From: William Treurniet <wtreurniet.nul> Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2013 13:19:13 -0400 Archived: Tue, 18 Jun 2013 05:31:48 -0400 Subject: Re: Scattered Not Unified >From: Jerome Clark <jkclark.nul> >To: post.nul >Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2013 08:45:54 -0500 >Subject: Re: Scattered Not Unified >>From: Kathleen Brand <katsdogs.nul> >>To: post.nul >>Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2013 17:02:01 -0400 >>Subject: Re: Scattered Not Unified >>>From: Dave Emmons <ddemmons5649.nul> >>>To: <post.nul> >>>Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2013 11:14:24 -0700 (PDT) >>>Subject: Scattered Not Unified >>>Been reading and responding personally to some of the posters >>>here on UFO UpDates. Seems that people are grasping at straws in >>>trying to figure out dimensions and other universes. Academia's >>>research is necessary but the theories and opinions seem to be >>>all over the spectrum of UFO research - scattered and not >>>unified. >>>Studies on ETs, UFOs, and scientific theories on dimensions are >>>just a guess by most and completely over the head of others. >>>Why is it that people don't want to believe legitimate >>>experiencers? >>>The clues each of us experiencers give should help close the >>>research gap and answer some questions. For instance, Kathy >>>Marden's research should not be dissed. I am one of those >>>experiencers... >>>Seems it is very difficult to explain ET/UFO experiences to so- >>>called scientist or amateur scientists - those who read a lot of >>>books - and get them to open their minds to possibilities. >>>To me, I am happy with the experiences I have had with UFOs/ET >>>throughout my life and sometimes I have to chuckle about all >>>this einsteinium probabilities. Can't we all share without >>>negative replies. >>>My experiences include not seeing one up close but five UFOs. >>I've never posted on this forum before, but do receive all of >>the posts. >>As an "experiencer" myself, with absolutely no doubt in my mind >>about the craft I've seen, I second Mr. Emmons' opinion. >>Some posters go on, ad infinitum, about their own sacred >>opinions, sometimes maligning, belittling, others' ideas. >>Mainly, it seems to me they just like to spout alot of hot air - >>just like to hear themselves "expound". >>Enough, already. >I certainly respect your experiences (whatever they were). At >the same time, I don't know where you get the idea that it's >only you who have a right to express a point of view. >There is no reason for Listfolk to surrender their right to >expression just because you don't like what they're saying. None >of us - well, aside from me, of course - has a monopoly on >wisdom. Some people have well-considered opinions, others may be >foolish, and all shades between, but this is a forum on which >people get to hear them out and agree or disagree, and then >throw their ideas out there. The hope is that somewhere in this >noisy process, we'll get to some truth that may have eluded us >otherwise. Actually, that's pretty much how all truths in all >areas of inquiry are arrived at. >The history of free expression - with which you ought to >acquaint yourself - demonstrates that debate is often >cantankerous and impolite. But the alternative, namely an entire >list nodding in agreement with you, would be an argument that a >forum like Updates may as well cease to exist. >Yes, I find some posters irritating, bombastic, and wrong- >headed. Yet I know some no doubt think of me in the same way. >God bless us all, and let's have at it. I can understand why experiencers, presumably abductees, might think that their abduction experiences are generally not taken seriously, but I don't understand Dave Emmons' complaint, "Why is it that people don't want to believe legitimate experiencers?" He seems to imply that speculations about what they experienced is the same as doubting the experience itself. Kathleen Brand seems to have the same impression that abduction experiences are not believed by people "expounding" on how they might occur. She should be pleased that people are taking the time to think about possible reasons for the experiences that go beyond explaining them away. In the recent exchanges, it was only one person who opined that "Abductees lie. Abductees make up stories and add all kinds of details to their narratives." The posts by others, about "dimensions" for example, were actually based on accepting the reality of the experiences. Experiencers should see that as a plus. To my mind, the issue should be more broadly framed as a standoff between strict materialists who are against any hypothesis that smacks of "woo-woo", i.e., possibilities beyond our present science, and those who accept that experiences of telepathy and moving through walls are clues about a reality we don't understand yet. I am pretty much in agreement with the substance of Jerome Clark's response above. I disagree, though, that the alternative to a "cantankerous and impolite" debate is "an entire list nodding in agreement". I enjoy a well-reasoned argument in a debate that is, at the same time, polite. William 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