From: Jack Brewer <brewer.jack.nul>
Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2012 08:48:07 -0700 (PDT)
Archived: Mon, 04 Jun 2012 08:49:04 -0400
Subject: Re: Flying Saucers - The Greatest Lie Ever Told


>From: James Carrion <jcarrion.nul>
>Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2012 08:39:24 -0300
>Archived: Sat, 02 Jun 2012 08:11:07 -0400
>Subject: Re: Flying Saucers - The Greatest Lie Ever Told

<snip>

>Jerry,

>Perhaps you can read over all of my posts and cite one instance
>where I have personally attacked any one. If I am guilty of
>anything, it is simply of presenting an alternative theory and
>defending that view point. As for the proof you all keep
>demanding, I have already presented documented evidence of a
>disinformation campaign in the guise of Project Seal, but ho-
>hum, yawn, it is not an ET explanations, so it bores you. Any
>other evidence I present here will be treated the same way. I am
>wasting my time here and we all know it.


>James


I sincerely empathize.

I invite consideration of the following:

- If one does not understand critical thinking skills or refuses
to apply them, all ensuing discussion is editorial opinion and
irrelevant from the perspective of attempting to establish
actuality. Specifically, there is no single explanation
applicable to the complex history of unidentified things
perceived to be bouncing around the sky. Similarly, what James
may or may not think about the history and explanations for
UFOs, the work anyone else has published on the topic, personal
experiences concerning the subject matter and so on are entirely
irrelevant in evaluating two issues that should be primary
concerns: One, the literal research methodology undertaken by
James during the course of his work, and, two, his hypothesis
surrounding certain events that took place specifically during
June of 1947.

- In order to effectively offer critical review of work
presented by James Carrion or anyone else, the work must
actually be read and considered. There is no way to competently
negotiate this point; a person is simply unqualified to comment
on work they have not read and/or do not understand. Repeatedly
demanding James explain points that are, in fact, covered
extensively in the work undermines the entire process of
effectively and objectively considering the research presented.
Similarly, incorrectly and unfairly saddling James with
assertions not actually expressed in his work, as is repeatedly
taking place, is very detrimental to productive and constructive
dialog. Such tactics also misrepresent actuality while failing
to address the substance of the research, whether the tactics
are implemented through intentional ill will, personal
insecurities or simple ignorance.

- Whether or not the UFO community likes to acknowledge it, none
of the events in question, Maury Island, Arnold or Roswell, have
ever been conclusively established to include extraterrestrial
beings and such. Arguments that said events involved ET and/or
extraordinary phenomena are currently nothing more than
passionate editorial and representations of opinion. One
rational line of consideration would therefore be that
alternative explanations should be considered and explored, not
oppressed, particularly if such exploration includes adhering to
professional research protocol. Actually, a strong argument
could well be made that rationality demands exploring
alternative and innovative approaches in light of the fact no
conclusive evidence of ET has ever been established.

So, James, I would agree that you are indeed wasting your time
if your efforts are measured by the extent you can lead certain
people to understand that what may or may not have taken place
in Washington during the latter 1940's does not necessarily have
anything to do with what may or may not have happened, for
instance, in Point Pleasant, West Virginia, in the 1960's, among
other examples of applying critical thinking. I would also
conclude it to be a waste of time if you expect people to be
held accountable for their statements who refuse to follow
reasonable debate protocol and are emotionally vested in
attacking your research to the extent they are entirely unable
to objectively discuss it.

I would equally conclude, however, that your research itself has
been a very wise use of time from several perspectives well
beyond the possibility your theory may be correct and your work
offers interesting considerations. Among such perspectives would
be the examples you have provided of competently conducting
research as well as applying long term sustained attention, each
of which are very valuable commodities. Such skills are valuable
not only in ufology, but also in a culture suffering from ever
decreasing attention spans and the subsequent risks of
misunderstanding concepts if they cannot be fully contained
within single tweets or brief emails.

What's more, I would even say your recent efforts on UFO UpDates
List were not entirely wastes of time, in that it is my
experience that numerous intelligent and reasonably well
informed readers do not bother (or waste their time, if you
will) arguing with those who are overly opinionated and prone to
pontificating. Such intelligent readers indeed notice what takes
place both overtly and at times between the lines. In that
regard, James, your time was well spent in further exposing that
which the discriminating member of the UFO community must come
to accept: many people have very little interest in the truth as
compared to being considered witty while imposing their
preferred belief systems and premature conclusions upon others.


Jack
www.ufotrail.blogspot.com



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.