From: Ray Dickenson <r.dickenson.nul> Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2013 16:03:16 +0100 Archived: Mon, 15 Jul 2013 18:48:07 -0400 Subject: Re: Colin Andrews Re: We're Done Here, Now Go Away >From: Joe McGonagle <joe.mcgonagle.nul> >To: post.nul >Date: Sat, 13 Jul 2013 21:57:53 +0100 >Subject: Re: Colin Andrews Re: We're Done Here, Now Go Away - Cox >>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark.nul> >>To: post.nul >>Date: Sat, 13 Jul 2013 09:06:15 -0500 >>Subject: Re: Colin Andrews Re: We're Done Here, Now Go Away - Cox >>>From: Joe McGonagle <joe.mcgonagle.nul> >>>To: post.nul >>>Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2013 19:07:25 +0100 >>>Subject: Re: Colin Andrews Re: We're Done Here, Now Go Away - Cox >>>The examples you provide underline my comment regarding the >>>files not having contained any smoking guns - I can't see how >>>denying the public an image of a sprocket tag or stars >>>(explanations apparently accepted by the reporters at the time) >>>is going to conceal the truth about alien visitation. >Hello Jerry, >>And here I thought this discussion was about possibly missing >>unexplained UFO reports, not about any particular theory of >>their origin and cause. >>I'm sure I am not the first here to note the reappearance of >>this dreary debunking trope, which demands that "aliens" be >>forced into any discussion of UFO matters at first available >>opportunity. Thus, since aliens can't be proved, any meaningful >>discussion of UFO phenomena and related matters collapses on the >>spot. >Of course Jerry, I should have realised that all of the people >who claim that the MoD are only releasing the low-grade material >and are still hiding the 'real' files are non-believers just >like yourself. Why should I have thought otherwise? <snip> Hello All, Coincidental to our (intermittent) reading of this thread, the Guardian has been running a week-long discussion on the precautionary principle, which always invites lots of rhetoric - maybe see the summary at: http://tinyurl.com/pynnqb3 the individual articles are in the right-hand menu. And, coincidentally again I extracted from both streams of rhetoric (this thread and the Guardian's) just two sensible rules: 1 - absence of evidence (or the claimed absence) is _not_ evidence of absence; 2 - any calculation of probabilities (of UFO/ET/aliens?) - _must_ contain a factor for the unknown; and, being unknown, that factor _must_ have the potential to exceed present human knowledge. Cheers Ray D 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 | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp