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: Jerome Clark <jkclark.nul>
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2007 11:56:58 -0500
Archived: Mon, 30 Jul 2007 14:46:08 -0400
Subject: Re: Why The Cover-Up?

>From: Paul Scott Anderson <paulscottanderson.nul>
>To: ufoupdates.nul
>Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2007 19:59:42 -0700
>Subject: Re: Why The Cover-Up?

>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark.nul>
>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2007 10:05:39 -0500
>Subject: Re: Why The Cover-Up?

>>Yes, to anyone possessed of any scientific sophistication (or
>>common sense for that matter) Gehrmanism is indeed silly. It's
>>also silly to draw meteorites into the discussion. The evidence
>>for meteorites was substantial, and eventually scientists of
>another era, when much less was known about the subject (or
>>about any subject), were forced to acknowledge their reality.
>>Something of the same will happen with the UFO phenomenon,
>>though rejection of UFOs-as-anomalies by scientists even now is
>>hardly universal.

>You missed my point, again. The idea of 'stones falling from the
>sky' was ridiculed. Not that they existed so much as the theory
>that they came from space:

Did you even read what I wrote? You're simply repeating to me
what I already outlined, namely that _while skeptical of cosmic
origin_ - a point I made very clear, and related the basis of
such doubt - scientists did investigate meteorite reports.

Investigators generally acknowledged that the stones plummeted
to the earth - not the simplistic formulation you originally
stated (no stones in sky; therefore, no stones falling from sky)
- but only later came to recognize their extraterrestrial
origin. This is a very standard scientific pattern. A natural
phenomenon is recognized; it is investigated; hypotheses about
its causes are formulated; eventually, after sufficient
investigation (and sometimes through fortuitous circumstance),
the cause is established.

Let me stress the point you fail to grasp:

Generally, the scientists involved in meteoritic inquiry
acknowledged the existence of evidence of falling stones; it was
the interpretation of that evidence - as is typically the case
in scientific controversy - that caused the dispute and passing

On the other hand, with Gehrmanism the evidence is as puny as
the claims it makes are enormous. If Gehrman ever gets around to
presenting his case to an actual scientific community (as
opposed to flailing away here at a forum for UFO buffs), I hope
he is forthright enough to mention that it all starts with the
alien-autopsy film.

It's revealing, too, that in defense of Gehrmanism you're forced
to go back to a scientific (mis)understanding that took place
more than two centuries ago. It's hard not to see here an
implicitly acknowledgment that since Gehrman's crank notions are
not arguable in themselves, you have to grope for something
else, in this case a distant episode in the history of a science
very different from its modern equivalent, and to insist -
 however unpersuasively - that somehow it's equivalent.

Meantime, my challenge to provide a single instance of
Gehrmanist doctrine or argument in the relevant scientific
literature continues to go unanswered. (No, the occasional
archaeological anomaly doesn't count; there are _always_
anomalies in science, and they only very, very rarely lead to
monumental scientific revolutions which overthrow a wide range
of existing knowledge.) Why, many Updaters surely wonder, are
you wasting time with us? If Gehrmanism amounts to a
breakthrough that should put its founder in the company of
Galileo and Darwin, why aren't you guys preparing papers for the
professional literature of science, and making room on your
shelves for the Nobel Prizes that will surely follow publication
and replication?

Or do we know the answer to that already?

One more point: I find it amusing that Gehrman and his defenders
continually attack us critics for our alleged close-mindedness
(the implicit charge being, of course, that no other possible
reason could generate such skepticism), while Gehrman himself
never misses a chance to express contempt for all alternative
UFO hypotheses. (See, for the most recent example, his amazingly
mule-headed response to Stan Friedman.) Shouldn't criticisms of
dogmatic belief be directed to their real source: Ed Gehrman?

Or is Gehrmanist apologetics simply too intellectually
incoherent for that kind of rhetorical consistency?

Jerry Clark

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