UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2007 > Jul > Jul 25

Re: Why The Cover-Up? - Gehrman

From: Ed Gehrman <egehrman.nul>
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 10:19:44 -0700
Archived: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 12:14:07 -0400
Subject: Re: Why The Cover-Up? - Gehrman


>From: Paul Kimball <TheRobieShark.nul>
>To: ufoupdates.nul
>Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 09:40:49 EDT
>Subject: Re: Why The Cover-Up?

>>From: Ed Gehrman <egehrman.nul>
>>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>>Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2007 16:37:05 -0700
>>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?

><snip>

>>>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.

>Ed:

>I find it all terribly amusing that people who are inclined to
>support the ETH are lecturing other people about what science
>will and will not accept as a reasonable hypothesis with respect
>to UFOs.

>Having said that, when you make a statement like "Not a single
>scientist that I know believes that star travel is possible",
>you just make yourself look foolish. The best spin I can put on
>this is that you have a very, very limited range of
>acquaintances in the various relevant scientific fields.

Paul,

I stand by my statement. Perhaps I do have a limited number of
science friends, but most of them do not believe that UFO exist
and their main reason for this belief is that they hold star
travel to be impossible. Of coures there's always a fair
of kidding and horseplay but when we can discuss the matter in a
serious vein, and I explain my theory, there is always a
preference for it over star visitors.

>Or perhaps you've never met Stan Friedman. He's a scientist
>(despite what some of his detractors may say from time to
>time). Or Jim McDonald. He was a scientist. A good one.

I only met Stan once and I don't consider him a scientist.
He has a degree in science but he's a working propagandist
pushing the ETH (cosmic cover-up) and not a working scientist.
I never met Jim McDonald but I do consider him to be a
working scientist and I agree, a very good one. I have
examined his archive at Uof A and I don't recall him writing
that star travel was possible.

>Perhaps I just know more scientists than you do, but my friends
>who are scientists, to a person, don't find the idea of star
>travel (someday) to be impossible. Not a one.

Maybe I'm mssing something but "someday" is not a scientific
term. Science says: "True" FTL, in which matter exceeds the
speed of light beams in their own local region, is considered to
be impossible by the physics community because of the special
theory of relativity, which prohibits a particle with subluminal
velocity to accelerate to, or exceed, the speed of light in a
vacuum (special relativity does not forbid the existence of
particles that travel faster than light at all times)...Outside
of mainstream physics, others (often without traditional physics
training) have speculated on mechanisms that might allow FTL
travel to be achieved, often relying on new theories of physics
of their own invention, but their ideas have not gained
significant acceptance in the physics research community.
Fictional depictions of superluminal travel and the mechanisms
of achieving it are also a staple of the science fiction genre.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster-than-light


>Indeed, a recent
>poll of Canadians found that an overwhelming majority are
>convinced that we'll be able to travel to the stars someday,
>although probably not in our lifetimes. Presumably more than a
>few of the people surveyed had backgrounds in science.

I can't argue with this. I find it interesting since there are
no reasons to believe that FTL travel is possible, science
backgrounds or not.

It's only the deep, almost religious belief in the inevitable
triumph of technology that fuels this optimism. I happen to
disagree. There are limits to technology.

>Of course, a number of our government's, including mine,
>maintain space programs with the ultimate goal - someday - of
>getting us out there.

Well there's "out there" and way out there. We'll probably be
able to travel in our solar system, but not much farther with
manned vehicles.

>>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?

>Now, on the other hand, we have you telling us that more
>scientists buy into your theory than the prospect of space/star
>travel someday. Okay. Name some. Cite some peer-reviewed
>academic papers that support your contention. Find me a
>Friedman, or McDonald, or even a Hynek, that buys into ancient
>monotremes.

There are no scientists, except for Bob Shell, who have even
studied the idea to any extent and in relation to UFO.
I have said that when presented with a choice to explain
UFO, my friends have chosen convergently evolved hominoids
over travelers from another star system.

>Just one.

Bob Shell doesn't count?

>I think if you can do that you'll find
>that people will be willing to give you a fair shake. But until
>you do/can, your proclamations that there is actually more
>scientific support and merit for your 'theories' than the ETH is
>meaningless.

I never said that. I said that when my friends with science
backgrounds were presented with two choices, the ETH was not
considered possible or probable.

>And I say this as someone who is hardly a died-in-
>the-wool ETHer, and who keeps an open mind about what
>UFOs may be.

Haven't you stated that there isn't one bit of evidence that the
ETH is the solution to UFO? Since that's the case, why is it
difficult for you to keep an open mind toward the ancient
hominid theory, since there are no scientific reasons to reject
it. I don't think it has ever been seriously considered. My
function is to stimulate a discussion about these possibilities.




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

See:

http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/sdi/program/


[ 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