UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 1997 > Oct > Oct 10

Re: Whose Truth?

From: Dave Everett <deverett@vir.idx.com.au>
Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 18:26:35 +1000
Fwd Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 22:03:12 -0400
Subject: Re: Whose Truth?

>From: ujack@pop3.scrapcity.cnchost.com [Mark Medford]
>To: updates@globalserve.net
>Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 14:29:00 +0000
>Subject: Whose Truth?

>Dear Friends,

>So much of what we are debating is experiential. What a difficult
>thing to challenge - someone else's experience! No line of argument,
>no amount of logic, can convince me that I was not touched by an
>event, if I BELIEVE that I was. Given new information and insights, I
>might draw a different meaning from the event, but I will never disown
>the experience itself.

Well understood. A key point that I've tried to get across over
the years, there is 'private proof' and 'public proof'. Your
experience constitutes private proof, you experienced it but are
unable to transmit the proof that you experienced. I've never
knocked anyone for considering their own experience as a private
proof.

But it's 'public proof' that is of greater importance, take the
Na.. oops, Cortile case for example, at best it only meets the
private proof criteria and no amount of lectures or foot-stamping
is going to move it to public proof.

>The ability to discern is critical. Without it, we free float on a sea
>of fact and fiction. But what tools do we use to discern? The way that
>I perceive things in this world is uniquely my own - as is everyone
>else's. One is no less valid than the other.

That is why it is imperative to develop more tools that are repeatable.
Perception just won't cut it if we want to move forward.

>Since joining this list, I've read many emotion filled posts. I
>respect the courage of those who have shared - and I understand the
>need that others have to react. We are not only pushing boundaries
>here, we're challenging beliefs. This is always a risky business. Must
>our responses be so sharp? Can our convictions be tempered with
>compassion? I would hate to think that this environment, this forum,
>this community, might be seen as too hostile to join. I would hate to
>see personal bias bar, emotionally, others from participating. No one
>wants to be attacked.

I know what you're driving at, but I just don't see how there can
be room for compassion (except for those requiring therapy). You
either want to critically examine UFOs or you don't, there can't
really be a middle ground.

Dave Everett



Search for other documents from or mentioning: deverett | ujack

[ Next Message | Previous 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