Aliens On Earth.com Resources for those who are stranded here Our Bookstore is OPEN Over 5000 new & used titles, competitively priced! Topics: UFOs - Paranormal - Area 51 - Ghosts - Forteana - Conspiracy - History - Biography - Psychology - Religion - Crime - Health - Geography - Maps - Science - Money - Language - Recreation - Technology - Fiction - Other - New 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 Location: Mothership -> UFO -> Updates -> 1997 -> Sep -> Re: Paper on Gulf Breeze

UFO UpDates Mailing List

From: Jean van Gemert <jeanvg@dds.nl>
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 14:57:47 +0200 (MET DST)
Fwd Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 09:52:23 -0400
Subject: Re: Paper on Gulf Breeze

At 12:46 AM 9/18/97 -0400, you wrote:
>From: nick@emailme.at.address.below (Nick Humphries)
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: MUFON Journal Muses
>Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 17:29:04 GMT

[I said, to provide some context:]
>> The bottom line is that if Barbara really had any proof we would
>> have heard about it by now, in the course of 8 years. You might
>> want to try and replace your rabidly opinionated "gut feelings"
>> with a more proper foundation for your claims.

[Nick then said:]
>Ignoring the flame... The statement that if there was "really
>had any proof we would have heard about it by now, in the
>course of 8 years" on Gulf Breeze or ANY case is an ill-founded
>one.

>This is silly - if scientists worked this way, many would give
>up before accomplishing any major discovery.

 You're completely misreading, as usual. My comment relates only
 to Ms. Becker having any alleged "proof" (hence my "if Barbara
 really had any proof"), not to any other negative evidence that
 in principle could still turn up. You've succeeded in debunking
 something I didn't write, essentially. Congratulations.

>It is also illogical - Jean's argument is that no case could be
>solved because, if any solution was possible, it would have
>been found already.

 I didn't assert this, read my comment again. This time with
 your eyes open please.

>Finally, suggesting that if a case hasn't been solved after a
>small period of time, then it is unsolvable stifles any debate
>and stunts any possible further growth in the subject.

 I neither claimed this too, but it's worth a comment. "Solved"
 is in the eyes of the beholder; Bruce Maccabee, for instance,
 would consider "solved" the issue re Ed allegedly hoaxing the
 famous shots he's known for, in Walters' favor. He too would
 see "solved" the issue of existence/non-existence of strange
 objects occupying Gulf Breeze airspace. While to other people
 it's quite conceivable that damning evidence could still be
 forthcomming, so they don't share Maccabee's opinion, even
 if there's _no_ evidence such proof would eventually pop up.

 I personally find the latter quite unreasonable. It's like
 saying "let's not use our knowledge, which _seems_ reliable
 enough, to draw any conclusions, because evidence _could_
 turn up overnight which _might_ negate that same knowledge
 in the future." What if it never turns up? You'd be waiting
 and waiting... But I think you get the point.
 __________________________________________________________________________

                    Science, Logic, and the UFO Debate:
               http://www.primenet.com/~bdzeiler/index.html
                           -----------------------