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? - Hall

From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99.nul>
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 20:02:20 +0000
Archived: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 12:20:21 -0400
Subject: Re: Why The Cover-Up? - Hall


>From: Ed Gehrman <egehrman.nul>
>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 11:00:12 -0700
>Subject: Re: Why The Cover-Up?

>>From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99.nul>
>>To: ufoupdates.nul
>>Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2007 19:36:02 +0000
>>Subject: Re: Why The Cover-Up?

>>>From: Ed Gehrman <egehrman.nul>
>>>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>>>Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2007 11:06:05 -0700
>>>Subject: Re: Why The Cover-Up?

>>>Thanks, Steve. I don't believe that I support the notion that
>>>all theories are of equal value. I don't remember saying that
>>>anywhere.

>>I didn't say you did, Ed. It's your defenders who act that way.

>Dick,

>I don't have any defenders. I can't think of a single person who
>buys into my theory 100%. What Steve and Ray and Bob
>were defending was my right to an informed opinion. They felt
>I should be able present it to the List without being attacked
>or made to look ridiculous.

Well, Ed, that's exactly what I meant by defenders. Please don't
try to play semantical games with me. I actually studied
semantics, logic, etc. in college. Your "theory" is indefensible
anyway. See below.

>>>>The utter necessity of peer review aside, hpothesis or theory
>>>>construction requiires building a logically coherent and
>>>>empirically grounded explanation for a body of data. not simply
>>>>pulling some wild-ass notion out of the sky.

>>>My theory is supported by science theory (convergent evolution)
>>>and is logically coherent and very simple to understand:
>>>Sometime during the last two-hundred million years another
>>>species of tool makers evolved and populated the earth in enough
>>>numbers to create the technology that is responsible to the UFO
>>>seen daily across our planet.

A theory is not supported by other theories, it is supported (or
not) by facts. All sorts of things are internally entirely
logically coherent, and crazy as hell at the same time! All you
have to do is make crazy assumptions and then reason in circles,
as you seem to do.

>>>We live parallel existences and
>>>are at the point of possible convergence. All the above is
>>>possible, scientifically, and historically. It is not some
>>>"wild-ass notion". It is by far the simplest explanation, and
>>>makes sense of all the information that ufology has collected
>>>over the years. All one needs to do is substitute ancient
>>>monotreme civilization (AMC) for ETH.

>>And where do we go to see these people, Ed?

>I know you and I agree on one important fact. Humans world- wide
>are being visited, on a daily basis, by UFO and their occupants.
>These visitations can only be the result of a very short list of
>causes: our own military, folks from other star systems (ETH),
>or folks from our own solar system. (I'm ruling out other causes
>such as angels, daemons, time travelers, interdimentional
>entities, etc, because I assume you agree with me that these are
>not serious possibilities)

No, I don't agree with you. Some of these notions cannot be
ruled out, though it seems impossible to test them
scientifically. I have always preferred the term "visitors from
elsewhere" which leaves the door open for some more exotic
origin than inhabitans of a distant planet in 3-D space.

>I have ruled out ETH because science
>says FTL travel is not possible. I have ruled out our own
>military ( except for the TR 3B, the flying triangle) because
>the history of UFO goes back thousands of years.

That's hilarious! here you accept science because it (so you
say) rules out the ETH, but you discard the large body of earth
sciences data that Jerry Clark has mentioned and substitute
crankish speculations.

>I was left with only one real possibility and that was that
>these critters came from our neighborhood. When I looked into it
>and began to examine our evolutionary record and the missing
>links and the enormous time spans involved, it became clear that
>the simplest and best explanation for UFO was a parallel, and
>convergent ancient civilization. There is nothing in any branch
>of science that prevents or negates these ideas. This theory is
>not "unscientific".

>I'm not asking that the List endorse this theory. What I'm
>asking is that it be considered along side the ETH. Actually the
>ancient hominid theory has much more going for it than ETH, once
>you open your mind to the possibility that it could be true.
>There's evidence that their interest in us began to increase
>after our first nuclear tests. Could nuclear fallout have caused
>the Roswell crash? There is nothing in all UFO literature that
>prevents a consideration of the Ancient hominid theory.  I could
>ramble on but I think you all get my point.

Bottom line: Your so-called "theory" is made of whole cloth and
has no empirical grounding whatsoever. It can't be checked. You
give us no way to see this alleged "parallel" civilization.
There is no historical record of them. Further discussion is
pointless unless you come up with some meaningful evidence.
Open-ended, ungrounded speculation is not science.



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