From: Dave Haith <visions1.nul> Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2011 16:39:21 -0000 Archived: Wed, 12 Jan 2011 16:03:03 -0500 Subject: Re: Psychic Rendlesham >From: Jerome Clark <jkclark.nul> >To: <post.nul> >Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2011 16:51:41 -0600 >Subject: Re: Psychic Rendlesham >In the remark you're apparently alluding to, I wasn't judging >the validity of psi. I was simply taking note of the empirical >fact that psychics and mediums are often wrong. Thank you for clearing up that point Jerry. UFO witnesses can also be equally unreliable but we still interview them. >thus, they should not be relied upon as a short-cut to the >truth or as a substitute for old-fashioned investigation and >analysis. I might add that over the course of my life, I have >had some personal experience of alleged psychics who were >wildly off the mark. I don't remember anybody in this thread suggesting psychics were a 'short cut to the truth' or a 'substitute for old- fashioned investigation' - even the much maligned Nick Pope. Psychics could merely be used, as I alluded in my previous post, as a possibly useful additional tool. Dave Haith 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