Aliens On Earth.com Resources for those who are stranded here UFOs | Paranormal | Area 51 People | Places | Random Top 100 | What's New Catalog | New Books Search... for keyword(s)   in Page Titles in Book Title/Author in Contents of Pages ---other searches--- Metacrawler Yahoo FAST Search Google Altavista Dogpile Inference Find Northern Light IWon.com MSN Search Las Vegas Sun Our Bookstore is OPEN Mothership -> UFO -> Updates -> 1997 -> Jul -> Here

From: Steven Kaeser <steve@konsulting.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 1997 06:48:03 -0400
Fwd Date: Thu, 17 Jul 1997 08:56:48 -0400
Subject: Re: Hoagland in Phoneix -- AZ Republic Article

>From: KRandle993@aol.com
>Date: Wed, 16 Jul 1997 22:11:16 -0400 (EDT)
>To: updates@globalserve.net
>Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: Hoagland in Phoneix -- AZ Republic Article

[text deleted for brevity]

>How about we eliminate all those who have been convicted
>of felonies? How about we eliminate all those who have
>inflated their credentials? How about we eliminate all those
>who have been caught lying about their backgrounds, their
>employment or their accomplishments? Seems to me that
>this would be a good starting point.

>KRandle

I'm not sure how the call for Congressional Hearings will ever become
reality if we have to eliminate most of the politicians under those strict
guidelines . . . . <g>

Okay, Okay, it was a cheap shot.

It appears that since we don't have "evidence" other than annedotal
hearsay, it is felt that the individual's "charactor" is a deciding factor.
This would make sense if we can assume that those of GOOD charactor will
always be truthful, and those of BAD charactor tell only lies.  I think
these are key points one must take into account when reviewing the
statements made, but perhaps not the only factors.

I don't want to get into specifics, but at least one "researcher", whose
statements and evidence have been identified as nonsense, has faded
completely into the background.  This occured naturally, as individuals
simply stopped listening to him, which appears to be the natural process of
this genre.  But this is an individual (grassroots) phenomenon.  Unlike
major sciences, there is no peer review process that has become generally
acceptable to the public to make these kinds of judgement calls in this
genre.  Since there are so many individual "viewpoints" regarding the
verious tangents of this genre, it would be difficult to imagine a common
thread that could pull them together into a focused group.

The goal here is a good one, and I'm not in favor of lending credibility to
those who are clearly "off the wall".  But, whenever I hear the call to get
rid of those who are hurting the genre, I worry about who is going to make
that value judgement for me and define my beliefs.

Steve

PS- I'm working my way through your new book "Conspiracy of Silence", and
find it quite interesting.  I would be interested in your views of Clifford
Stone's new book "UFOs Are Real", which I have just finished and seems to
parallel your book fairly well.