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' ><snip> >>>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. ><snip> >Martin, >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 Martin 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.
[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp