UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2011 > Sep > Sep 26

Re: New Official Brazilian UFO Files

From: Kentaro Mori <kentaro.mori.nul>
Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2011 11:33:09 -0300
Archived: Mon, 26 Sep 2011 06:55:31 -0400
Subject: Re: New Official Brazilian UFO Files


>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark.nul>
>To: <post.nul>
>Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2011 11:02:55 -0500
>Subject: Re: New Official Brazilian UFO Files

>>From: Kentaro Mori <kentaro.mori.nul>
>>To: post.nul
>>Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2011 11:49:04 -0300
>>Subject: Re: New Official Brazilian UFO Files

>>There's a plethora of yet to be discovered
>>phenomena. And this, I think we all hope, will eventually
>>include extraterrestrial intelligence, civilizations, et al. And
>>much, much more, including things we don't even dream about.

>Are you saying that possibly we may learn one day that UFO
>phenomena are related to "extraterrestrial intelligence,
>civilizations, et al. and... things we don't even dream about"?
>Or are you just saying that as a broad observation about the
>likely results of expanded knowledge, stating principles with
>which nobody at all, whatever he or she feels about UFOs, could
>possibly disagree?

There are some who actually claim we are indeed alone, as you
certainly know. My position is not only that we are _not_ alone,
but that UFO phenomena may, even _must_ include evidence of that
indeed.

>>When I write that the more disclosure we see, the more the
>>skeptical position is favored, I'm stating a fact. Would you
>>claim that the ETH position is favored instead? Have the dozens
>>of thousands of released documents strengthened the ETH case?

>In fact, disclosure has not favored the anti-UFO position at
>all, a point made elegantly and with much documentation in
>Leslie Kean's excellent book (see my review in IUR 33,2 or at
>Kean's website) and elsewhere. Your claim to the contrary,
>frankly, raised a flag bigger and redder than usual, which is
>why I remarked on it.

Anti-UFO is not a skeptical position. Also, you have not
answered the question I explicitly made: have disclosure
stregthened the ETH case?

>>Arguing about ideology is ideology, Jerry, and especially when
>>you, like Gevaerd and Tichetti, seem to imply I somehow don't
>>deserve to be heard because I'm allegedly a skeptibunker with a
>>made up mind or something like that. Even if that were true,
>>ignoring relevant information I may bring up is just more
>>ideology and made-up minds.

>I don't use the term "skeptibunker," which as one who knows
>something about the English language I regard as a word both
>atrocious and unnecessary. Nor did I say, or even think, that
>you don't "deserve to be heard."

Since you wrote "so as not to disappoint us who otherwise would
be willing to hear you out", asking me to list puzzling UFO
cases, I understood that you wouldn't be willing to hear what I
have to say had I not listed them. Perhaps that was due to my
limited knowledge of the English language.

>All I wanted to know is if a
>genuinely puzzling, non-trivial UFO case could emerge from any
>analysis of yours. It's a legitimate question.

It is, but it is an ad hominem argument nonetheless. I feel that
both in this case, where I pointed out factual errors with the
version promoted about the Brazilian disclosure, as well as in
the Trindade case, your messages directed to me have been
questioning my background and rather ignoring the actual
evidence and arguments I presented.

>As for your simplistic definition of the "skeptical position,"
>as if its meaning were self-evident, I refer you to some very
>good writing by academics such as Truzzi, Bauer, Hufford,
>McClenon, Westrum, Wendt & Duvall, Kripal, Bullard, and others
>on the tangled meaning of "skepticism" in the context of debates
>about anomalies and the paranormal. Having discussed these in
>too many previous posts, I do not intend to repeat myself.

I was the first to translate to Portuguese Truzzi's essay on
pseudoskepticism. I'm aware of the discussion over the proper
meaning of the term skepticism, when I wrote that I meant
"skeptical" when I wrote "skeptical", I hoped my irony over the
many meanings of the term would be understood.

Also, in the context, I hoped it would be clear that the
skeptical position I meant was not an anti-UFO position, because
not even those who would be termed pseudoskeptics would openly
say that the skeptical position is one of a priori denial.

<snip>

>>The ideal that we should all be bias free is an ideal. Of course
>>we should be conscious and avoid our own biases, but pointing
>>out someone is biased simply to completely ignore his points is
>>just more bias. Which is indeed easy.

>I wasn't advocating anything as ridiculous as you suggest, of
>course. Is it necessary to reduce my perfectly reasonable
>question to absurd caricature?

In the context, where it has been both implied or explictly
argued that I have no place here, your question mentioning your
will to hear me out was apparently misinterpreted. Especially
when you made the exact same question as Tichetti. And I contend
it was not an _absurd_ misunderstanding or caricature. In any
event, it's nice to have that cleared out.

<snip>

>My own comfort level is with those who have a track record of
>finding both puzzling and explainable data concerning UFO (and
>other anomaly) reports.

I invite you to read my personal website in English:

http://forgetomori.com/

I list the Lago de Cote as well as the Vancouver "frisbee"
photos as unexplained:

http://forgetomori.com/2007/ufos/ufo-photos-lago-de-cote/

http://forgetomori.com/2007/ufos/ufo-photos-vancouver-frisbee/

Those, besides the mentions to the Chupa-Chupa attacks and the
Official UFO Night that I listed in answer to your question.

<snip>

>I would hope we can agree on these (I should think) fairly self-
>evident observations. I don't seek a prolonged exchange on this.
>I simply sought clarification of your views. Meantime, I will
>continue to read your postings with interest and come to
>judgments I deem appropriate.

Now that we have these things clarified, I hope you will
henceforth center on discussing the actual specific arguments
and evidence I present, Jerry. Most of this long thread has been
about my persona rather than the evidence and arguments
presented.


Kentaro


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