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: Review Of Sight Unseen - Harney

From: John Harney <magonia.nul>
Date: Sat, 7 Feb 2004 21:29:44 -0000
Fwd Date: Sat, 07 Feb 2004 17:41:35 -0500
Subject: Re: Review Of Sight Unseen - Harney


>From: Stuart Miller <Stuart.Miller4.nul>
>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2004 15:15:43 -0000
>Subject: Re: Review Of Sight Unseen

>>From: John Harney <magonia.nul>
>>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>>Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2004 20:54:39 -0000
>>Subject: Re: Review Of Sight Unseen

>>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.

>Oh this is funny. I take it then that you are dismissing New
>Scientist as some pop rag filled with Readers Digest style,
>spoon fed simplistic nonsense. Or something similar. I've no
>idea where Carol drew her material from but even if by chance,
>some came from New Scientist or some other similar publication,
>does that somehow make it invalid? Are you saying New Scientist
>publishes lies and disinformation?

There's nothing wrong with the information in New Scientist as
far as I know. The point is that it is irrelevant to cases of
people who believe they are being abducted by aliens, or who are
persuaded by Hopkins and friends that they are being abducted by
aliens. Some of these people obviously need the services of
mental health professionals, rather than having their fantasies
reinforced by enthusiastic amateurs who develop increasingly
crazy notions about aliens.

The technique of using various items culled from scientific
journals to attempt to explain the absence of convincing
physical evidence for alien abductions might be entertaining,
but it is really rather silly as more mundane (more boring?)
explanations are available for the phenomena described.

Either abductions are physical, in which case the military would
be dealing with them - which does not seem to be happening - or
they are psychological, and treatment of such cases should be
left to professionals.

>So its all in the show is it John? The superficialities, the
>source? As long as that appeals to your vanities then that's OK,
>is it? And while I'm sure the barbs you aim at those who claim
>to have been abducted are nothing they haven't heard before,
>perhaps it might be a good idea to keep those private thoughts
>just that. At least on this List.

I don't aim barbs at those who claim to have been abducted - I
am concerned about those who exploit them, by sensationalising
their accounts and claiming that abductions are physically real.
There are many on this list who take a very indulgent attitude
to such people, but are constantly moaning that mainstream
science doesn't take ufology seriously.

>So Magnausea is neither entertaining or interesting. Well, fair
>enough, you can't be accused of using this site to garner
>further readership then. So while you directly accost UFO
>Magazine readers, you indirectly label your following as boring
>and devoid of any interest as Human Beings. John, we agree.
>Trouble is, most of your readers would be quite happy to be
>labled that way.

I don't know what your problem with Magonia is. No one is forced
to read it. Those who don't like it can read the glossy UFO mags
instead, with their exciting stories about the latest cover-up
conspiracies, developments in anti-gravity propulsion, how the
space people built the Pyramids, and other such garbage.


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