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 -> 1998 -> Jul -> Re: Sturrock Report

UFO UpDates Mailing List

From: Greg Sandow <gsandow@prodigy.net>
Date: Thu, 9 Jul 1998 15:31:23 -0400
Fwd Date: Thu, 09 Jul 1998 21:35:25 -0400
Subject: Re: Sturrock Report


>Date: Thu, 09 Jul 1998 11:16:13 +0100
>To: updates@globalserve.net
>From: John Rimmer <j_rimmer@library.croydon.gov.uk>
>Subject: Sturrock Report

> Also BTW, still no response to Harney's attack on Klass's
> dismissal of the
> Travis Walton abduction. Come on you guys, give the chap a hand!

John,

You seem to think that this is about taking sides. "Our" side,
you seem to think, should be glad that someone on "your" side
acknowledges one of "our" points.

But that's not the issue. I hope my praise of Peter Brooksmith's
Occam's Razor post some time ago shows how eagerly I welcome
serious thinking by those I disagree with.

Harney's piece, however, wasn't serious, because he hadn't done
his research. That was the problem with it. That's why Jerry
Clark and others objected so much.

Harney clearly had little idea of who Jerry is or what he's
written. He uncritically accepted Phil Klass's very old analysis
of the RB-47 case, which is, very simply, bad journalism.
Klass's analysis appears in a book published in 1974, for God's
sake. Before Harney publishes anything that accepts Klass as
gospel, it's his responsibility to ask if any new information or
analysis has surfaced in the past 24 years. I could get fired
from some of my professional journalistic jobs for not doing
something like that.

So when Harney says Phil's debunking of the Walton case is
mistaken, I'm not impressed. What's his source for that? Maybe
he has no more idea of what he's talking about here than he does
when he goes on about Jerry or about the RB-47 case.

Let me repeat. I'm not keeping track of which side scores more
points, and I'm not impressed with ignorant or unintelligent
writing, no matter whose side it takes.

Greg Sandow