From: nick@emailme.at.address.below (Nick Humphries)
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 18:23:01 GMT
Fwd Date: Fri, 19 Sep 1997 01:37:14 -0400
Subject: Re: Paper on Gulf Breeze
> Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 14:57:47 +0200 (MET DST)
> To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
> From: Jean van Gemert <jeanvg@dds.nl>
> Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: Paper on Gulf Breeze [was: MUFON Journal
> Muses]
> 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.
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.
Why is Barbara a special case in your reasoning? You are now claiming
that she cannot have found any new evidence regarding Gulf Breeze
because any evidence she finds should have already been found in the
past eight years. What logic is this?
> You've succeeded in debunking
> something I didn't write, essentially. Congratulations.
You're promoting the following: "Person X cannot have found proof
of hoax for case Y because the proof should have been found in the
past Z years."
<<<<Extrapolated from :
> >> 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.
>>>>
I assumed that this would be a universal law, but apparently not because
Barbara is in some way special. Why is Barbara an exception, Jean?
> >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.
Funny how you accuse me of not reading your post and Barbara recently
posting that you have no idea what her paper says...
<"what is proof?" argument snipped : my view is that the "alien"
explaination should be a last resort, and as such should be under
constant review. To do otherwise leads to the creation of sacred
horses which slows down the already minimal progress of ufology.>
-------------------------------------------------------
Nick Humphries, nick@the-den.clara.net, at your service
If the Truth is Out There, what's In Here?
-------------------------------------------------------
The Your Sinclair Rock'n'Roll Years
http://www.the-den.clara.net/ys/cover.htm
-------------------------------------------------------
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