UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2007 > Mar > Mar 7

Re: MUFON On Kinross & F-89 'Find' - Gehrman

From: Ed Gehrman <egehrman.nul>
Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2007 15:22:52 -0800
Fwd Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2007 08:09:24 -0500
Subject: Re: MUFON On Kinross & F-89 'Find' - Gehrman

>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark.nul>
>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2007 08:55:51 -0600
>Subject: Re: MUFON On Kinross & F-89 'Find'

>>From: Robert Gates <RGates8254.nul>
>>To: ufoupdates.nul
>>Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2007 23:25:38 EST
>>Subject: Re: MUFON On Kinross & F-89 'Find'

>>What we generally see is someone come forward and foist some
>>incredible UFO-related story. Naturally some people in the UFO
>>community are breathlessly waiting to be the first to put the
>>story out over the radio, internet and other means. Naturally
>>these same people are so eager to unload the story, that they
>>don't bother to do things like fact checking, verification of
>>people and their claimed back grounds etc etc.

>>Naturally when the story and or the person can't be verified,
>>these same people never step up to the plate, say that it
>>appears that they got duped swindled or whatever and they
>>apologize for passing around seemingly bogus information.
>>Instead they either stonewall it and never talk about it again,
>>or they rationalize everything away by claiming that even though
>>nothing can be verified, that in and of itself is proof that the
>>so called evil government was covering something up.

>You make some good points, Robert.

>I'd just like to add, first, that MUFON deserves to be commended
>for its commitment to honest inquiry, wherever it leads. That's
>what UFO research should be about - the determination of truth,
>not an effort simply to validate a desirable conclusion.


It would be much cleaner if you directed your anger at specific
people on the List, by name, who have aroused your indignation
and then make it clear to them where they have transgressed and
how they might atone for their sins.

>Second, to your last point, it is surely true that some people
>won't (or can't) admit error, though that's as much human
>failing as ufology's. I suppose, though, that one would prefer
>to have a champion of a manifestly bogus claim or idea lapse
>into silence (even if unprefaced by mea culpa) rather than - as
>occurs regrettably often - continue to defend the indefensible
>at ear-splitting rhetorical volume.

List, EBK,

Jerry disagrees with me; I know that. But he has never offered
any evidence to back up his proclamations or vexations. We've
discussed things off-List but Jerry has to be the authority and
facts mean very little. He doesn't follow an argument that
closely and often has predetermined opinions.

We disagree on Corso and polygraphs, voice stress analysis, the
Alien Autopsy, and now the topic under discussion, ancient
hominoid civilizations as the genesis of UFO. But I never
realized that any of these issues had ever been declared
"indefensible" and I really don't understand what is meant by
"ear-splitting rhetorical volume". Don't you think he should
provide an example?


[ 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