From: Jerome Clark <jkclark.nul> Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2012 14:23:25 -0500 Archived: Sun, 03 Jun 2012 07:52:25 -0400 Subject: Re: Carrion's Conversion >From: Kathy Kasten <catraja.nul> >To: <post.nul> >Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2012 22:06:02 +0000 >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. >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. For a succinct three-paragraph demolition of Jacobsen's "ridiculous tale" - his words, not mine - see the new paperback edition of John A. Alexander's UFOs: Myths, Conspiracies, and Realities, page 276. >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, Yeah, that's it, Kathy. Couldn't possibly be anything else, could it? Like, you know, that her ideas are demonstrably baseless in the real world and actually ridiculous? Sigh, 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