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 Mothership -> UFO -> Updates -> 1999 -> Feb -> Here

From: Andy Roberts <Brigantia@compuserve.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 12:45:33 -0500
Fwd Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 17:39:45 -0500
Subject: Re: Pope On A Rope


>>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
>>Subject: Re: Pope On A Rope
>>Date: Sun, 21 Feb 99 11:59:46 PST
>>To: ufoupdates@globalserve.net

>I rest my case. I think we are not -- I am trying to be
>charitable here -- dealing with someone whose thinking can
>exactly be characterized as nuanced. In the real world persons
>shade the truth for all kinds of reasons, good and bad. Shading
>the truth in a particular instance so as not to subject oneself
>to embarrassment or ridicule is among the most common,practiced
>by all sorts of otherwise honorable and truthful individuals.

Yes they do, and in what passes for the 'real' world - ie where
individuals are not claiming exotic interactions with strange
beings, that's just how it is. But if people are not telling the
entire truth about experiences which have a somewhat dubious
reality status then I still think it is reasonable that we treat
_all_ their information, unless fully evidenced, with care. That
you are obviously prepared not to speaks volumes Jerome.

>In the two cases we are discussing -- that of somebody here
>called "Popey" (Nick Pope to the rest of us) and that of Peter
>Rojcewicz (no known insulting nickname available)  -- we are
>dealing with persons who shaded the truth for the reasons >stated above. Unless we find evidence that Pope and Rojcewicz >have engaged in a pattern of chronic lying, no one except the
>self-righteous crusader like Andy Roberts will draw larger
>negative conclusions.

Well that's not strictly true Jerome. I think it's safe to say
that in UK ufology most people are highly critical of Pope for
his jiggery pokery wth this 'abduction' experience. That,
coupled with the fact that his general ufological knowledge is,
shall we say 'thin' (read his history in 'Open Minds....') makes
anything he says - in mine and many other people's opinions -
somewhat dubious.

>This, in fact, was the point I made in my first posting.
>Everything Roberts has done so far simply confirms the >suspicion I had all along: he's out heretic-hunting, and >reason, fairness, and proportion be damned.

Heretic hunting can be fun, it's true. But in Nick Pope's case
all any of us want is for him to supply information to back up
his claims and allegations. Not much to ask for as a ufologist
eh Jerome?

Happy Trails

Andy