UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2007 > Nov > Nov 5

Re: Science 17P/Holmes Comet & Denial

From: Vincent Boudreau <vincentboudreau.nul>
Date: Sun, 04 Nov 2007 22:59:20 -0500 (EST)
Archived: Mon, 05 Nov 2007 07:19:22 -0500
Subject: Re: Science 17P/Holmes Comet & Denial


>From: Martin Shough <parcellular.nul>
>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>Date: Sat, 3 Nov 2007 17:32:38 -0000
>Subject: Re: Science 17P/Holmes Comet & Denial

>>From: Vincent Boudreau <vincentboudreau.nul>
>>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>>Date: Fri, 02 Nov 2007 23:17:48 -0400 (EDT)
>>Subject: Science 17P/Holmes Comet & Denial

Martin and List,

There is no need to be so rude.

I am sure it is possible to exchange ideas without the finger
pointing and the baseless accusations.

You don't know me. You don't know who I am, where I come from,
what I have done. You don't know what are my credentials.

I do not understand why you wish to be so deliberately
insulting.

<snip>

>>A unique astronomical event is occurring actually. It is
>>baffling scientists: the 17P/Holmes Comet.

>Well, it isn't quite unique. The same periodic comet did a
>similar thing in the year of its discovery, 1892. In fact it did
>it _twice_ that time. Erratic magnitude estimates were also
>recorded during the 1899 return. A number of other comets have
>shown similar outbursts, but the scale of this one is said to be
>greater than any seen for about a century.

<snip>

Merriam-Webster: unique - third use: _unusual_. _Strange_ is
also considered a synonym.

<snip>

>>The Comet has become reportedly one million times brighter.

>>There is no satisfactory explanation for the event.

>There is no definite, proven explanation for the event and others
>like it. There are sensible theories, though.

It would have been interesting for you to state just a couple.

<snip>

>>One astronomer said that in, forty years of his career, he has
>>never seen or heard of anything like this.

>I thought you were trying to convince us that astronomers were
>taking no notice and showing no interest? The one astronomer you
>do actually quote seems to be quite excited.

<snip>

You got this all wrong. I never said astronomers were taking no
notice or showing no interest.

I simply pointed out that, considering the magnitude, the
importance and the "uniqueness" of the present phenomenon, I was
surprised that there was little if any mass media coverage of
the event.

As for sensible theories, I hinted that the difficulty to
pinpoint a scientific explanation made astronomers in general
shy of talking about it in public.

It is one thing to talk about it on a forum of astronomers. It
is another thing to present to the public the image of the
baffled scientist who has no clue about what is really
happening.

<snip>

>When
>they're published you'll be able to read them, if you're still
>interested. But it seems what you want is science done
>instantaneously and splurged over the tabloids. And I don't
>think you will be interested, because what's written, whilst
>very exciting for astrophysicists, won't be sensational enough
>for you.

<snip>

You are claiming mind reading abilities. You also seem to have a
crystal ball. That _is_ tabloid stuff.

You are talking in the name of all astrophysicists and of all
astronomers. You do in the biblical stuff also?

<snip>

>>There is no speculation, no questions
>>asked, no 'day dreaming', no analysis done.

>This is utter nonsense. Of course people are thinking about it.
>There's plenty of speculation. But there are few hard facts
>ava ilable to go beyond sensible likelihoods - i.e., meteoroid
>impa ct is a possibility, but not highly probable, expecially
>since Holmes is a "repeater". The most likely explanation
>discussed seems to be a crustal weakness exploited by heated
>gases. Please justify in detail your claim that "no analysis is
>being done". Who is not doing any analysis, who ought to be, and
>how do you know? And what sort of "day dreaming" would satisfy
>your definition of sensible science?

<snip>

I have observed that we live in a world where image is
everything.

I have also observed that people will grab every opportunity to
pitch themselves. Scientists are not the last in the line.

So, my surprise on this one: "Where's everybody?"

Don't mention bulletin boards and the like. I am talking about
the real media. The one that will draw attention upon yourself.

<snip>

>>This attitude makes me think that Science might be rejecting
>>UFOs becaus e it can't explain them or that it has no control
>>over the evident explanation.

>I'm afraid this attitude - with its customary generalisation and
>demonisation of science (sorry, Science, mustn't forget that
>scare-capital, and maybe add the adjective "big" as well,
>because Big Science = Nasty Mean Truth-Suppressing Science) - is
>the sort of blithering nonsense that is most likely to guarantee
>perpetual rejection of UFO evidence by most of the scientific
>community.

<snip>

Yes.

As if Science should still be looking for excuses for ignoring
something as fundamental and as crucial as UFOs.

This comes as a surprise because, plugged as you seem to be with
the milieu. With an ambassador of your caliber, Science should
have embraced UFOs long ago.

Are you implying that, because of me, this will not happen?

Jeez, take a deep breath.

Why the unnecessary roughness?


Vincent Boudreau


Listen to 'Strange Days... Indeed' - The PodCast

See:

http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/sdi/program/subscribers/


[ 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