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 -> Nov -> Re: Phoenix Lights Breakthrough?

UFO UpDates Mailing List

From: "Steven W. Kaeser" <steve@konsulting.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 06:42:36 -0500
Fwd Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 11:13:10 -0500
Subject: Re: Phoenix Lights Breakthrough?

>From: Tim Matthews <matthews@zetnet.co.uk>
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: Phoenix Lights Breakthrough?
>Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 10:31:54 -0000

>>Dennis raises a good point.  How much credibility do we give to
>>an anonymous source as proof of anything?  This genre is
>>littered with the tales of those who provide false and
>>mis-leading (or mis-interpreted) information, which has in turn
>>lead many researchers down paths that later turned out to be
>>based on fuzzy logic and self-serving theories.
>
>>I don't think that this information should necessarily be
>>ignored, but using unattributed statements as building blocks to
>>develop a theory or position seems like a rather shaky
>>foundation upon which to build.
>
>Who is developing a theory and what's this about building
>blocks? Jeff merely put the account into general circulation.
>It's called the free exchange of ideas and are we now arguing
>for control of information before it is released? Are we saying
>that the 2 million listeners to "Sightings" are incapable of
>working things out for themselves.
>
>In that case, let's abandon democracy because people are too
>stupid to think things out.....
>
>As to self-serving theories and shaky foundations how's about
>the supposed evidence for "human-alien" contact that drives 99%
>of Ufology? It serves publishers and documentary makers rather
>well and provides the odd laugh for the millions of people who
>have the misfortune to hear certain unmentionable advocates for
>Ufology hammering yet another nail into its' shiny coffin...
>
>Tim X

In going back to look at some of the earlier posts in this thread, my
comment regarding "building blocks" was somewhat less than relevent to the
discussion.  I'm not sure my comment lent any credibility or support to the
" "human-alien" contact that drives 99%
of Ufology", and such was not my intent.  Any theory will have to stand or
fall on its own merits, and proving one to be inaccurate doesn't really
lend any support to another.  As far as SIGHTINGS is concerned, it is an
informative entertainment program, and not a scientific forum.  That
doesn't mean that good research and science aren't discussed on the show,
but its format is more entertainment than documentary/news.  I would
suspect that scientists would laugh at the concept of their sciences being
defined by the rule of democracy, but in some sense that may be true.

Keep up the research,

Steve