From: Jerome Clark <jkclark.nul> Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2010 10:02:34 -0500 Archived: Sun, 31 Oct 2010 11:14:27 -0400 Subject: Re: Again The ETH Is A Scam >From: Greg Boone <Evolbaby.nul>> >To: post.nul >Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2010 11:39:03 -0400 (EDT) >Subject: Re: Again The ETH Is A Scam >>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark.nul> >>To: <post.nul> >>Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 08:52:34 -0500 >>Subject: Re: Again The ETH Is A Scam >>>From: Greg Boone <Evolbaby.nul> >>>To: post.nul >>>Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 00:19:39 EDT >>>Subject: Re: Again The ETH Is A Scam <snip> >>>Nowadays if you don't support the ETH and it's offspring you get >>>lambasted but I remember when supporting the ETH and any related >>>matters would get you tossed into a psychiatric hospital, fired, >>>beaten up and ostracized. >>Opposition to the ETH has been pretty much arguably, the >>mainstream position in ufology since the heyday of Jacques >>Vallee and John Keel. So has the rhetorical trope that one has >>made oneself a martyr by opposing the ETH. >>But in your case, Greg, you don't even seem to grasp what the >>ETH is or what it's based upon. Perhaps it's a subject you ought >>just to let be. >Please, your attempts at control through invalidation are about >as effective as putting a fake mustache on a cowpie to fool the >flies. Apparently, to you an effort to clarify issues amounts to an "attempt to control through invalidation." I guess this is the same impulse that leads you to charge the ETH with being not just a mistaken idea - which it may be; we just don't know yet one way or another, which is why we talk about UFOs and not ET spacecraft - but an actual, in your lurid imagination, "scam." I would demand proof of that charge, but I know you can't supply it; it's just a rhetorical device that sounds cool to you. Sadly, your understanding of confidence crime is as lacking as your grasp of what a scientific hypothesis is. >I'm fully aware of the origins of the ETH. You sure could have fooled me. >My point is we have no proof, and it's been over 60 years of >searching. Aside from how one defines the tangled issue of "proof" - which Capt. Ruppelt raised more effectively and pointedly in a single short paragraph than you have in many or will in the many more sure to follow - let us note that you are the one who's using the word. The rest of us are discussing a hypothesis that arises from a body of evidence. If "proof" existed one way or another, there wouldn't be a controversy about UFOs. There would be a settled truth about objects that had been conclusively identified. If you knew anything about the history of science, you'd appreciate how laughable your complaint about a mere "60 years" is. >In the beginning of the UFO/Flying Saucer phenomenon it was our >own government who introduced extraterrestrials as a source of >then termed Flying Saucers and then hushed up. It may well be >they were correct, however no physical proof had or has yet to >emerge. Actually, the first public statements about the possible extraterrestrial origin of the then seemingly novel flying saucers are in press accounts citing Fortean Society members in early July 1947. Only Forteans had the historical memory to know that reports of extraordinary aerial objects had not sprung out of nowhere. As polling data from the period attest, the public thought that the discs - if they existed at all as other than hoaxes, delusions, and mistakes - were secret experimental aircraft. Inside the first Air Force UFO project which formed months later, personnel knew that no such aircraft existed; consequently, a faction within Sign deduced that since some of the sightings seemed credible and appeared to indicate intelligent control, they might be of vehicles from other planets. That faction was well ahead of the public, which didn't widely embrace the UFO = ET visitation idea till the 1950s. Albeit in more sophisticated form reflecting subsequent developments in planetary science and exobiology, Sign laid down an interpretation still held by, among others, sympathetic scientists who have examined the data and drawn tentative conclusions. Even SETI pioneer and public UFO skeptic Frank Drake has said that if UFOs exist, they're of extraterrestrial origin. He sees nothing wrong with the ETH as such, but dismisses it (publicly anyway) on a priori grounds, namely that in his (disputable) estimation ETs couldn't get here from there. Among scientists open to UFO reports, the ETH continues to hold more appeal than Keel and Vallee's supernaturalist alternatives. Then, perhaps what you're telling us is this: you'd be happy if ufology turned out not to be, as its hopeful advocates contend, a proto-science but rather, as its hostile critics argue, merely a branch of the occult. >The public, media, pop culture, tabloids, picked up on it and in >came the snake oil by the barrel full. It's turned into an >industry but as we know popular fiction was making a ton of >money off extraterrestrial stories long before and Jerry Siegle >and Joe Shuster's Superman story is proof of that. I have no idea what this paragraph is doing here. It seems to be about popular science fiction, which (I hope) you're not accusing of being the vile spawn of the ETH. I assume that the misspelling of Jerry Siegel's last name is a typo. Let me say here that while I have little interest in science fiction myself, I have no quarrel with those write it or who turn it into film or television. These are surely perfectly honorable human activities, to be judged solely by whether the result turns out well or poorly. I'm sorry you appear to feel otherwise. >The bottom line is ufologists have been chasing the ET trail >since the 40's and nothing solid has turned up yet. How long is >a guy supposed follow an elk's trail when in fact it's a bear >he's tracking? "Nothing solid has turned up"? That's even more vacuous than your charge that ufologists sympathetic to the ETH are scam artists. Then, I guess you _would_ get that impression if your views on what ufology is about are shaped by contactees and their followers. And I suspect you don't even understand what contactees are about. Jerry Clark Listen to 'Strange Days... Indeed' - The PodCast At: http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/sdi/program/ These contents above are copyright of the author and UFO UpDates - Toronto. They may not be reproduced without the express permission of both parties and are intended for educational use only.
[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp