Aliens On Earth.com Resources for those who are stranded here UFOs | Paranormal | Area 51 People | Places | Random Top 100 | What's New Catalog | New Books 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 Our Bookstore is OPEN Mothership -> UFO -> Updates -> 1999 -> Jun -> Here

From: John Heptonstall <john@mac-tcm.demon.co.uk>
Date: Sun, 13 Jun 1999 19:41:26 +0100
Fwd Date: Sun, 13 Jun 1999 17:06:30 -0400
Subject: Re: Mad Max: Beyond the Blunderdome


>From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>Subject: Mad Max: Beyond the Blunderdome
>Date: Sat, 12 Jun 1999 15:08:56 +0100

>All this stuff about Max Burns brings up a critical issue about
>UFO credibility and the way we present ourselves in public.
>Surely that ID the issue here. It is what BUFORA utterly failed
>to read. They did the same thing with the fawning over the
>Santilli autopsy fiasco.  Although I dare say they might - not
>unreasonably - cast back the point against various Sheffield
>events that, for instance, the IUN invited the likes of Budd
>Hopkins - when he is (without medical qualification) regressing
>five year old children and promoting the image of nasty grays
>raping humans. Somehow there is not a lot of difference here.
>Both are apparently honest ufologists expressing a view that
>most of us consider not only fundamentally wrong but potentially
>destructive. We may hate these opinions but can we honourably
>suppress them all?

<snip>


>Comments please.

>Jenny Randles

I think the fundamental test for any 'theory' has to be that it
has sufficient direct evidence to warrant reasonable discussion.
Evidence can be witness testimony, flight logs, police data, and
any other materially significant information that an objective
reasonable person would accept as valid, or that creates room
for sensible debate.

It may be that some of this evidence has been obtained by, what
some feel is, 'dubious' means such as 'regressive hypnosis' but
that should not exclude the evidence as long as it is not the
sole basis for a theory - there has to be some material/direct
or witness recall (without recourse to hypnotherapeutic
techniques) data from which the theory can be derived.

Mouton Howe, Good, Lear, Lazar. Warren, Hopkins and numerous
others have been criticised by some UFOlogists - it appears to
me - more because of their 'findings' than the fact that they
cannot supply evidence that can be debated. That's not objective
reasoning. I also have reservations about 'regressing children'
but it may ultimately be found to be a relatively safe, and
effective, means to find out what is going on - especially if
there is an ET dimension to their experiences, and that the only
way to identify the scope and depth of the problem is to provide
such a modality in a safe, properly controlled, way. Yet we have
detractors, such as Kevin McLure, who would deny the right of
both investigator and witness to that modality - not from a
scientific or legal base, despite his weak arguments to the
contrary that have been easily shot down ( and not reported as
so by him ).

We have to extract subjective opinion from the arguments and
stick to objectivity; if say the IUN decides to publish a
theoretical argument that does not sit well with many of it's
members - tough shit - as long as the argument has supportive
evidence, as opposed to opinion, it will find it's level; those
who cannot take objectivity because it flies in the face of
their scepticism, that's their problem and they should be seen
as not capable of accepting a reasoned argument. It's not long
since Jacques Benveniste was part of a debate on TV about his
'proof' of 'the memory of water. One of the debaters, Jonathan
.... ( forgot his name, doctor and theatrical personality )
tried to argue against the theory which flies in the face of
current chemical understanding, and in the end he said he 'would
not believe it if he saw it with his own eyes'. We seem to have
more that one or two such sceptics in UFOlogy - we can do
without this, let them support their own point evidentially
before having their views widely published.

BUFORA made the fatal mistake with Max ( and regularly do ) of
failing to require supporting evidence before they entertain a
'speaker' or 'author'. The IUN must hold better standards but
have to be ready to publish views that may not be popular.
BUFORA have done that!

Unless criticism is supported by objective reasoning and
evidence, it should not be entertained; when one reads
professional magazines, it is common to find that articles, and
'letters', will not be published if they are not supported with
reasoned argument. This must become part of UFOlogy, it is not
at the moment and that detracts from the subject enormously.

This must also go for criticism of another's work, or point of
view; if the latter is based on sound evidence, then it goes
without saying that any criticism or opposing view must be
required to be accompanied by sound theoretical argument. I hope
we are all able to take criticism of our points of view - but we
should not have deal with 'emotional' outbursts which have no
evidential base.

Regards

John.

--
John Heptonstall