From: Jerome Clark <jkclark.nul> Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2012 10:54:31 -0600 Archived: Tue, 06 Mar 2012 14:38:17 -0500 Subject: Re: Let's Crank It Up A Notch - Cox >From: John Harney <magonia.nul> >To: <post.nul> >Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2012 16:09:14 -0000 >Subject: Re: Let's Crank It Up A Notch - Cox >>From: Robert Powell <rpowell.nul> >>To: post.nul >>Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2012 07:55:20 -0600 >>Subject: Re: Let's Crank It Up A Notch >>>From: John Harney <magonia.nul> >>>To: <post.nul> >>>Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2012 17:32:16 -0000 >>>Subject: Re: Let's Crank It Up A Notch - Cox >>>>From: Gildas Bourdais<bourdais.gildas.nul> >>>>To:<post.nul> >>>>Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2012 17:03:14 +0100 >>>>Subject: Re: Let's Crank It Up A Notch - Cox >>>>In a few words, here are the main arguments of the skeptics on >>>>Trans-en-Provence: >>>>- The round trace on the ground was made by a truck. The >>>>witness Renato Nicolai admited it could have been, although he >>>>confirmed at the same time that it was the exact place where he >>>>had seen the UFO land in his garden. Nice old man! >>>>- About the strange effects on the surrounding plants, measured >>>>by professor Bounias : he goofed in his tests, and CNES engineer >>>>Velasco doctored the plants in his micro wave oven (a brillant >>>>suspicion of Robert Alessandri); >>>>- Finally, the obvious conclusion: Nicolai made a joke. >>>>Case solved! >>>Yes, I couldn't have put it better myself. Unfortunately I >>>haven't managed to find a detailed account of Maillot's >>>investigation in English on the Web, but the French version is >>>available, with diagrams, at: >>>http://www.zetetique.org/tep.html >>Gildas, yes, I knew you were joking. >>I just wanted to see if John Harney could make some arguments by >>himself. And apparently, he still cannot. >>All he can do is cite a website. Anyone can do that. >>Perhaps I could just say, "go read the original scientific >>report." Centre National D'Etudes Spatiales. No.16 Technical >>Report. Toulouse March 1, 1983. "January 1981 Trace Analysis." >>That is hardly what I would consider making an argument. >>What exactly are your main reasons that explain Trans-en- >>Provence, John? Can you list them yourself? >As I have already noted, Gildas Bourdais has given you an >excellent brief summary of the reasons for not taking the Trans- >en-Provence story too seriously. Some people were impressed by >the scientific studies of the vegetation at the alleged UFO >landing site, but no good reason is given to believe that the >effects described could not have been caused by people walking >or driving over it. >The real mystery about this and other such stories is the >question of why intelligent, well-educated people would want to >believe such nonsense. >>I think Jerry Clark's reply to John Harney was probably the most >>appropriate: >>"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.". >This is quite meaningless. People are sceptical of such stories >because of such things as the lack of multiple, independent >witnesses, and because of inconsistencies and sloppy >investigation techniques. There are a few fairly good, >unexplained UFO cases - although it seems that the true >explantions are unlikely to be exotic - but Trans-en-Provence >is obviously not one of them. This of course is precisely the sort of non-answer - not to mention casual misrepresentation of the UFO evidence - that we would expect from a hard-core ideologue like John Harney. To wit: more sausage processing, more lock-stop dismissal, more faith-based certainty that nothing "exotic" is going on, more entirely predictable endorsements of fellow "skeptics'" alleged solutions to cases. How uninteresting. Why, I ask myself after all these years, are we even wasting time with these guys? 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