UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2004 > Feb > Feb 7

Re: State Of Ufology - Hall

From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99.nul>
Date: Sat, 07 Feb 2004 14:28:14 +0000
Fwd Date: Sat, 07 Feb 2004 09:49:12 -0500
Subject: Re: State Of Ufology - Hall


>From: Ray Dickenson <editor.nul>
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates.nul>
>Date: Fri, 06 Feb 2004 18:00:09 +0000
>Subject: Re: State Of Ufology

>>From: Kenny Young <ufo.nul>
>>To: ufoupdates.nul
>>Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2004 03:14:46 -0500
>>Subject: Re: State Of Ufology

>>If academia had not abandoned the UFO subject, the
>>snake-oil salesmen would not have stepped in to fill
>>the vacuum


Ray,

This is a chicken or egg question. But one thing we know for
certain is that the snake-oil salesmen have stepped in to fill
the vacuum.

>Question is - why did academia abandon the subject? Remember the
>fate of the COMETA publication? (search for "cometa ihedn")

I have given very simple and straightforward answers to this
question, which you may choose not to accept, but I could also
strongly support my case based on substantial documenattion adn
long experience. "Academia" is not monolithic, and many members
do take UFOs seriously and work at it quietly.

>http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/1999/jul/m22-015.shtml

>A high-level, technical and academic appraisal, it was
>immediately attacked and persistently anti-propagandized at
>great (gov't?) expense until most folk are now afraid to even
>reference it.

I strongly challenge this allegation. What government or other
great expense? Do you have any documenattion for this claim?
Show us the money trail. Please cite some examples where
"Academia" attacked and/or anti-propagandized the COMETA report.

>Why were certain agencies afraid of the COMETA appraisal?

What agencies? Who was "afraid" of the report? Please be specific.

>I suggest two basic reasons - in the text:

>1) "the physical reality of UFOs, under control of
>intelligent beings, is "quasi-certain." Only one hypothesis
>takes into account the available data: the hypothesis of
>extraterrestrial visitors."

>2) "the possibility of secret, privileged contacts which
>might be "attributed to the United States." The attitude of the
>U.S. is seen as "most strange" since the 1947 wave"

>And that "strange attitude" has since been imposed on other,
>previously more open-minded regions, as Listers' memory will
>show.

>Latin-America, Europe and much of the world _not_ under
>totalitarian rule was once more open-minded (excluding UK, the
>most secretive, and arguably most corrupt bureaucracy in
>Europe). All open-mindedness has now gone - secrecy and ridicule
>is a given. Where is that pressure coming from?

You talk as if you have some sort of privileged view from atop
the world, and see things that thew rest of us are incapable of
seeing. How can you make such sweeping statements? Have you
actually done some kind of survey, or gathered documentation to
support your view? Or is this simply another example of exactly
what I was talking about in my original post?

>Let's examine the (gov't sponsered) debunkers' only real
>premise: "Everything presently unknown (what you can't measure
>NOW) doesn't exist - by decree!"

Have you and evidence or documentation that the debunkers are
"government-sponsored?" I don't disagree that they are wrong and
their logic absurd.

>Yes - it's the same premise used for imprisoning & burning
>Giordano Bruno and for silencing Galileo.

>Modern mind-control? Or secret take-over?

Or, as Bruce Maccabee has put it, "self-censorship?" Or as Pogo
said, "We have met the enemy and he is us."


- Dick




[ 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