UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2013 > Jul > Jul 15

Re: Colin Andrews Re: We're Done Here, Now Go Away

From: Ray Dickenson <r.dickenson.nul>
Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2013 16:03:16 +0100
Archived: Mon, 15 Jul 2013 18:48:07 -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?

<snip>

Hello All,

Coincidental to our (intermittent) reading of this thread, the
Guardian has been running a week-long discussion on the
precautionary principle, which always invites lots of rhetoric -
maybe see the summary at:

http://tinyurl.com/pynnqb3

the individual articles are in the right-hand menu.

And, coincidentally again I extracted from both streams of
rhetoric (this thread and the Guardian's) just two sensible
rules:

1 - absence of evidence (or the claimed absence) is _not_
evidence of absence;

2 - any calculation of probabilities (of UFO/ET/aliens?) -
_must_ contain a factor for the unknown; and, being unknown,
that factor _must_ have the potential to exceed present human
knowledge.


Cheers

Ray D



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 | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |

UFO UpDates Main Index

UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp


Archive programming by Glenn Campbell at Glenn-Campbell.com