From: John Velez <jvelez49.nul> Date: Sun, 12 Jun 2011 17:05:01 -0400 Archived: Mon, 13 Jun 2011 06:28:47 -0400 Subject: Physical Evidence For UFOs Exists [was: Alien >From: Jerome Clark <jkclark.nul> >To: <post.nul> >Date: Sat, 11 Jun 2011 15:15:24 -0500 >Subject: Re: Alien Museum On Alien Abduction Case >>From: Kathy Kasten <catraja.nul> >>To: <post.nul> >>Date: Sat, 11 Jun 2011 18:15:47 +0000 >>Subject: Re: Alien Museum On Alien Abduction Case <snip> >>I read parts of a previous post of a report from NICAP. As I >>read the transcript, looking for the evidence, all I found was >>testimony. Testimony is very different from evidence. >Just brilliant, Kathy. I guess that's why the so-called evidence >for all lightning is so worthless. It's all testimonial, >therefore not worth the respect of the Kathy Kastens of this >world. Thus, you had better straighten out somebody like the >Australian plasma physicist John Lowke, a BL authority who told >Scientific American - which did not dispute his words or his >reasoning - that there is "no question" of BL's existence. And >why is that, Doc? Because "I have talked to six eyewitnesses of >the phenomenon and think there is no reasonable doubt as to the >authenticity of their observations. Furthermore, the reports are >all remarkably similar and have common features with the >hundreds of observations that appear in the literature." >I am reminded of a recent remark by the prominent academic >sociologist Jeffrey Kripal, who said something to the effect >that when one is reduced to dismissing all testimony to >anomalous experience as "anecdotal" and pretending that one is >actually _saying something_ by that, one has reached the level >of low comedy. >It's sort of the last, desperate refuge of the denier, and it's >been refuted pretty conclusively in, for one, David J. Hufford's >important and influential work, which you haven't read. The very >fact that skeptics rather more serious than you have felt the >need to go to great lengths to refute testimonial evidence tells >you that they know perfectly well its potential value as >evidence. Even on this List, moreover - I take it you haven't >noticed - we've seen instances in which skeptics have used >testimonial evidence _to advance skeptical interpretations of >cases_. >Beyond the consideration that in the history of science (and >law, history, psychology, and virtually all human endeavor) >testimonial evidence has repeatedly demonstrated value >(including the scientific kind), you simply pretend - or, worse, >may believe on some level - that no instrumented or physical >evidence for UFOs exists. And if you believe that, you shouldn't >be here because you don't know what you're talking about, you're >making yourself look very foolish, and you're wasting all our >time. >>It looks >>like early in the search from answers, some very smart people >>who knew the difference but wanted their case to carry weight, >>used the term evidence when in fact they were cataloging >>testimonies. Nowhere, I mean exactly nowhere, has there ever >>been evidence. >This is drivel, or maybe - I'll be charitable - just a failed >attempt at humor. >To me the mystery, possibly rivaling the mystery of UFOs >themselves, is why you're on this List. You don't know much >about UFOs, seem never to have read anything of consequence, >can't cite anything in the literature, have no idea why >ufologists - and not just ufologists - continue to find the best >UFO reports puzzling. Besides that, you have never published any >sustained argument in the literature (that's because, I suspect, >you can't argue one and you know it). When challenged, you >simply repeat the same spurious claims. Sorry, Kathy, but when >Orwell declared that ignorance is strength, he wasn't offering >you support; he was being deeply sarcastic. >You haven't followed the scientific controversy or the arguments >about the significance of the available evidence - whose >existence, whatever one makes of it, no serious observer >disputes; that's why there's that thing that some folks call >"the UFO controversy," still fought after all these years. Whole >books, some of them pretty good, have been written about it. >Many would-be debunkers (e.g., Blue Book, Condon, Klass et al.) >have grappled with it, and fallen into big trouble. So far that >evidence has managed to persuade not-insubstantial collection of >scientists and official bodies around the world, as you would >know if you bothered to read the literature. You can't deal with >the evidence by pretending it isn't there. As all sensible >skeptics know, you have to engage it. >Instead, you would have us believe - forgetting that all of us >here know better - that UFOs are some invention of what you >ridiculously persist in calling "the community" (exposing, by >the way, your failure to grasp the complex social history of the >various, often conflicting cultures that those who follow UFO >matters have comprised since around 1950) and that everybody >else knows better. Especially you. And you don't know much at >all. >I notice that you don't even mention the RB-47 case or other >radar/visuals or CE2s. I don't blame you. If I were in your >position, I'd pretend they weren't there, too. Always easier to >keep the hands waving than to put the brain in gear. >Save it for the rubes, Kathy. You've come to the wrong place. >For all our disagreements, we are actually informed here. We're >still thinking. We still have the capacity to acknowledge what >we don't know. >Out of time and patience, >Jerry Clark Hi Jerry, Please note that I intentionally left your entire missive intact and unedited. I only wish that Errol had a way to 'pin' it at the top of the UFO UpDates archives so that it is the first thing anybody sees when they hit the site. You have eloquently put into words precisely what I have wanted to say for a long, long time. I have to work at staying out of the daily fray. It just took too much out of me for the dozen plus years I was involved. I feel your exasperation. Re: Kathy and I'll include my friend Ellen. They have both had experiences in their own lives that both of them have grappled with. Neither set of experiences has anything to do with either UFO sightings, or with any reports of CE IV. It raises the valid question that you repeatedly asked in your post, why are they participating in a UFO-related discussion forum acting as if they had any connection or expertise whatsoever in things ufological. Classic armchair critics. Monday morning quarterbacks. etc. Perhaps by denying and dismissing the reports of UFO's and abductions, it allows them to deny or explain away their own troubling histories. Dismiss and deny UFO's/abductions and you they dismiss and deny their more problematic personal experiences. It's the only explanation I've been able to sus out. Anyway, just stepping out for a moment to thank you for your post. Very well said, very well done. Warm regards, John (Suffering fools quietly...) 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