UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2007 > Jul > Jul 30

Re: Why The Cover-Up?

From: John Rimmer <j.rimmer.nul>
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2007 16:15:09 +0100
Archived: Mon, 30 Jul 2007 14:31:25 -0400
Subject: Re: Why The Cover-Up? 

>From: Paul Scott Anderson <paulscottanderson.nul>
>To: ufoupdates.nul
>Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2007 21:51:30 -0700
>Subject: Re: Why The Cover-Up?

>>From: John Rimmer <j.rimmer.nul>
>>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>>Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2007 16:25:48 +0100
>>Subject: Re: Why The Cover-Up?

>>Is this actually proven? This cliche gets repeated so often,
>>without citation, that I suspect it might be a version on urban
>>legend. Even if it did happen as claimed, surely there must be
>>some other example of scientific myopia that people could quote,
>>just for the sake of variety?

>There are many examples where science arrogantly deemed some
>ideas to be impossible, then later proven wrong. Some scientists
>even initially dismissed the 'sprites' as being due to pilots'
>imaginations, but now they have been well documented. I will
>look up more info re the meteorites, but I remember seeing
>direct quotes about that before. Modern science is a tool, but
>it is not the end-all and be-all and is not infallible.

It would be a good thing if you could come up with a few more
examples, as the meteorites story getts trotted out so often
that it'a almost becoming counterproductive, rather like the
'more things in heaven and earth' quote that's almost a signal
that the writer is scraping the bottom of the barrel for an

>>As I have said before, anyone has a right to express any theory
>>they like, no matter how barmy and half-baked. Others however
>>have a right to dismiss it, not 'out-of-hand', but with the
>>evidence of accumulated scientific knowledge. So far the only
>>'evidence' offered seems to be 'I think UFOs are real craft, but
>>I don't like the idea of the ETH, so I'll have to imagine
>>something else'.

>>Well then you'll know that these ideas are entertaining
>>imagination-based speculation, not scientific theory. But keep
>>going at it, because it's certainly giving us Pelicanists a

>That's my point. You guys are _assuming_ that certain ideas are
>'laughable' but that is your _opinion_, it is not based on
>evidence. Can you prove that some of these ideas are impossible?
>No, you can't. I agree that some theories floating around are
>very "out there" but to summarily dismiss any new thinking that
>is out of line with your own reasoning is just wrong.

I think there _is_ enough evidence to disprove the 'convergent
evolution' theory. If a species, human, quasi-human or
reptilian, has developed on Earth to the point where it is able
to construct and operate high-performance flying craft, it must
have left a great deal of physical evidence around. I'm not just
talking about ambiguous archaeology such as Hancock and Roberts
discuss, but actually existing technology. Where is it? We've
all got Google Earth on our computers, just direct me to the
site of the flying disc factory!

>Just as with crop circles, I think that there may be multiple
>explanations for UFOs. There isn't one theory that nicely
>explains all of the observations made throughout history. I
>agree that the ETH is a leading contender for some reports, such
>as Roswell for example, but there are other kinds of sightings
>that don't seem to fit in that little box. For ufologists to
>assume that there must be just one explanation for the whole
>phenomenon is also wrong.

I absolutely agree that there are multiple explanations for
UFOs, but the only people who seem to insist on one overarching
explanation are the hard-line sc[k]eptics.

John Rimmer

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