UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2007 > Jul > Jul 26

Re: Why The Cover-Up?

From: Ed Gehrman <egehrman.nul>
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 16:27:41 -0700
Archived: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 10:24:36 -0400
Subject: Re: Why The Cover-Up?


>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark.nul>
>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 09:36:51 -0500
>Subject: Re: Why The Cover-Up?

>>From: Paul Scott Anderson <paulscottanderson.nul>
>>To: ufoupdates.nul
>>Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 07:36:51 -0700
>>Subject: Re: Why The Cover-Up?

>>>From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99.nul>
>>>To: ufoupdates.nul
>>>Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2007 14:06:22 +0000
>>>Subject: Re: Why The Cover-Up?

>>>What people like Jerry Clark and me are jaded about is the
>>>apparent complete ignorance of scientific method constantly
>>>diaplayed by numerous people on this list, chief among them the
>>>purveyors of the ludicrous notion that all ideas or hypotheses
>>>are equally valid and deserving of equal consideration. It is
>>>indeed horse-laughable.

>>The problem is that some ideas simply get dismissed out of hand,
>>based only on personal bias, not facts. That's why I like
>>Stanton's idea of a "gray basket" where non-provable ideas can
>>be put on the back burner until further evidence perhaps comes
>>along, instead of just being discarded altogether.

>The "problem" is not, in the self-serving definition above, that
>ideas are rejected "based only on personal bias" (similar
>charges are routinely hurled against physics professionals by
>lay physics cranks who think they've disproved Einstein), but
>that silly ideas, based on personal belief as opposed to a body
>of compelling evidence, get continually reycled over ufology's
>history. That's why we get nowhere, and that's why those of us
>who know something about the requirements of science - not to
>mention the history of ufology - lose our patience.


Jerry,

As I've stated, there is nothing unscientific about the Ancient
hominid civilization hypothesis. I'm also sure I know "something
about the requirements of science - not to mention the history
of ufology". And I think I even know much more about evolution
than you, otherwise you'd realize, just as Bob has insisted, that
an ancient civilization is entirely possible.

>As this mind-numbing exchange has staggered onward, I have more
>and more come to understand that at least some on this list
>have, at best, a grade-school understanding of how science works
>(that is, if they don't reject science altogether). They also
>hold the absurd view that one idea being as good as another, all
>ideas - however bizarre, however question-begging - deserve
>respectful consideration, especially if in some way they
>challenged that most hated of heresies, the ETH, which they can
>be counted on to drag into every discussion even when it's not
>at issue.

This is an insulting, uncalled for rant. There's no evidence
that these descriptions apply to the folks who have entered this
discussion supporting my right to have an opinion. They
certainly don't apply to me. If you think they do, then give
some specific examples.

>I am pretty certain that by "gray basket," which any
>thoughtful anomalist has in his intellectual tool kit, Stan
>Friedman did not mean the ideas of Richard Shaver, M. K. Jessup,
>and Ed Gehrman,

I admire Jessup, for other reasons that have nothing to do with
this discussion, but I do not champion his causes and Shaver is
interesting but I'm not really that familiar with his work. I'm
an opponent of Stan's ETH.

>or, for that matter, hollow-earth doctrines (in
>which a secret advanced race is also thought to be living mostly
>hidden from our view) that are unmistakably related. Right,
>Stan?

That has nothing to do with my hypothesis.

>It's simply, really. Human evolution, archaeology, and ancient
>history are well-established disciplines, stretching over
>decades and centuries.

I'm well aware of that. Nothing that I've conjectured comes in
conflict with their methods or most findings.

>These disciplines are well funded, have
>produced a massive literature, and are taught in schools,
>colleges, and universities across the world. Research into them
>continues daily as new discoveries and insights deepen our
>understanding of how we got to where we are now. The well of
>richly documented, established data is deep.

Yes I'm very familiar with it. So what? Do you think you have
some understanding of this trove that Bob and I don't?

>(None of the above
>can be said for ufology, obviously.) Meantime, on the fringes
>Gehrman conjures up a fantastic claim which contradicts a
>staggering amount of established knowledge,

How about some citations, some refutation of my claim? I see
this as just another insulting rant without content.

>not to mention what
>those who possess it would deem common sense. If against all
>odds he happens to be right, Gehrman is an intellectual hero to
>rank with history's immortals, for example Galileo, who also had
>to suffer inquisitors like Dick Hall and me.

Another rant. Those who know me realize just how crazy these
characterizations are. The study of UFO, as far as I'm
concerned, is self defense. I'm not trying to be a hero nor do I
deserve to be.

>So if you think his claims are reasonable,

Why wouldn't you think so? Jerry hasn't presented any evidence
that I'm wrong, just a few gratuitous insults.

>so, we may safely
>presume, must scholars. In their professional life, after all,
>they examine and analyze the relevant materials that would
>demonstrate that Gehrman's theories are not, as surface
>indications would suggest, stereotypical crank speculation, in
>this instance rooted in his belief in the alien-autopsy film

Yes I admit this is true. The idea of a monotreme came from my
belief that the AA is real footage of a creature of unknown
origin being dissected. I decided to see if I could match the
physical characteristics of the creature with a known type of
mammal or reptile, or dinosaur. It amazed me that all the
physical characteristics of the AA creature matched the physical
characteristics of the monotremes, an egg laying mammal. But
what really amazed me, and made me decide to publish this
information was my finding that the monotremes had electronic
sensors imbedded under their skin surfaces that allow them to
see, with out sight. This corresponded with the six fingered
panels and the raised finger pads and the rumors that the pilots
were actually connected to the ship in some way.

>in an uncritical reading of true-mystery literature written by
>non-professionals. After all, his would arguably be the greatest
>discovery in all of history: that a technologically advanced
>civilization that has co-existed pretty much unknown to us is
>responsible for a wide range of heretofore unexplained
>appearances and phenomena.

Yes folks, that's what happened! This is the way it is.

>If this is true, direct evidence for its presence would be all
>around us.

This is Jerry blowing smoke.

>Archaeologists, historians, and others in relevant
>disciplines would have written papers in refereed scientific
>journals examining it and constructing hypotheses around it. So
>let's see those citations, shall we?

You know as well as I do that there's controversy surrounding
these subjects, but if there had been citations, I would have
given them.

>By the way, Graham Hancock, not a reputable academic, does not
>count.

So your saying this makes it so? When did you become a member of
competence committee.

>And please don't waste our time by pointing out that
>archaeological anomalies exist. Anomalies _always_ exist. Nobody
>says we know everything about the human past. (Beyond that, we
>don't know everything about, for example, gravity; yet nobody
>disputes its existence. On the other hand, we haven't heard from
>Ed Gehrman or his defenders on that subject. Maybe they'll tell
>us that scientists who work on gravity are close-minded
>incompetents who don't know anything.)

Boring and not a very realistic picture of me or my "defenders".

>But unless you can prove otherwise - and you can't - it's time
>to stop insulting your >colleagues' intelligence and wasting our
time.

Since when did you become gatekeeper?

>If you really think you have a serious claim on their time and
>attention, it is your obligation not to harangue us growingly
>impatient ufologists but to take it to the scientific
>professionals for their assessment.

Just like you've done for the ETH?

>Time, too, to start citing
>papers in the scientific literature that show the professionals
>deem the existence of a hidden terrestrial civilization even
>marginally possible.

I don't think there has been this type of discussion. All I know
is that the evolutionary mechanism, convergent evolution, is
solid and there was more than enough time for this civilization
to have existed, and if it were one hundred million years old,
there wouldn't be a trace of it now.

Since I think the ETH is an impossible scenario, I don't see why
there should be any objections to the ancient hominid theory. It
seems is stronger, scientifically and the AA connection is
certainly interesting.

>Time, in other words, to put up or shut up.

>Why do I expect that you will do neither?

I have nothing else to add. If you think you can find some proof
that my theory is invalid, present it. Those on the List who
think my theory has merit can contact me off list but there's
not much more to add. It's really a matter of weighing my
contentions against the merits of the ETH, a theory we all need
to reconsider if we really want to understand our collective
predictment.


Ed



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