UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2004 > Mar > Mar 11

Re: Depressing But Instructive - Harney

From: John Harney <magonia.nul>
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 21:20:28 -0000
Fwd Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 08:38:21 -0500
Subject: Re: Depressing But Instructive - Harney

>From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99.nul>
>To: ufoupdates.nul
>Date: Mon, 08 Mar 2004 13:54:40 +0000
>Subject: Re: Depressing But Instructive

>>From: John Harney <magonia.nul>
>>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>>Date: Sun, 7 Mar 2004 17:58:39 -0000
>>Subject: Re: Depressing But Instructive

>>"I can't believe _that_!" said Alice.

>>"Can't you?" the Queen said in a pitying tone. "Try again: draw a
>>long breath and shut your eyes."

>>Alice laughed. "There's no use trying," she said: "one _can't_
>>believe impossible things."

>>"I dare say you haven't had much practice, " said the Queen.
>>"When I was your age, I always did it for half an hour a day.
>>Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things
>>before breakfast."

>>-- Lewis Carroll, "Through the Looking-Glass"

>Ironically, the late Isabel Davis used to quote that exact
>dialogue to characterize what skeptibunkers believe in
>preference to facing up to reality:


>such things as high
>altitude, high-speed pelicans;

The Kenneth Arnold sighting? The pelican hypothesis is one of
several suggested explanations. Of course the the chief
objection to it is that one needs to assume that Arnold's
estimates of speeds and distances were very inaccurate.

>hot-air balloons that leave deep
>imprints on the ground and scare the pants off a cop;


>that persist for many minuites, stop, hover, maneuver.

Examples, please.

>Phil Klass used to cite a person who lived in Socorro and didn't
>see the object land, therefore it didn't happen. Do you believe
>that too? The people NIDS interviewed were not the cops on the
>scene (a la other people on the same deck of the ship).

The argument here is about whether this person was in a position
to see or hear the object reported by Zamora. There appears to
be some disagreement about this. So far as the hot-air balloon
explanation is concerned, I would refer you to my posting of
last December:


The people interviewed by NIDS were senior officers, including
the base commander. They would hardly have remained ignorant of
such an incident. They did not refuse to comment; they denied
any knowledge of such an incident. So, either the witness you
interviewed a number of times is a liar, or they are liars. Not
a very nice situation.

When all else fails, play the secrecy card. That's what you do
in this case, but apparently heedless of what that implies. If
an ET emerged from a spacecraft, was shot and its body was
recovered for examination, then the implication is that those
responsible for dealing with the matter would be so utterly
stupid and so crassly irresponsible as to attempt to keep it
secret, knowing that if such an event could happen at McGuire
AFB a similar event could happen anywhere at any time. It's
strange, isn't it, how such events seem to happen only in places
where they can quickly be dealt with by the US Air Force?


>>You don't suspend judgement in the account of it on your
>>website; you insist that it's authentic. Hardly a "cautious and
>>conservative approach" to such an extravagantly bizarre story.

>Try reading it again, John, as a test of your reading
>comprehension. I pointed out quite plainly that my conclusion
>was only a personal coinviction, and repeated that on this List.
>I also made it quite clear that I could not prove the case, but
>felt that it is authentic. What does "conservative" mean to you?
>Assuming that a case or event is false because you can't offer
>absolute physical proof of it?

>"Extravagantly bizarre" on what basis other than your overt
>prejudice and unwilingness to suspend judgment since your magic
>buttons reveal that it is untrue? Look in the mirror, John, and
>you will see a firmly closed mind apparently incapable of
>careful judgment, lacking awareness of nuance, ignorant of the
>protocols of scientific method. It is my hypothesis that the
>case is genuine. Dispute my hypothesis all you wish, but don't
>claim magic avenues to ultimate truth.

What you call "awareness of nuance" I would call the ability to
suffer fools gladly. Also I am well aware of the "protocols of
scientific method", having spent my career in the strictly
scientific environment of the Meteorological Office. I also
studied for a BA degree in my spare time, which included courses
on the history and philosophy of science.

John Harney

[ Next 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