UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2001 > Apr > Apr 21

Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Gates

From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 00:53:17 EDT
Fwd Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 04:35:59 -0400
Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Gates

 >Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 11:20:02 -0500
 >From: Roger Evans <shooter@afterimagephoto.tv>
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook

 >>From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 00:19:21 EDT
 >>Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Gates

 >>>Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 20:18:05 -0500
 >>>From: Roger Evans <shooter@afterimagephoto.tv>
 >>>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>>Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook

 >Previously, I had written:

 >>>And, despite your "belief" or even your "belief system" (a petty
 >>>and over analyzed distinction), ET visitation has not been
 >>>proven. As such, it is currently folklore. To elevate it to a
 >>>status greater than that would be a "monumentally self-serving"
 >>>proclamation from someone that claims to be unbiased in his
 >>>views about the subject of UFOs.

 >Robert replied:

 >>I guess the questions come back to: "What is proof?" and what is
 >>a person and or scientific community willing to "accept" as
 >>proof. In many instances the threshold is lower until you
 >>mention the ET or UFO word, then suddenly the threshold climbs.

 >>For years "science" claimed that the universe was 4 or so
 >>billion years old, that was considered "scientific fact" never
 >>to be doubted or challanged. In essence it was already proven.

 >>Along comes Hubble. It shoots some photographs of what
 >>mainstream science, astronomers, and other experts all say is
 >>"older matter" that is in the shock wave of the big bang. They
 >>tell us that this so called older matter is in fact about 15 or
 >>so billion years old, so rather instantly science is now telling
 >>us the universe is 15 billion years old, blah blah. The point
 >>being is mainstream science is making this pronoucement not
 >>based upon having "physical evidence" in hand (i.e. a sample of
 >>the older matter that could be dated), but basing it upon
 >>"interpretation of photos." If you started talking about UFOs
 >>with some of these same scientists you would probably get all
 >>sorts of mumbo jumbo about wanting to having an alien craft,
 >>piece of debris to touch and inspect, about seeing or touching
 >>an ET etc etc.

 >I understand the point you are trying to make; to a degree I
 >agree with you. However, the example you give about the age of
 >the universe is a good example of "theory" being presented as
 >"fact" to make a point. You wrote:

 >>For years "science" claimed that the universe was 4 or so
 >>billion years old, that was considered "scientific fact" never
 >>to be doubted or challanged. In essence it was already proven.
 >I have never read where science has accepted the age of the
 >universe as fact. I have always seen it as an "estimate" or a
 >"theory" for the very reason you follow up with:

Over the years science and text books have presented as fact
that the universe was 4 or so billion years old. That changed
with Hubbell. See below.

 >>The point
 >>being is mainstream science is making this pronoucement not
 >>based upon having "physical evidence" in hand (i.e. a sample of
 >>the older matter that could be dated), but basing it upon
 >>"interpretation of photos."

 >To this date, the information from Hubbell is still being
 >studied and the age of the universe is still under question.
 >Therefore, there is no "fact" or "proof" regarding the age of
 >the universe. Look at it this way: If the age of the universe

Last year on Nightline and in other publications, shows and so
on, the Hubbell data concerning the age of the universe (as now
being 12 or so billion years) was presented as fact by some
leading scientists and people who are working with the data. All
based upon interpretation of what is called Hubbell photographs.

I ran across this quote which you might find interesting:

"The answer to this cosmic puzzle was finally solved earlier
this year by NASA's Hubble Space Telescope Key Project team, led
by Wendy Freedman of Carnegie Observatories. The team, a group
of 27 astronomers from 13 different U.S. and international
institutions, announced in May that it had determined the age of
the universe with precise accuracy. After an eight-year effort
to measure the far-flung galaxies of the expanding universe, the
Key Project astronomers confidently concluded that the universe
is approximately 12 billion years old."

The word "theory" is not mentioned, advanced, or otherwise
presented in the above. You do have words like "precise
accuracy" which I found interesting.

In essence we have 27 astronomers from 13 different US and
international instutitions telling us that the age of the
universe is approx 12 billion years old. So we have 27
astronomers changing the age of the universe from what has been
touted and lathered as scientific fact since the 30s and not
even a shred of doubt, questioning, or skepticism floats up. By
the same token if you mention UFO/ET to some of these same
scientists you would hear such things as "physical evidence" and
"further study" and "closer examination" and "peer review by
100s of scientists" and other such commentary.

 >had been settled at 4 billion years old, then why was there a
 >need for the Hubbell telescope, the primary function of which
 >was to help determine the age of the universe and the
 >characteristics of its beginnings? Obviously, the Hubbell
 >telescope didn't just "come along" by accident. It was created
 >because scientists knew their data was incomplete and the age of
 >the universe was still in question.

 >Now, in all fairness, there is much in the way of photographic
 >evidence regarding UFOs that also warrants scientific study. I
 >have never claimed there wasn't. The reasons for this lack of
 >study isn't really the point at hand (though the UFO elite try
 >and blame skeptics for said lack of scientific study every
 >chance they get). I merely maintain that, regardless of the
 >reason, there has been no scientific conclusions regarding the
 >issue of ET visitations. For better or for worse, it is still
 >only a theory, just like the age of the universe is only a
 >theory. And, like studies of the universe, there is new
 >information all the time. But, in the end, any proclamation
 >about either is only a guess.

Kind of reminds me of the 2000 plus scientists of all types, but
especially including atmospheric and such who signed a petition
stating that global warming was bogus and the research claiming
that it was happening was flawed. Naturally those on the other
side had a signed petition (only 250 scientists as I recall)
stating that global warming was very real, blah blah blah.

Which is scientific fact and study? Depends on your perspective
I suppose.

 >Regarding your position:

 >>Then you have witness testimony. On one hand if a witness says
 >>he or she saw a structured craft flying through the atmosphere,
 >>etc we are told the witnesses were either mistaken, liars,
 >>hoaxers, misidentified a natural phenomona. On the other hand of
 >>it when a witness describes seeing a meteor many of these same
 >>skeptibunkers take the testimony at face value, never challange,
 >>dispute or question it an iotta.

 >I will agree that _some_ skeptics will do this just as _some_ in
 >the believers camp will take witness testimony of a UFO at face
 >value. The real issue, here, is the attitude of the larger
 >group(s) on both sides of the fence. I tire of the UFO elite
 >quoting statements from people like Klass or Menzel as if
 >rational skeptics have shrines to these men in there homes and
 >membership cards in their hip pockets. These guys are not as
 >influential as the UFO elite would like everyone to believe; a

Most if not all modern day skeptibunkers go and worship at
alters (although they may not know it) already built by the
skeptics such as Klass and Menzel. The modern skepticbunkers
offer very little if anything new. From what I have seen they
just package the argument somewhat different, but the principle
is the same.

 >belief that is important to maintain the "us against them"

 >I've been with this List for about three years and I have yet to
 >see skeptics, as a group, take a hard line position that witness
 >testimony is worthless and can be discarded without a thought.
 >However, if you read through the archives of this list, that is
 >the common fall-back position when the UFO elite get backed into
 >a corner about witness testimony. What I have seen is that most
 >skeptics believe that witness testimony should be validated
 >before is it taken as fact.

I have been in UFOs so to speak since the 70s. Have seen plenty
of skeptibunkers fall back to the position of witness testimony
is meaningless and should be disregarded. If you are ever able
to pin a skeptic down as to validated testimony, you will find
that they raise the bar to the point that in essence they (the
skeptic) has to touch the ET craft that the witness saw before
the witness can be believed. Usually long before you get down to
pinning a skeptic you will find them wanting to disregard the
witness testimony "because of....."

 >What makes my head swim is that such validation should be
 >welcomed by the pro UFO camp but that seems to _never_ be the
 >case. If the notion of validation is brought up, they circle the
 >wagons, shake chicken bones and start chanting old quotes from
 >Klass and Menzel, as if that is supposed to embarrass serious
 >skeptics enough to scare them away from the issues at hand.

Validation is probably in the eyes of the beholder. To
skeptibunkers all storys and testimony that suggest the reality
of UFO/ET are to be disregarded (invalid) because of this or
that. To a gulliable believer aircraft landing lights are valid
testimony of a craft from outer space. In that vain have I got
some 16mm film for you..... :)

 >The bottom line is that there are a lot people out there that,
 >like me, believe in the possibility of ET visitation and ET life
 >and want to get past all the rhetoric and posturing that goes on
 >in both camps. The UFO elite say that rational debate is a good
 >thing and that debunking can be useful. The only problem is that
 >_they_ reserve the right to decide what is rational and what has
 >or has not been debunked.

 >Finally, Robert wrote:

 >>So what is proof and what is folklore is something that main
 >>stream science, much less anybody else has a hard time

 >Nonsense. Proof can be quantified. Folklore can not. More to the
 >point, anything not proven as fact is folklore, theory,
 >hypothesis, a healthy guess; call it what you want. But

Keep in mind that the age of the universe is now being
pronounced and announced as 12 or so billion years old, all
without any "proof in hand" and based upon interpretation of
photographs. In essence you have folklore being touted as fact.

 >something has either been proven as real or it has not. Oh, it
 >might make the pro-UFO camp feel better about themselves to call
 >UFO folklore the "Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis", but a rose by
 >any other name is still a rose. The UFO elite simply don't want
 >to deal with the thorns.

ETH or ET Theory is fine with me.



[ 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