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 - Evans

From: Roger Evans <shooter@afterimagephoto.tv>
Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 07:20:30 -0500
Fwd Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 13:13:05 -0400
Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Evans

 >From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
 >Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 00:53:17 EDT
 >Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Gates
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

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

Previously, Robert 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 replied:

 >>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

(hence the "4 or so" billion years old!)

 >>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.

Robert now points out:

 >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.

 >"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.

Hi, Robert!

You're right! The word "theory" isn't mentioned. On the other
hand, the word "fact" isn't used either. Oddly, along with the
term "precise accuracy" is the term "approximately", which
certainly stands out like a sore thumb, don't ya' think? Kind of
like the age of the galaxy used to be "approximately" 4 billion
years old. But then, what's a couple of billion years among
friends, right? If you were having a house built, I'm sure you
would want measurements done with "precise accuracy" as opposed
to "approximately". The two terms are mutually exclusive.

Sorry, Robert, but I still see no evidence that the age of the
universe is being touted as a known, sure fact. I see it being
touted as "approximately" 12 billion years old and nothing more.
If the impression _you_ formulate, due to the number of
scientists, is that it is fact, then you're really talking about
individual perception and not how something is really thought of
by the science community.

I am sure if you cornered the best scientists in the world and
asked,"Are you _sure_ of the exact age of the universe?" they
would say "No."

My proof? The fact that they've already played their hand by
saying it is "approximately" 12 billion years old. They simply
aren't sure, which is why they still continue to examine the
data. Or do you think they've exchanged high fives, packed up
the photos and gone home?

Furthermore, as it relates to the topic of UFOs, if these same
scientists were studying the ETH, would their conclusions be
"approximately" aliens or "pretty sure" ET craft? We already
have that conclusion; one that even I would agree with. So far,
all we have is an "approximate" view of the ETH. We do not have
"precise accuracy". A myth is a myth and a fact is a fact. The
two are not the same.

Continuing, Robert wrote:

 >>>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 replied:

 >>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

Robert now writes:

 >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.

Really? I don't. (But then maybe I just don't know it.)

Enlighten me.

Please provide enough examples to support "most if not all" do
what you say they do. That would be a lot of posts, but I'm sure
EBK won't mind this sort of myth finally being dispelled, once
and for all. And, let's face it, it is only a myth. I see no
evidence that modern, rational skeptics think much of Klass or
Menzel. Like a lot of early UFologists, their ideas and views
don't unilaterally represent the larger group any more than
President Bush represents the views of the American people. This
is significant, considering that a president is elected and
these guys aren't. The myth only serves a need by the UFO elite
as a tool to try and demonize those with conflicting opinions
that threatened a given debate. With all due respect to you,
Robert, you just employed the myth as prescribed. (although you
may not know it)

Continuing, you wrote:

 >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.


 >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

Again, please provide enough evidence that supports such a
widespread phenomenon. I will agree that _some_ hardline
debunkers will disregard anything just like _some_ hardline
believers will accept anything. Calling attention to the few
doesn't support your position for the many. (Did Spock say
something like that? I forget.)

Finally, I wrote:

 >>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.

Robert replied:

 > ETH or ET Theory is fine with me.

Me too.

Take care,

Roger Evans

[ 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