UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2011 > Dec > Dec 19

Re: White House Ends Silence On UFOs & ETs With...

From: Kathy Kasten <catraja.nul>
Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2011 21:10:48 +0000
Archived: Mon, 19 Dec 2011 18:05:51 -0500
Subject: Re: White House Ends Silence On UFOs & ETs With...


>From: Steve Sawyer <stevesaw.nul>
>To: <post.nul>
>Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2011 16:46:48 -0800
>Subject: Re: White House Ends Silence On UFOs & ETs With...

>>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark.nul>
>>To: <post.nul>
>>Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2011 12:26:08 -0600
>>Subject: Re: White House Ends Silence On UFOs & ETs With...

>>>From: Don Ledger <dledger.nul>
>>>To: post.nul
>>>Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2011 12:45:11 -0400
>>>Subject: Re: White House Ends Silence On UFOs & ETs With...

<snip>

>>>BTW - it's a frosty day in hell when Andy Roberts and I agree on
>>>anything. Temps are below zero there now.

>>Here, too.

>>Jerry Clark

>Ditto. It really serves no useful purpose for some List members
>here, such as Greg, Kathy Kasten, and a few others, to dangle
>these kinds of hints, implications, or other unsubstantiated
>stories and information without backing them up with verifiable
>documentation, sources, or other means to further investigate
>and vet them.

>I mean, what does that accomplish? Simply more dissension,
>dispute, and request for substantiation that those who choose
>not to provide it, for various previously stated but rather
>specious reasons, seem to want to suggest is not possible or
>safe for public distribution. If that's the case, then why make
>unsubtantiated or questionable claims, assertions, or nebulous
>contentions without supporting facts or data in the _first_
>place?_

>To do so seems kind of pointless and automatically gives rise to
>legitimate doubt of such claims, when those who promote them say
>they're too secret to discuss or to provide backing data about.

>Otherwise, such statements on the part of a minority of List
>members here will continue to be subject to perpetual
>skepticism, argument, and looked upon as more likely false than
>true when no foundation of fact or sources is provided. Frankly,
>that is becoming both boring and silly, IMHO.

>Extraordinary claims in fact do require extraordinary evidence,
>or proof of some kind, or why should anyone here believe what is
>claimed without adequate substantiation one might use to check
>such contentions? To do so is deceptive and disinformational in
>nature, at the very least. It could also be termed other things,
>but which for now I will defer mentioning or expressing further
>opinion or speculation about.


Steve, Steve, Steve:

I named my source: Fr. Joe Anderson, member of the Vatican
Observatory, Tucson, AZ. Providing a link for you to make sure
Fr. Joe is on the staff? Sorry, that is easy enough for you to
check out.

However, you are verifying something I have had suspicions
about. There are a major of UFO researchers who are just plain
lazy and get upset if the information isn't spoon fed to them.


KK



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 Main Index

UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp


Archive programming by Glenn Campbell at Glenn-Campbell.com