UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2012 > Apr > Apr 5

Re: Exeter Case 'Solved'

From: Martin Shough <parcellular.nul>
Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2012 16:28:30 +0100
Archived: Thu, 05 Apr 2012 11:51:41 -0400
Subject: Re: Exeter Case 'Solved'

>From: Peter Davenport <director.nul>
>To: <post.nul>
>Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2012 12:47:33 -0700
>Subject: Re: Exeter Case 'Solved'

>>From: Martin Shough <parcellular.nul>
>>To: <post.nul>
>>Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2012 12:41:30 +0100
>>Subject: Re: Exeter Case 'Solved'

>>>From: Peter Davenport <director.nul>
>>>To: <post.nul>
>>>Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2012 14:58:54 -0700
>>>Subject: Re: Exeter Case 'Solved'


>>>Martin, et al,

>>>I vaguely remember hearing about the McGaha/Nickell article,
>>>when it was first published, but today was the first time I took
>>>the time to read it. I'm sorry I wasted the time necessary to
>>>do so!

>>>The contents of the article make it, in my opinion, little more
>>>than a classic disinformation piece, hardly worth the time to
>>>read it, and certainly not worth the time to write a long,
>>>detailed analysis of the many flaws, oversights, and omissions
>>>the article exhibits.

>>I answered Peter's post and Don's response on another List
>>without realising they had also been posted to this list (I've
>>been travelling and not receiving mails properly) so I ought to
>>quote here what I said there:

>>I sympathise with Peter's feeling that my critique of N & McG
>>is "not worth the time" but I disagree insofar as others have
>>considered N & McG's effort of sufficient interest to cite it.
>>I also disagree with the implication that Peter's own list of
>>refutations is a waste of his and our time. I think it's always
>>important to challenge influential tosh. And I think it's
>>always valuable to test theories by examining limit cases in a
>>quantitative way if possible because this puts a back-stop
>>behind possible interpretations of "soft" testimony that people
>>like N & McG may want to try to exploit.



>I was not criticizing your post, in which you address the
>article by McGaha and Nickell. I was criticizing the article
>itself! I have no issue with the fact that you had raised and
>addressed the issue of their article about Exeter.

OK, Peter, thanks for that clarification. No problem.

>I recall that you and I have 'crossed sabers' on at least one
>occasion in the past, but this is, by no means, a repeat of
>that exchange!

Ha, I expect an occasional abrasive clash is a necessary part of
virile debate. But in this case we have complementary rather
than conflicting points of view.

Kind regards


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



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.

[ 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