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 -> May -> Re: Jerry Black's Open Letter to Friedman

UFO UpDates Mailing List

From: Greg Sandow <gsandow@prodigy.net>
Date: Sat, 1 May 1999 11:04:37 -0400
Fwd Date: Sat, 01 May 1999 23:48:17 -0400
Subject: Re: Jerry Black's Open Letter to Friedman


>Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1999 15:04:47 -0500
>To: updates@globalserve.net
>From: Glenn Joyner <infohead@airmail.net>
>Subject: Black's Open Letter to Friedman

>My name is Jerry Black, and I will now state, for the record, my
>position on the UFO topic.

[SNIP!!!!}

Am I the only one who never wants to read another word from Jerry
Black?

Since I'm one of Budd Hopkins's many friends, I suppose Black
might think I'm on his case because he got on Budd's, in his
latest missive. But in fact I lost it with him when I read his
latest Whitley Strieber attack, and I have no brief for Strieber
at all. I decided to write this note after reading the first few
paragraphs of his assault on Stan Friedman, long before I got to
the part about Budd.

My thoughts about Black are very simple. He's hardly the first
to raise questions about the Gulf Breeze case, or about
Strieber. He does, though, set new records for stultifying
self-righteousness, barely concealing a resentment that borders
on rage.

And he doesn't seem to know the difference between a valid
argument, an absurdity, and an ad hominem attack. It's absurd,
for instance, for him to condemn MUFON, the entire organization,
in part because he went to one function 20 years ago, and didn't
like what he heard. And it's certainly an ad hominen attack when
he talks about Stan Friedman's personality. Flamboyance, in
Jerry Black's eyes, seems to be a kind of crime, prima facie
evidence, all by itself, that the flamboyant person is only
interested in money and fame.

Finally, Black isn't, to put it mildly, very well informed about
some of the subjects he discusses. For one quick example, take
this:

>Mr. William G. Hyzer informed me that the
>technology today is as such that anyone who has a computer and
>the money can make a UFO photograph that no one would ever be
>able to detect as being a hoax.

I might note, in passing, Black's exaggerated, almost obsequious
respect for Hyzer, who may well be a worthy professional in his
field, but surely isn't the fount of unerring wisdom Black makes
him out to be. Nobody, nobody at all, is _that_ good.

But this statement about computer imagery is, first, not
remarkable, because it's something you hear all the time,
without having to consult Hyzer or anyone else. Second, it's
wrong. Computer-faked images will show subtle signs of fakery,
if you closely examine them (and, of course, if you have a deep
knowledge of computer graphics). We've discussed that on this
list many times. But Black propounds his notion (or Hyzer's) in
the same tone of a self-righteous oracle that he uses throughout
his broadsides. He makes no distinction between things he might
know something about, and other areas, like this one, in which
he hasn't a clue.

Enough. I don't care whether I agree with Black, or disagree
with him, about the many points he raises in his open letters.
But I'm offended enough by his tone to feel I should say
something.

Greg Sandow