From: Jerome Clark <jkclark.nul> Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2012 07:58:20 -0500 Archived: Sat, 02 Jun 2012 15:33:42 -0400 Subject: Re: Flying Saucers - The Greatest Lie Ever Told >From: James Carrion <jcarrion.nul> >To: <post.nul> >Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2012 08:39:24 -0300 >Subject: Re: Flying Saucers - The Greatest Lie Ever Told >>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark.nul> >>To: post.nul >>Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 07:50:27 -0500 >>Subject: Re: Flying Saucers - The Greatest Lie Ever Told ><snip> >>Exactly, Don. >>In instances like these, of which there are almost countless >>examples over the history of ufological discourse (one virtue of >>being in the despised Old Guard: you've seen it all before, and >>you know a latest shiny new toy when you see one), somebody >>conjures up some extraordinary notion, then buttresses and >>follows it with over-the-top rhetoric and demonization of all >>doubters, current and potential. >>James Carrion would be well advised to can the attacks and to >>lay out his case in precise fashion, sans the off-putting >>hyperbole. Only then will we be able to determine if his >>evidence matches his polemics. So far, the latter is sounding a >>lot louder than the former, and the pattern is looking >>dismayingly familiar. >Jerry, >Perhaps you can read over all of my posts and cite one instance >where I have personally attacked any one. If I am guilty of >anything, it is simply of presenting an alternative theory and >defending that view point. As for the proof you all keep >demanding, I have already presented documented evidence of a >disinformation campaign in the guise of Project Seal, but ho- >hum, yawn, it is not an ET explanations, so it bores you. Any >other evidence I present here will be treated the same way. I am >wasting my time here and we all know it. Okay, seeing this just now, James, I am forced to offer this comment, notwithstanding my growing desire to spend no more time and effort on this thread: You clearly have no idea how I receive UFO information and what I make of it. It's apparent, for example, that though we both attended the 2008 SSE conference, you did not afford my lecture - which among other things proposed a non-ET reading of the high-strangeness aspect of UFO experience - the courtesy of a hearing. Thus, the sloppy and baseless characterization you allow yourself to indulge here. Beyond that, I think we can all agree that James Carrion doesn't do nuance. If you're playing loosely with my own approach, I am justifiably skeptical of what you're doing with the data you have in hand. Where your mind-reading practice is concerned, in a favorite expression of my friend Mike Swords, evidently there's plenty of static on the mental radio. Is there some reason I shouldn't wonder if you're attempting comparable mind reading on post- World War II U.S. intelligence operatives? No credentialed historian, it bears noting, has come to conclusions remotely like yours. And you can't even retort that UFOs are not respectable enough for respectable historians to take up (except, of course, as absurd popular enthusiasm). True enough, but plenty have written about the operations and abuses of U.S. intelligence in the post-war years. If your conclusions were true, the credentialed historian responsible for exposing them could count on a big article in the New York Times and a lot of approving attention from colleagues. I can see the headlines already. If you can't argue your case to the satisfaction of intelligent, informed outsiders, then the problem is yours, not ours. My challenge to you to write a full account, documented to the best of your abiliity, stands. No excuses this time. 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.
[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp