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 - Harney

From: John Harney <magonia.nul>
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2004 20:54:39 -0000
Fwd Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2004 18:04:53 -0500
Subject: Re: Review Of Sight Unseen - Harney

>From: Stuart Miller <Stuart.Miller4.nul>
>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2004 15:55:46 -0000
>Subject: Re: Review Of Sight Unseen

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


>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.

I don't live near Mortlake Cemetery - aren't you confusing me
with someone else?

>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

Again, you are confusing me with someone else. Wouldn't it be
best to be clear as to who you are replying to before you start?

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

>>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.

I was not born in Liverpool. Who told you that?

>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

Ah, at least you spelt my name right.

>>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!

I have read the book, but don't have it to hand at the moment
because the person you are obviously confusing me with is
reading it. Anyway, if Hopkins really did have a technique for
telling true from false abduction reports, it would need more
than two "mentions" to describe it.

>>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"?

What is the relevance of "English upper middle class society" to
this thread?

>>The ideas are utterly crazy and incoherent. It isn't a
>>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
>tongue? I think you'll find that you are rejecting their

>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!

All Carol Rainey's stuff about scientific advancements is the
sort of thing you can read about in "New Scientist" every week.
It is hardly reasonable to attempt to use it to explain stories
which are unsupported by physical evidence and which are more
rationally explained, or at least described, with reference to
delusions, unusual mental states and distorted memories.

>>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.

Yes, as Magonia - or whatever rude name you like to call it -
 doesn't indulge in sensationalism and pseudoscientific
nonsense, some people find it a bit boring. But, unlike certain
other UFO journals, we have never attempted to turn it into an
entertainment magazine and get a big readership by publishing
amazing claims and fuzzy photographs by assorted cranks and

John Harney

[ 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