From: Ed Stewart <egs@netcom.com>
Date: Sat, 27 Dec 1997 09:03:38 -0800
Fwd Date: Sat, 27 Dec 1997 12:16:25 -0500
Subject: Re: Brasilia's Letter [Hopkins' POV]

> Date: Fri, 26 Dec 1997 12:57:12 -0800
> From: Ted Viens <drtedv@freewwweb.com>
> To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
> Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: Brasilia's Letter [Hopkins' POV]

Ted Viens makes the following point in his defense of duplicity
in ufology by quoting Jerome Clark:

> > > For God's sake, give the guy a break.  The letter is pretty
> > > innocuous, and for all practical purposes it amounts to no
> > > more than a meaningless gesture.

> ---Everything else snipped because it is so damned meaningless,
> childish, and irrelevant.---

Apparently style in communications is more of an important issue
than obvious duplicitous action with the questions such action
brings to an individual's character and integrity in this false
gestalt that has been dubbed as ufology.

So far, both Jerome Clark and now Ted Viens have made it
perfectly clear that their sensibilities have been shaken by the
lack of Ed Stewart's style, and that such lack of style makes the
real issue of duplicity not worthy of a response. The arrogance
of this position speaks volumes of the present status of
ufological wisdom and why there is so much lack of respect for
ufological wisdom in the real world.

So, what is duplicity? Webster gives various definitions:

1. contradictory doubleness of thought, speech, or action; esp:
   the belying of one's true intentions by deceptive words or
   actions.

2. the quality or state of being double or twofold.

3. the technically incorrect use of two or more distinct items
   (as claims, charges, or defenses) in a single legal action.

Now, I pointed out that Budd Hopkins' "explanations" for signing
the Brasilia Letter were duplicitous and that the best think for
Budd Hopkins to do was to make a statement clearing up the
obvious duplicity left by his contradictory remarks after the
fact of signing. Both Jerome Clark and Ted Viens have found my
observation to not only lack merit and relevance by totally
ignoring the contention of duplicity, but in both their
ufological wisdom found it necessary to focus their remarks (a
distraction from the real issue) on my style of communications as
the relevant and important issue here. What is wrong with this
picture?

> I don't know how to say it differently, Ed.  All the clipped
> ranting and raving you dumped on us was shallow, trivial,
> liturgical, rhetorical.

Okay, so this year I won't be nominated for a Pulitzer. Now, what
about the duplicity issue I raised? In your ufological wisdom,
are you going to ignore it because I am not a Pulitzer
candidate?

> It contributed nothing of substance to
> me at least.  Empty aruments over definitions and authorities.
> Denigrations of other peoples contributions.

Okay, now what about the duplicity issue I raised? In your
ufological wisdom, are you going to ignore it? Or are you stating
that there was no duplicity as defined above in Budd Hopkins
remarks once he got back to the US over the Brasilia Letter? Or
are you stating that there was duplicity, but it is perfectly
okay to overlook it in the world of ufological wisdom and any
messenger that brings it to the forefront is not making a
contribution worthy of response?

> Is this what you
> consider valuable in this broad area under the diffused title of
> Ufology?

YES, AN EMPHATIC YES. There are no standards of evidence and no
standards of conduct in this arena. That has to change. The
present practice of ufological wisdom is to simply ignore the
improprieties when they occur in the hope that they go away
unoticed and be forgotten and not to ask for clarification.

That is exactly what you and Jerome Clark are doing here. Is
there any wonder that outside this field, ufological wisdom is a
laughing stock in the real world? Ufology refuses to clean itself
up and tries to cover its own undisclipline by involking dark
conspiracies keeping the "truth" away. Yet, it won't lift a
finger to clear up inconsistencies in its own ufological wisdom.
And if a messenger comes along and points it out, that person
obviously "does not merit a serious response". Consequently, the
real issue brought up in the first place is never mentioned and
the thread becomes imbroiled in rhetoric over style of
communication and choice of words. How dare someone point out
duplicity by ufological luminaries? And to do this in a UFO
mailing list? How contentious the sacrilege of disrespect towards
a UFO illuminary and question his apparent duplicity?

> If not, just what do you consider valuable or important?  Not
> what or who drives you to despondency, rather what fascinates
> you, intrigues you, grabs the depth of your curiosity and wonder?

I am not the issue here. Duplicity is the issue. So far all I
have seen are lousy attempts at condoning such action by ignoring
it. Everytime an ostrich sticks its head in the sand two things
happen. The world all of a sudden becomes very dark and the
ostrich's butt becomes exposed for all to see. I can't think of a
better illustration of the current state of ufological wisdom.

> For instance, for me:... [SNIP]

What you believe (or anyone else for that matter) is
inconsequential, irrelevant, and a total distraction. The topic
is duplicity and the current attitudes towards duplicity in the
world of ufological wisdom.

Is duplicity something to be tolerated or not?

> How strange this quote in your signature becomes Ed in light of
> the rant it terminates.  Have you lost sight of the fact that the
> individauls and their actions that you struggle so strongly with
> are but a small part and not a whole?

Ufology does not have a "whole". It has been kept as but a hole
by the people that insist on practicing ufological wisdom in the
pursuit of their ufological beliefs. And in the process of
ignoring their deficit contributions to any real knowledge about
the UFO phenomenon, have found it necessary to invoke dark
conspiracies to hide their exposed butts.

> In the future, whatever
> become the common and broadly accepted answers to the questions
> we find so esoteric and unfathomable today will have little in
> common with our expectations.

If people professing to be interested in this field don't drop
their expectations and/or belief systems, there will never be a
future for ufological wisdom. If ufologists are so easily
disturbed by the identification of duplicity in this field and
instead going after the elegance/lack of elegance of the
messenger, there is no hope for real answers.

> So Ed, what fascinates you?  What questions are you endeavoring
> to answer?

Why is the belief system associated with the ETH so strong, that
UFO enthusiats are more than willing to park their integrity,
their character, and their discernment outside the temple they
are building for themselves and are more than willing to dellude
themselves that they are making progress towards truth? I would
like to suggest that there is little demand for truth in the
context of ufological wisdom if that truth points away from their
beliefs and current ufological wisdom. To place that in context I
offer you the sage advice of two folks that in all probability
did not know anything about ufological wisdom, but appear to me
to speak volumes about the present state of ufological wisdom.

 "As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess
 of the demand." Josh Billings (1818-1885)

and

 "It is unfortunate, considering enthusiasm moves the world,
 that so few enthusiasts can be trusted to speak the truth."
 Arthur James Balfour 1848-1930 British Prime Minister

Ted, I also suspect that in the final analysis, you will end up
finding out more about yourself than about extraterrestrial
aliens the longer you indulge yourself in this field.

May what you find about yourself measure up to your
expectations.

Ed Stewart
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ed Stewart egs@netcom.com | So Man, who here seems principal alone,
There is Something        | Perhaps acts second to some sphere unknown.
  Going On!       ,>'?'<, | Touches some wheel, or verges to some goal,
Salvador Freixedo ( O O ) | 'Tis but a part we see, and not a whole.
--------------ooOO-(_)-OOoo------- Alexander Pope, Essay on Man -------