From: Jerome Clark <jkclark.nul>
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 08:52:15 -0500
Fwd Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 11:56:13 -0400
Subject: Re: Defending The Indefensible - Clark


>From: Robert Gates <RGates8254.nul>
>To: ufoupdates.nul
>Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 02:01:03 EDT
>Subject: Defending The Indefensible [was: MUFON On Kinross & F-89 'Find']

>>From: Bob Shell <bob.nul>
>>To: ufoupdates.nul
>>Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2007 08:45:00 -0500
>>Subject: Re: MUFON On Kinross & F-89 'Find'

>>>From: Ed Gehrman <egehrman.nul>
>>>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>>>Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2007 15:22:52 -0800
>>>Subject: Re: MUFON On Kinross & F-89 'Find'

>I probably wouldn't say that certain things are "indefensible"
>because I have heard people go through the motions of defending
>topics that are obviously warmed over bat guano....

>Personally I await the next swindle to come along. I may be
>wrong, but it will probably be in the summer or fall months.
>Somebody will unload some incredible story, which naturally
>can't be verified. The story tellers credentials likely will not
>be able to be verified. The story will go all over UFO talk
>radio and the Internet. Any problems with proof will be blown
>off with the thought that the story was so important that
>personality A, or talk show host B had to unload it without
>checking or investigating anything. Thus the circle of lies and
>deceit in ufology is complete.

Well and truly stated, Robert.

I have this mental image of a bunch of children in chronic,
frantic pursuit of the latest shiny new toy.

Jerry Clark