From: Kathy Kasten <catraja.nul> Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2012 22:06:02 +0000 Archived: Sat, 02 Jun 2012 15:11:27 -0400 Subject: Re: Carrion's Conversion >From: Jerome Clark <jkclark.nul> >To: post.nul >Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 10:53:16 -0500 >Subject: Carrion's Conversion [was: Flying Saucers - The Greatest Lie Ever Told] >>From: Steven Kaeser <steve.nul> >>To: post.nul >>Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 10:13:07 -0400 >>Subject: Re: Flying Saucers - The Greatest Lie Ever Told <snip> >>Carrion isn't the first person to jump from the fence to one >>side or the other in this field, and I've seen most researchers >>sway one way or the other as time goes on. But his quick >>transition from newly installed International Director of MUFON >>to someone who has it all figured out is somewhat incredulous. >I agree, Steve, with the point. Carrion's conversion is >dizzyingly swift. His desire to depict everybody who hasn't >followed him there as intellectually corrupt, stupid, dogmatic, >blind, deaf, or whatever (choose your favorite unflattering >adjective) is, at the least, unbecoming. Better for him to rein >it in and to concentrate on writing up the most compelling >version of his case he's able to construct, and then the rest of >us can make our own judgments. >I've been at this since the early 1960s. Over the decades I've >changed my mind about a number of things, and not a day passes >that I'm not weighing and pondering in the face of new >information. I am struck, for example, at how my thoughts >concerning such fundamental matters as abductions and >crash/retrieval claims have evolved from my first exposure to >them and on to the present, where I hold views I would have >found unimaginable or objectionable back then. Right now I'm >reading John Alexander's very interesting book and finding his >contribution intriguing and thought-provoking, helping me to >clarify my own impressions of what we're up against in this very >difficult enterprise. >Thus, I try to stay modest in the face of new claims that aren't >at least obviously crazy or rooted in conspiracy theory or >demonology. I encourage others to do the same. We're dealing >with phenomena of extraordinary complexity, well beyond current >knowledge to all appearances. That being the case, provisional >hypotheses are to be preferred to ones cast in concrete. >Jerry Clark [See my hand raised, over here] I have proposed a provisional hypothesis: I call it the Hadrone Syndrome. This hypothesis developed out of a re-examining the data. I came to a different conclusion based on verifiable documents; some outside the usual ufo literature. Now, I don't want you to worry. I have no intention - nor does any publisher - of sharing the extensive and lengthy documentation with anybody. This after testing the waters in this group and being shot down at every turn. For solace, I am reading Annie Jacobsen's book, Area 51. She did bring a new hypothesis to the table and got creamed in the process. Good thing she had a day job with a fairly prestigious publication in the big city of L.A. The day job got her face time, almost immediately after the book was published, with major networks. Could the rest of the ufo researchers have been jealous of her position? New kid on the block, thinking she hone in on their positions? Frankly, as i read what she wrote, I find that she was careful to cite the sources she could cite. Yeah, I am sure there were a couple of minor errors. Everyone - who doesn't have an editor - makes errors. KK 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