From: Jerome Clark <jkclark.nul> Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2011 13:13:37 -0600 Archived: Fri, 23 Dec 2011 10:15:58 -0500 Subject: Re: White House Ends Silence On UFOs & ETs With... >From: Edward Gehrman <egehrman.nul> >To: <post.nul> >Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2011 08:47:25 -0800 >Subject: Re: White House Ends Silence On UFOs & ETs With... >>>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark.nul> >>>To: <post.nul> >>>Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2011 06:59:33 -0600 >>>Subject: Re: White House Ends Silence On UFOs & ETs With... >>>I realize that neither I nor others will ever prove, 100%, that >>>the AA is legitimate, but even after fifteen years of scrutiny, >>>there still isn't a single scrap of evidence that the AA is >>>faked or hoaxed, while there is plenty of evidence that it >>>isn't. >>I rest my case. >I've asked you this before. What evidence convinced you that the >AA was a hoax? Have you even studied the AA footage all the way >through, including the debris section. Have you read Dennis >Murphy's report on the debris? >I suggest you take a closer look than you have in the past >before you start insinuating this or that. Whenever I deal with you, I can't help being reminded of the disputes I used to have with believers in George Adamski's stories of contacts with Space Brothers. Invariably, they would demand that I furnish the disproof because there wasn't a "shred of evidence" that GA was a hoaxer. Any seemingly knowledgeable informant asserting otherwise was always a pathological liar, a con-man, or maybe a disinformation agent from the Silence Group. In the real world, since you are the one making a claim that is extraordinary at its most conservative moments, it is up to you to prove to the satisfaction of reasonable persons that (1) not only is the film exactly what it is supposed to be but also that ( 2) we can rewrite the entire history of the world based on the evidence it provides. In other words, it isn't up to the rest of us to disprove your fantastic beliefs. The burden of proof is on you. To most people, unfortunately, your grandiose allegations look exactly like those that traditionally define a crank. But let's be fair and not leave it there. Since you are in effect elevating yourself to the company of Copernicus, Newton, Darwin, and Einstein as a world-historical figure who radically alters our understanding and ushers in a revolution across multiple, well-established disciplines, _why in the world would you waste time sharing your wisdom with the marginal likes of Updates listfolk?_ (Some people no doubt will wonder, if you can't persuade us, whom can you persuade anywhere? But no matter.) Why aren't you taking your evidence to biologists, paleontologists, archaeologists, historians, engineers, and other authorities who would benefit from your astounding insights? If you're right, you're denying yourself a Nobel Prize. I suggest a place to start on your way to Nobelhood. The Society for Scientific Exploration, an organization of (mostly) scientists with advanced degrees, publishes the Journal of Scientific Exploration, which is open to intelligent, open- minded consideration of anomalous materials and theories. Its membership is educated in the relevant disciplines and isn't hampered by party-line thinking, so you could count on a fair hearing if you were to submit a formal paper outlining your ideas and evidence. If the JSE is willing to publish a peer-reviewed paper in which you argue your theories about the AA and its implications, then come back. We'll know then that we have to take you seriously. No excuses now, Ed. 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