From: Jack Brewer <brewer.jack.nul> Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2012 08:48:07 -0700 (PDT) Archived: Mon, 04 Jun 2012 08:49:04 -0400 Subject: Re: Flying Saucers - The Greatest Lie Ever Told >From: James Carrion <jcarrion.nul> >Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2012 08:39:24 -0300 >Archived: Sat, 02 Jun 2012 08:11:07 -0400 >Subject: Re: Flying Saucers - The Greatest Lie Ever Told <snip> >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. >James I sincerely empathize. I invite consideration of the following: - If one does not understand critical thinking skills or refuses to apply them, all ensuing discussion is editorial opinion and irrelevant from the perspective of attempting to establish actuality. Specifically, there is no single explanation applicable to the complex history of unidentified things perceived to be bouncing around the sky. Similarly, what James may or may not think about the history and explanations for UFOs, the work anyone else has published on the topic, personal experiences concerning the subject matter and so on are entirely irrelevant in evaluating two issues that should be primary concerns: One, the literal research methodology undertaken by James during the course of his work, and, two, his hypothesis surrounding certain events that took place specifically during June of 1947. - In order to effectively offer critical review of work presented by James Carrion or anyone else, the work must actually be read and considered. There is no way to competently negotiate this point; a person is simply unqualified to comment on work they have not read and/or do not understand. Repeatedly demanding James explain points that are, in fact, covered extensively in the work undermines the entire process of effectively and objectively considering the research presented. Similarly, incorrectly and unfairly saddling James with assertions not actually expressed in his work, as is repeatedly taking place, is very detrimental to productive and constructive dialog. Such tactics also misrepresent actuality while failing to address the substance of the research, whether the tactics are implemented through intentional ill will, personal insecurities or simple ignorance. - Whether or not the UFO community likes to acknowledge it, none of the events in question, Maury Island, Arnold or Roswell, have ever been conclusively established to include extraterrestrial beings and such. Arguments that said events involved ET and/or extraordinary phenomena are currently nothing more than passionate editorial and representations of opinion. One rational line of consideration would therefore be that alternative explanations should be considered and explored, not oppressed, particularly if such exploration includes adhering to professional research protocol. Actually, a strong argument could well be made that rationality demands exploring alternative and innovative approaches in light of the fact no conclusive evidence of ET has ever been established. So, James, I would agree that you are indeed wasting your time if your efforts are measured by the extent you can lead certain people to understand that what may or may not have taken place in Washington during the latter 1940's does not necessarily have anything to do with what may or may not have happened, for instance, in Point Pleasant, West Virginia, in the 1960's, among other examples of applying critical thinking. I would also conclude it to be a waste of time if you expect people to be held accountable for their statements who refuse to follow reasonable debate protocol and are emotionally vested in attacking your research to the extent they are entirely unable to objectively discuss it. I would equally conclude, however, that your research itself has been a very wise use of time from several perspectives well beyond the possibility your theory may be correct and your work offers interesting considerations. Among such perspectives would be the examples you have provided of competently conducting research as well as applying long term sustained attention, each of which are very valuable commodities. Such skills are valuable not only in ufology, but also in a culture suffering from ever decreasing attention spans and the subsequent risks of misunderstanding concepts if they cannot be fully contained within single tweets or brief emails. What's more, I would even say your recent efforts on UFO UpDates List were not entirely wastes of time, in that it is my experience that numerous intelligent and reasonably well informed readers do not bother (or waste their time, if you will) arguing with those who are overly opinionated and prone to pontificating. Such intelligent readers indeed notice what takes place both overtly and at times between the lines. In that regard, James, your time was well spent in further exposing that which the discriminating member of the UFO community must come to accept: many people have very little interest in the truth as compared to being considered witty while imposing their preferred belief systems and premature conclusions upon others. Jack www.ufotrail.blogspot.com 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