From: Jerome Clark <jkclark.nul> Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2010 12:12:13 -0500 Archived: Sun, 31 Oct 2010 15:13:23 -0400 Subject: Re: Again The ETH Is A Scam >From: Greg Boone <Evolbaby.nul>> >To: post.nul >Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2010 12:03:13 -0400 (EDT) >Subject: Re: Again The ETH Is A Scam >>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark.nul> >>To: <post.nul> >>Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2010 10:02:34 -0500 >>Subject: Re: Again The ETH Is A Scam >>>From: Greg Boone <Evolbaby.nul>> >>>To: post.nul >>>Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2010 11:39:03 -0400 (EDT) >>>Subject: Re: Again The ETH Is A Scam >>>>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark.nul> >>>>To: <post.nul> >>>>Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 08:52:34 -0500 >>>>Subject: Re: Again The ETH Is A Scam >>>>>From: Greg Boone <Evolbaby.nul> >>>>>To: post.nul >>>>>Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 00:19:39 EDT >>>>>Subject: Re: Again The ETH Is A Scam >><snip> >>>>>Nowadays if you don't support the ETH and it's offspring you get >>>>>lambasted but I remember when supporting the ETH and any related >>>>>matters would get you tossed into a psychiatric hospital, fired, >>>>>beaten up and ostracized. <snip> >>Please, your attempts at control through invalidation are about >>as effective as putting a fake mustache on a cowpie to fool the >>flies. >Apparently, to you an effort to clarify issues amounts to an >"attempt to control through invalidation." I guess this is the >same impulse that leads you to charge the ETH with being not >just a mistaken idea - which it may be; we just don't know yet >one way or another, which is why we talk about UFOs and not ET >spacecraft - but an actual, in your lurid imagination, "scam." I >would demand proof of that charge, but I know you can't supply >it; it's just a rhetorical device that sounds cool to you. >Sadly, your understanding of confidence crime is as lacking as >your grasp of what a scientific hypothesis is. <snip> >See there you go again with your low-brow evaluations of other >people. As though you sit on some high throne of superiority or >something. >If I were lacking in what a scientific hypothesis is I wouldn't >have passed the full body of science courses I did in school and >had gotten exempt from final exams. >I wouldn't have been able to illustrate hundreds of news stories >written by top science journalists when I worked at the Gannett >News Service. I wouldn't have been able to jaw it up with some >of the leading scientists who lived and worked with me growing >up. >Matter of fact, if I had a lacking, as you so impolitely implied >in scientific theory, how did I beat out over a thousand writers >last week to write exclusive articles for one of the world's top >mathematicians? He chose me for his exclusive and advanced >courses in everything from algebra to physics to advanced >statistics? So I guess it was all that scientific training that caused you to accuse those who have views different from yours of being scam artists. Or to confuse established fact with provisional hypothesis. Or to think that a mere six decades is enough to settle an enormously complicated scientific controversy. (Actually, more like six months, according to Brad Sparks's estimate of the duration of actual scientific research into the UFO phenomenon in the United States since 1947.) Or, my personal favorite, to think that contactees are at the core of the ETH. I notice that aside from your remarks above - from which you seem to have learned remarkably little - you address not a single substantive point I raised. Incidentally, in reference to your strange allegation, as I understand it, that the Air Force shoved the ETH down our throats, I should elaborate on a point I made in my previous post. I ought to have stessed that the pro-ETH conclusion (in 1948) of a Sign faction - whose members got sacked when its estimate of the situation ran up the command chain - remained a secret until Ruppelt exposed it in 1956 book. (To this day, as most ufologists are aware, not a single copy of it has surfaced.) The estimate, in short, played no role in shaping public opinion. By 1956 the public had made up its own mind about the ETH even as the Air Force vigorously sought to discredit it. >How could I have just created and illustrated a groundbreaking >childrens book for the world's foremost stem cell advocacy group >and passed muster with biologists around the world? Congratulations, Greg. I'm glad you're a good illustrator. I'd encourage you to stick to what you know. Jerry Clark Listen to 'Strange Days... Indeed' - The PodCast At: http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/sdi/program/ These contents above are copyright of the author and UFO UpDates - Toronto. They may not be reproduced without the express permission of both parties and are intended for educational use only.
[ Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp