From: Martin Shough <parcellular.nul> Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2011 17:17:40 -0000 Archived: Wed, 23 Feb 2011 05:22:45 -0500 Subject: Re: McGonagle's Ufological Stand >From: Roy Hale <roy.nul> >To: <post.nul> >Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2011 13:35:21 -0000 >Subject: Re: McGonagle's Ufological Stand >>From: Martin Shough <parcellular.nul> >>To: <post.nul> >>Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2011 16:18:29 -0000 >>Subject: Re: McGonagle's Ufological Stand ><snip> >>As I said, I think it is fascinating and far from easy to >>explain. >>ET or an ET-analogue is a possibility. But I would not say, >>personally, that it is unequivocal proof of ET. >What is proof of ET ? In practice, Roy, it is evidence that one cannot conceive as having any other explanation. In terms of the history and sociology of science, "one" in that sentence stands for a certain momentum of professional consensus. If you are speaking in terms of ourselves as individuals, then you make up your own mind. As I thought I said plainly, "I would not say, personally, that [Minot] is unequivocal proof of ET." If, like Gildas, you think it is, then by all means explain to us why. Martin 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