UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2004 > Feb > Feb 18

Re: Excalibur Briefing - Hatch

From: Larry Hatch <larryhatch.nul>
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2004 01:08:05 -0800
Fwd Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2004 16:33:03 -0500
Subject: Re: Excalibur Briefing - Hatch


>From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99.nul>
>To: ufoupdates.nul
>Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2004 22:35:19 +0000
>Subject: Re: Excalibur Briefing

>>From: Ed Gehrman <egehrman.nul>
>>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>>Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2004 10:57:49 -0800
>>Subject: Re: Excalibur Briefing

>>>From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99.nul>
>>>To: ufoupdates.nul
>>>Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2004 14:06:02 +0000
>>>Subject: Re: Excalibur Briefing

>>>As a former MUFON editor I was the recipient of some of
>>>Bearden's impenetrable, "scientific" writings. They were, as far
>>>as I could tell, all "trappings" and no substance. In short,
>>>classic pseudoscience. Pretentious and chockalok with vast
>>>arrays of mathematical symbols. Science at least attempts to
>>>explain, or to hypothesize and theorize, not obscure and
>>>obfuscate.

>>Richard,

>>By "Pretentious and chockalok (chockablock) with vast arrays of
>>mathematical symbols" do you mean you couldn't understand it, so
>>you considered it crap and then dismissed it?

>>Maybe you couldn't understand it because it was you who couldn't
>>understand the science.

><snip>

>>Reducing Our Dependence on Fossil Fuels
>>T. E. Bearden

> <snip>

>Ed,

>I was a scientific philosophy major and a mathematics minor at
>Tulane University, so I understand the difference between clear,
>logical exposition and doubletalk. Yes, I do see "weird science"
>in this example of his writing. I see lots of what we used to
>call "buzz words" and "buzz phrases" which sound impressive but
>really say nothing meaningful at all. For example:

>Broken symmetry
>Dipolar ensemble
>Virtual photon energy

>I also see someone who obviously believes that a long tradition
>of science is wrong and he is right when it comes to generating
>something out of nothing, and a lot of wishful thinking cloaked
>in pseudoscience.

>I remain very underwhelmed.



Hello Dick and Ed:

Here is a deep, detailed study of some of the many many claims
made by T.E. Bearden. I'm glad someone else went to all the
work.

 http://www.phact.org/e/z/BeardenReview.htm

Bearden claimed the Russians shot down the space shuttle in both
instances, 1986 and 2003 for example. That isn't dealt with at
length, rather his free energy stuff going back 10 years.

What's notable is Bearden's consistent appeal to the fringe
people, untutored in math and science, and careful avoidance of
anyone qualified to test or validate his claims.

Some of the same people who complain Ufology is not being taken
seriously, seem to swallow and even promote every crank, mystic
and snake-oil salesman that comes down the pike.

Lets all take a big guess why.

If there is an 'invisible college', it isn't just to avoid a ufo
stigma, socially or professionally. Part of the reason may well
be to simply avoid those so open minded that their brains fell
out.

Try to imagine what a complete and utter drag it is to see the
same sorts of BS trotted out over and over.

I should add that the www.phact.org site (URL above) is very pro
'free-energy', and even has an FE email list up. I like one of
their links, The Museum of Unworkable Devices!

 http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/unwork.htm

Other links and ideas are more hopeful if less amusing. We all
would like alternative energy sources, myself especially.

Phact.org has no use for T.E. Bearden however.

Forgive me if I busy myself with other matters.


Best wishes

- Larry Hatch




[ 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