't know me. Saying that I'm not a "serious man" without
providing an example doesn't help me understand your reasoning.
Same with my inept writing.

>>You have yet to present a single ounce of evidence that my ideas
>>are horse-laughable. I don't think you can. You have an eerie
>>faith that I'm wrong, so no proof is necessary. I hope he list
>>can see through this mindless fog of ridicule.

>In its study of ufology's intellectual history, my UFO
>Encyclopedia surveys other fringe "theories", some of them
>broadly comparable to yours (e.g., Shaver's in the 1940s,
>Jessup's in the 1950s), so I'm afraid I can't even give you
>credit for much of an original imagination.

Did I ask for credit? Did I ever say that the basic concept was
original? Yes Shaver and Jessup did think that the UFO problems
could be home grown, but I'm much more indebted to Ivan
Sanderson, whom you also have insulted and ridiculed, without
reading or examining. All theories are fringe until examined
closely. Some become accepted, and the others are rejected,
usually for cause. To most scientists, the ETH is a fringe

>In any event, I am
>not the one who has to prove anything; the burden of proof is
>always on those who advance fantastic claims which challenge
>mountains of accumulated knowledge.

My theory doesn't challenge any accumulated knowledge, unless
you consider the ETH to be one of these mounds.

>I understand, of course,
>that you would like it to be otherwise. Naturally, if your wish
>were to come true, I would immediately demand that you provide
>proof that UFO entities are not the product, as I have proposed,
>of interbreeding between dill pickles and tropical fruit.
Nothing that I have sugested is unscientific, nor does is violate
any scientific or evolutionary doctrines. Convergent evolution
is as well known and solid as the speed of sound.

>I don't argue, either, with persons who think the earth is flat,
>or who hold that a Hebrew tribal deity created - magically and
>immutably - all life on earth, or that the Queen of England
>secretly rules the world, or that Nikola Tesla was a Venusian.

As least we agree on a few things.

>There are, however, genuine authorities on archaeology and
>history. You are not among them.

I never said I was but I'm positive that I have read as much in
these areas as you. Again you're making assumptions that aren't

>Consequently, you would do well
>to seek out those who do know what they're talking about, those
>who have devoted their professional careers to the study of the
>human past, building upon centuries of discovery by pioneers in
>the unraveling of humanity's long and fascinating story.

I'm sure that I have a much better understanding of these
subjects than you.

>I encourage you to approach such experts - you'll find some at a
>nearby college/university or museum - and ask if they think
>there is any compelling evidence for the existence, past or
>present, of a technologically advanced but hidden race that
>shares the planet with us.

These experts are my friends and school classmates and fishing
buddies and we talk about far out ideas all the time. They agree
that there isn't any hard accepted evidence of ancient
civilizations, but there are tantalizing clues, mainly the work
of Hancock Many stress that so much has been lost to time that
there's no way to make a real estimate of probability. But if
you ask them to make a choice between ETH and ancient hominids,
the hominids win every time. Not a single scientist that I know
believes that star travel is possible.

>Then you can come back and tell us
>why them educated fellers are all inquisitors at heart and Ed
>Gehrman is the heroic victim of their blind refusal to concede
>his superior wisdom. You can also tell us how Galileo, to whom
>you secretly compare yourself, must have felt.

I have never secretely or openly compared myself to Galileo. But
you are correct. Most academics do not accept the idea that
ancient monotranes pilot UFO. An even greater number reject ETH
and are in denial about all UFO matters. So where does that
leave us?


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