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 -> 1999 -> Jun -> Re: Max Burns Hoax Exposed

UFO UpDates Mailing List

From: Roger Evans <moviestuff@cyberjunkie.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 1999 22:41:53 +0000
Fwd Date: Sat, 26 Jun 1999 13:59:41 -0400
Subject: Re: Max Burns Hoax Exposed


>From: Mike Wootten <mike@woottenm.freeserve.co.uk>
>Date: Fri, 25 Jun 1999 14:47:26 +0100
>Fwd Date: Fri, 25 Jun 1999 21:24:14 -0400
>Subject: Re: Max Burns Hoax Exposed

>>From: Teri Edgar <uzrgrrl@mindspring.com>
>>To: <updates@globalserve.net>
>>Subject: Re: Max Burns Hoax Exposed
>>Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 12:53:12 -0700

Previously, Teri has offered:

>>I'm beginning to doubt that those with "closed minds" will ever
>>have a sighting, even if a 'FO lands in their driveway. Reality
>>is based on our perceptions and if we cannot stretch our minds
>>to accept anything beyond what society has told us it's alright
>>to believe in, how will we ever perceive a UFO?

Mike replied:

>I'm affraid you seem to be missing the point here. I don't
>approve of hoaxing, but this clearly illustrates that the
>majority of ufologists don't have the capacity to truely
>investigate the UFO phenomenon. Open mindedness has nothing to
>do with this issue.
>
>If we really wanted to find out what UFOs were - from undefined
>IFOs to ET - then religious words like 'belief' and 'open mind'
>should be kept locked away. Ufology will never be a science if
>we are not hard noised critics of the 'evidence'. Question and
>doubt everything and you might just find some real answers.
>
>Alchemy would still be practised today of science had not
>learned those lessons and I would not be typing this out on a
>PC!

Hi, Mike.

You mentioned alchemy, science and religion. Alchemy became a
science only after the practice of experimentation and
observation was combined with copious note keeping to prevent
repetition of errors and failed results. But, make no mistake,
there were many occasions where someone simply thought, "What if
I mixed this with this?" and came up with success, sometimes on
the first try! Science today is not much different. In this
fashion, I believe that many of the greatest advances in science
came as a result of a leap of faith; someone in a lab or
workshop simply wondering "What if...?"

Thus the fine line between religion and science dissappears, if
only for a moment. But it is within this moment that man shines
the brightest as he demonstrates the ability to predict beyond
what is predictable; to recognize the unrecognizable.

Remember, Thomas Edison had a minimal grade school education.
Henry Ford was illiterate and signed his name with an 'X".
DeForrest was credited with "inventing" the amplification tube
but could not explain how it worked in court when challenged
over his patent. These are a few examples of people that used
intuition as much as anything to explore the world around them.
The "evidence" they studied was invisible to their
contemporaries as it could only be seen through the eyes of
someone with an open mind and a belief in the impossible.

Therefore, with all due respect, I think it is you that's
missing the point. The "evidence" you suggest we should be hard
nosed critics of simply does not exist...yet. This is not to say
that it isn't right before our very eyes; indeed, it may very
well be. However, since we really don't have a clue what we are
looking for there's a very good chance that we might overlook it
unless we drop our preconceived notions of what UFO's and ET's
are supposed to "be".

I understand your frustration at the apparent "guessing game"
that seems to invite anyone calling themselves a "UFO
researcher". However, discoveries are not the sole property of
the scientific elite. On the contrary, the average Joe on the
street may fare better than the ridgidly disciplined scientist
when it comes to asking "What if...?" Since the average person
hasn't been taught about what can't be possible, he or she is
more likely to recognize what is possible or, more importantly,
what is actually happening in front of their very eyes.

BTW, the concept of the "PC" was initially considered foolish by
virtually everyone in the computer industry. It took a few
people asking "What if...?" to make it a reality.

Take care,

Roger Evans