UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2007 > Jul > Jul 28

Re: Why The Cover-Up?

From: Ed Gehrman <egehrman.nul>
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2007 13:56:21 -0700
Archived: Sat, 28 Jul 2007 22:11:54 -0400
Subject: Re: Why The Cover-Up?

>From: Brad Sparks <RB47x.nul>
>To: ufoupdates.nul
>Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 21:47:24 EDT
>Subject: Re: Why The Cover-Up?

>I wholeheartedly agree with Jerry Clark and Dick Hall and their
>posts on this otherwise tiresome thread.

Hi Brad,

And I can see by this comment that you plan to continue in that
same rut.

>They have been the
>voices of reason and science.

Please. This really is getting tiresome. When did the ETH become
reasonable or scientific?

>Their opponents have cleverly
>obfuscated the issue making it one of protesting their right'
>to 'voice their opinion', as if it's merely a free speech issue.

It is a free speech issue; how can it be anthinng else?

>Of course they have the freedom of speech to say practically
>anything they want,

They get to say anything they want but we get to call them
fools. Not only call them fools but every time they raise a
point we ignore them but pretend to answer.

>But they do not also get the right to call their opinions
>"scientific" just on their say-so, without a shred of evidence,
>without any coherent theoretical development, without any
>respectable scientific literature on their monotreme theory,

We had a hypothesis. It's rooted in a scientific fact known as
convergent evolution. We show there was plenty of time for this
process to work. We explain very carefully how it could work and
that nothing we've theorized violates any know scientific fact.
In other words, there's nothing in science which pokes holes in
our theory. Of course there nothing in the literature because
this is an entirely new idea. Why is this so difficult to

>_act_like_ they should be immune from scientific criticism or

Bring on the criticism, scientific or otherwise.

>criticism of its unscientific or pseudoscientific nature or its
>foundation on the so-called Alien Autopsy film widely regarded
>as fraudulent. They do not get a free pass to call it "science."

No one is asking for one. I regard the AA as evidence; you
can do as you please.

>That is the real issue. They want to declare their 'opinion'


>that this hidden ancient monotreme civilization is to be

No! Ancient Hominid Civilization. I think there is evidence for
a monotreme genesis, but I agree with Bob that a dinosaur or
other reptile is certainly a possibility or even another mammal.
However they started, they we tool users first and then became
tool makers and that's the niche that formed all hominids. It's
the tool making that forms our general appearance and not the
actual environment in which organisms find themselves.

>considered to be scientifically valid, as equally valid as the

Not at all! The ETH doesn't have a single scientific valdation.

>and they won't stand for any criticism pointing out that it
>is scientific rubbish. Whereas the ETH has a body of scientific
>literature, mainly from hostile SETI scientists,

What BS. I mean where is the criticism. Their only criticism is
that it hasn't been validated by some authority, as if ETH had.

>and the
>MonoTreme Hypothesis (MTH) has nothing, no scientific literature
>at all. Yet proponents demand equal time, equal consideration,
>and treatment as equally valid.

The Ancient Hominid Civilization has never had a chance to be
discussed until now, on this List. Hopefully there will be many
more discussions, tiresome or not.


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