From: Jerome Clark <jkclark.nul> Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2013 07:25:14 -0500 Archived: Sun, 14 Jul 2013 10:22:30 -0400 Subject: Re: Colin Andrews Re: We're Done Here, Now Go Away >From: Joe McGonagle <joe.mcgonagle.nul> >To: post.nul >Date: Sat, 13 Jul 2013 21:57:53 +0100 >Subject: Re: Colin Andrews Re: We're Done Here, Now Go Away - Cox >>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark.nul> >>To: post.nul >>Date: Sat, 13 Jul 2013 09:06:15 -0500 >>Subject: Re: Colin Andrews Re: We're Done Here, Now Go Away - Cox >>>From: Joe McGonagle <joe.mcgonagle.nul> >>>To: post.nul >>>Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2013 19:07:25 +0100 >>>Subject: Re: Colin Andrews Re: We're Done Here, Now Go Away - Cox >>>The examples you provide underline my comment regarding the >>>files not having contained any smoking guns - I can't see how >>>denying the public an image of a sprocket tag or stars >>>(explanations apparently accepted by the reporters at the time) >>>is going to conceal the truth about alien visitation. >Hello Jerry, >>And here I thought this discussion was about possibly missing >>unexplained UFO reports, not about any particular theory of >>their origin and cause. >>I'm sure I am not the first here to note the reappearance of >>this dreary debunking trope, which demands that "aliens" be >>forced into any discussion of UFO matters at first available >>opportunity. Thus, since aliens can't be proved, any meaningful >>discussion of UFO phenomena and related matters collapses on the >>spot. >Of course Jerry, I should have realised that all of the people >who claim that the MoD are only releasing the low-grade material >and are still hiding the 'real' files are non-believers just >like yourself. Why should I have thought otherwise? >>Another consequence, of course, is to reinforce the certainty >>among many observers that - given the utter predictably of >>certain rhetorical strategies from that quarter - when you've >>heard from one debunker you've heard from them all. >>What next? UFO witnesses are drunks? Oh wait, we've already >>heard that one. >As you well know, no UFO witness was ever found to be drunk, nor >for that matter otherwise intoxicated. They are all fine, >upstanding, productive members of society, without exception. >They must all be reliable witnesses, mustn't they? >The illusion of Nirvana must be maintained at any cost I >suppose. Thank you, Joe. With your response, my case stands proved. 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