UFO UpDates Mailing List
From: Greg Sandow <gsandow@prodigy.net> Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 09:13:19 -0500 Fwd Date: Thu, 06 Nov 1997 20:52:09 -0500 Subject: Re: that ol' Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis Dennis....in a word.....a very Jewish, very New York word.....feh. > To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> > From: Dennis <dstacy@texas.net> [Dennis Stacy] > Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: that ol' Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis > Greg & List: > My problem with the ETH isn't that it isn't a viable UFO > hypothesis, but that it simply doesn't know when to stop. Hence > underground bases, vats of floating body parts, missing fetuses, > governments in league with ET, California hot tubs, the creation > of the transistor and integrated circuits, hybrid babies, crashed > saucers all over the place, the abduction of the Secretary > General of the United Nations, dead fish on a beach at night, > environmental catastrophe(s), social collapse, the coming > Apocalypse, Hale-Bopp, remote viewing, crop circles, animal > mutilations, ancient astronauts, black helicopters, Men in > Black...hell, where do I stop? That ain't a *theory,* that's a > way of life. This fish stew -- whose ingredients you enumerate -- isn't the ETH. The ETH is the simple proposal that UFOs might come from other planets. What you're objecting to are specific beliefs, factual allegations made by certain people who believe the ETH. Feel free to crusade against some or all of these (as if I could stop you!). But if disgust with abducted secretaries-general leads you to trumpet theories by Mike Davies, simply because they cast doubt on the ETH, then you've eaten too much stew. Logically and scientifically, the ETH has no relation to anything anyone thinks is going on underground at Dulce, NM. And as for mainstream science.... > Until ufology cleans up its ETH by pruning all the excess > baggage, it isn't going to get anywhere with mainstream science, > and the sooner it realizes that the better. It ain't the Rodney > Dangerfield of 20th century science for no good reason, you > know? I think you've got it backwards. Mainstream science -- or, anyway, the leading mainstream scientists who've paid unfavorable attention to UFOs -- gets irrational the moment UFOs are mentioned. That's been true since the beginning. The likes of Sagan and Menzel needed no help from Hale-Bopp crazies to distort and misunderstand everything ufologists say, while introducing hilarious irrationalities of their own. If you ask me, the excesses of ufology exist partly because mainstream science has neglected UFOs. If scientists had been serious about UFOs, the study of UFOs would be a scientific subject, and people who talk about vats of floating body parts would have the same standing in ufology as inventors of perpetual motion machines have in physics. Thanks to scientific neglect, ufology became a cottage industry, with all kinds of dotty relatives making up dotty theories in the back rooms of the cottage. Why don't you just ignore all that, and concentrate on the ufology you think makes sense? Greg Sandow
UFO UpDates - Toronto -
updates@globalserve.net
Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp - ++ 416-696-0304
A Hand-Operated E-Mail Subscription Service for the Study of UFO Related
Phenomena.
To subscribe please send your first and last name to
updates@globalserve.net
Message submissions should be sent to the same address.
|
Link it to the appropriate Ufologist or UFO Topic page. |
Archived as a public service by Area 51 Research Center which is not
responsible for content.
Financial support for this web server is provided by the
Research Center Catalog.
Software by Glenn Campbell.
Technical contact:
webmaster@ufomind.com