From: Jerome Clark <jkclark.nul> Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2011 09:40:42 -0500 Archived: Sat, 23 Apr 2011 06:41:40 -0400 Subject: Re: Trindade 'Negative Witness' Found >From: John Rimmer <johnrimmer.nul> >To: post.nul >Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2011 19:31:23 +0100 (BST) >Subject: Re: Trindade 'Negative Witness' Found >>From: Gerald O'Connell <goc.nul> >>To: post.nul >>Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2011 22:26:37 +0100 >>Subject: Re: Trindade 'Negative Witness' Found >>>From: John Rimmer <johnrimmer.nul> >>>To: post.nul >>>Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2011 16:34:55 +0100 (BST) >>>Subject: Re: Trindade 'Negative Witness' Found <snip> >You claim: "We have a witness to the effect that crewmen and >others saw something, and they didn't know what it was." <snip> This, I surmise, is what may have happened in reality: The Negative Witness (hereafter NW) had/has no interest in UFOs, or even held/holds the subject in something bordering on contempt (explaining his bizarre ignorance of the persistence of this deeply and repeatedly publicized case). When alerted that something was being seen, he briefly appeared on the scene, confident that he would see nothing, and made no effort to make out the small image against the big sky. Those of us who, because we live in a rural area, have an uncluttered aerial view - something a native of a huge metropolis would know nothing about, though it wouldn't stop him from pontificating as if he did - know how hard it can be sometimes to discern a passing aircraft against a broad sky. All that NW has succeeded in doing in confirming that something, as opposed to nothing (the standard debunker narrative), happened that day, it got people excited, it had something to do with a perceived UFO, and it conforms in broad outline to the standard picture. All that debunkers have left from the testimony is the number of alleged witnesses. In memory NW has narrowed them to a handful. A good dose of skepticism should be applied here, of course. As debunkers often remind us, memory can play tricks and cause us to 'remember' details that suit our convenience. It suited NW's convenience, unconsciously or consciously, to recall as few onlookers as possible, thus to reduce his cognitive dissonance. NW, who probably should be called PW (Positive Witness), undercuts the beloved debunker belief that nothing happened on the ship, where in fact, apparently, people were excited about the presence of something. This won't stop debunkers from frantic revisionist rationalizations (e.g., the dependable Rimmer). Listfolk will be amused to learn that debunkers have abruptly revised something else: their sudden conversion to the belief that memory continues to reliable not just over days or weeks or months or years but _decades_ (50+ in the current instance). Let's make a point of reminding them of that every time they try to destroy witness testimony by hauling in the vagaries of memory. And they will try again, we may be sure. Their beliefs are enormously elastic. Meantime, the rest of us are where we always were: awaiting developments which, we hope, will settle the matter one way or another. In common with other non-ideologues on this List, I don't know where the truth lies, except that it's somewhere in the evidence. Maybe when it's all - or as much of it as is recoverable - available, the picture, literal and figurative, will be clearer. 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 | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp