UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2004 > Feb > Feb 5

Re: Review Of Sight Unseen - Miller

From: Stuart Miller <Stuart.Miller4.nul>
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2004 15:55:46 -0000
Fwd Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2004 14:30:44 -0500
Subject: Re: Review Of Sight Unseen - Miller


>From: John Harney <magonia.nul>
>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2004 21:15:29 -0000
>Subject: Re: Review Of Sight Unseen - Harney

>>From: Stuart Miller <Stuart.Miller4.nul>
>>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>>Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 17:27:53 -0000
>>Subject: Re: Review Of Sight Unseen

>>>From: Luis R. Gonzalez <lrgm.nul>
>>>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>>>Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 00:08:05 +0100
>>>Subject: Re: Review Of 'Sight Unseen' By Hopkins & Rainey

>>>>From: Gildas Bourdais <gbourdais.nul>
>>>>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>>>>Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2004 15:42:28 +0100
>>>>Subject: Re: Review Of 'Sight Unseen' By Hopkins & Rainey


List

I know there's never a policeman about when you need one, but if
there is anybody on this List with the statutory authority, then
please arrest for me for disturbing the peace. For that is what
I have done. It has been so very pleasant here these last six
weeks or so since Christmas. Marvelous messages, intelligent
discussion, and a sense of harmony and calm. That is now at an
end because I was silly enough to write something about Bud
Hopkins. Rimming popped his head up yesterday and now the
Vampire of Mortlake Cemetry stakes a claim. All we need to
complete the axis of evil is for Roberts to re-emerge saying he
has no chemical weapons, sorry, that should just be chemicals,
and the pack of jokers is complete.

How do you get off, John, giving Gerry Clark a hard time about
where he lives when you dwell under a slab with a load of
stiffs?

Oh well, preliminaries over, better get on with it.

>>With respect gentlemen, I think you are missing the point here.

>>I am not suggesting that the book should not be subjected to
>>analytical review, but by the very nature of the subject matter,
>>it will inevitably fall down on that score. I am sure there are
>>countless holes in it that can be picked till they bleed.

>>I regard the book, which I enjoyed enormously, as a very brave
>>attempt by the authors to take the subject of abduction one
>>stage further. And in doing so I think Hopkins and Rainey have
>>taken a massive and admirable gamble with their professional
>>reputations.

>Hopkins has a professional reputation as an artist; what he does
>or does not believe about UFOs is hardly relevant to it.

To follow this fatuous argument through to its childish
conclusion, on that basis then John go back to Liverpool where
you were born. You cannot live in London because you weren't
born there, just like Budd cannot speak or write about
abductions because he started life as an artist. There is a law
that says that once you start something in life, then that is
what you stick to. Thankfully for the rest of us, that law
exists only in the terribly compartmentalised brain of John
Harney.

>>If Hopkins is convinced of the veracity of a witnesses testimony
>>(and as he revealed, he has various means of checking) and yet

>If he _really_ has various means of checking why doesn't he tell
>us what they are?

I am guilty (again! Please! Somebody arrest me) of judgement.
That judgement John is that I have always associated you with
quality and intelligent thought. I am wrong. You haven't read
the book so I cannot understand how you can have the nerve to
wade in with this whinging nonsense, unless you are determined
to show the rest of us what a twerp you are.

He does tell us what his methods are for checking as to whether
someone is telling him the truth or not. He makes mention of it
twice. Go and have a look for yourself. Here's a clue; the
second reference can be found, errrrr after the first!

>>the story falls outside even the parameters of the extremely
>>broad boundaries that this subject already imposes, then what is
>>he to do? Given his intellect and experience, he will attempt to
>>offer some "reasonable" explanation, and that is exactly what he
>>and Carol have done. All that Carol, on the science side of

>Reasonable explanation? What reasonable explanation? You're
>joking, surely?

I don't tell jokes John. I have a sense of humour bypass. Having
said that, something amusing did strike me the other day. Have
you noticed how, in English upper middle class society, there is
a very close proximity in pronounciation between the words
"John" and "Yawn"?

>>things has done is to pull together a number of both existing
>>and original ideas, as well as solid facts, put them together in
>>a reasoned and thought out manner, and then say, "This is what
>>might have happened". She's not saying, "This is definitely what
>>happened".  It's placed before you gentlemen for your reasoned
>>and considered opinion. As I read it, they don't want you to
>>take what they say as fact. These are ideas, intelligently
>>posited and thoughtfully constructed and laid before the reader
>>to think about. Of course, it is your choice to reject or
>>accept.

>The ideas are utterly crazy and incoherent. It isn't a question
>of accepting or  rejecting - Hopkins and Rainey's pseudo-
>scientific speculations just don't make sense.

Oh dear. I'm not sure why I should spend any time on this reply
when you clearly haven't bothered either. Is English your native
tongue? I think you'll find that you are rejecting their
arguments.

Carol has based all her possibilities on hard fact. She has
taken solidly accredited, peer reviewed terrestrial based
scientific advancements and experiments and said, "This is what
we on earth can do already. It is therefore reasonable to
conclude that a more intelligent species can do the same thing
and possibly do it better." Darn! Isn't pseudo science a pain!

>>Hopkins admits that it took him, as I remember, close to two
>>decades to get his thoughts in order on this. He's aware of the
>>risk he's taking, and it appears, not without some discomfort. I
>>for one applaud his and Carol's bravery. I think it is a
>>landmark book and, as I mentioned in my own review, I think
>>their ideas will gradually, over time, gain acceptance and
>>filter through into mainstream thinking. Rip it apart,
>>gentlemen, by all means, but I will not be looking at the detail
>>too closely. My preference is to stand back and take a broader
>>view.

>That's right - so long as it's a good read, why bother with the
>details or whether it makes sense or not? If you like fantastic
>yarns, why not read science fiction?

I do. I read some rag called Magnausea. Are we talking about the
same publication? The one I read is a good laugh if one wants to
enter the world of clenched buttocks and the overly anxious.
Filled with grovelling acolytes all laying prone at the feet of
King Yawn.

Back under the slab with the rest of them John. When you can
actually run through an argument in an intelligent and
considered manner, give us a shout.


Stuart Miller




[ 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