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 - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp