From: Jerome Clark <jkclark.nul> Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2012 18:30:22 -0600 Archived: Sat, 03 Mar 2012 08:03:41 -0500 Subject: Re: Let's Crank It Up A Notch - Cox >From: John Harney <magonia.nul> >To: <post.nul> >Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2012 20:11:59 -0000 >Subject: Re: Let's Crank It Up A Notch - Cox >>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark.nul> >>To: post.nul >>Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2012 08:46:31 -0600 >>Subject: Re: Let's Crank It Up A Notch - Cox >>>From: Kathy Kasten <catraja.nul> >>>To: <post.nul> >>>Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2012 18:51:12 +0000 >>>Subject: Re: Let's Crank It Up A Notch - Cox >>>Leslie Kean? Add to the discussion? I doubt it. She would simply >>>be repeating the old UFO orthodoxy without any real insider's >>>knowledge. >>Leslie Kean would make a much-needed addition to the discussion. >>She's one of the smartest, most informed people around, with an >>impressive track record as investigator, author, and >>spokesperson for our subject. >If she's so smart, why did she include so many solved UFO cases >in her book, and present them with hardly any critical comment? >She seems to be unduly impressed by military uniforms with rows >of medals, and with academic gowns, when assessing UFO reports, >and she includes some contributions from persons notorious in >ufology for their lack of objectivity. >To take but two examples to start with, from the book UFOs: >1947-1997 (edited by Hilary Evans and Dennis Stacy, John Brown >Publishing, London, 1997): >In an article, The Belgian 1989-1990 UFO Wave, Belgian >researcher Wim Van Utrecht expresses his doubts about the >authenticity of the Petit-Rechain "flying triangle" photo, and >his suspicions have recently proved to have been justified. He >also provides plausible explanations for most (not all) other >sightings in this UFO wave. >The article Trans-en-Provence: When Science And Belief Go Hand >In Hand, by Eric Maillot and Jacques Scornaux, is an excellent, >detailed demolition job on this notorious UFO "landing" and the >bungled investigations of it. >For those who have the time to spare there is plenty of critical >investigation and comment on the better-known sightings in >Kean's book which should convince all but the most hopelessly >credulous that it is little more than just another UFO gee-whiz >book. Happily, I'm not so hopelessly credulous that I have started taking debunkers' word on what a "solved" case is. Of course, to a professional debunker, there cannot be unsolved cases by definition. No matter what contortions are necessary to get there, and God knows we've seen more than a few in the long, sorry history of UFO denial. I guess, though, that we're still required to believe that if a skeptic declares a case solved, that's the end of the discussion. There's a pretty serious distinction between "skeptical" and "a skeptic." All sensible persons are skeptical when need be. It takes another kind of person - a lock-step ideologue, specifically - to be "a skeptic," through which sensibility everything must be processed like so much sausage. Not very appetizing or nutritious, I'm afraid. 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