Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [UFOnet] Fwd: Re: John Lear's comments on Area 51

Expand Messages
  • Joe (uk-ufo) McGonagle
    Hello Michael, List, It s impractical to maintain all of the original text in a form that would be easy to read, so I am addressing the points which I think
    Message 1 of 30 , Dec 4, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      Hello Michael, List,

      It's impractical to maintain all of the original text in a form
      that would be easy to read, so I am addressing the points which I
      think require a response.

      In relation to whether or not Michael has examined the
      possibility that his "meditative" communications are internally
      generated or misrepresented by another agency, he wrote:

      >MM:
      >This assumption, that I've never asked myself over 41
      >years is quite amazing.

      It is not so amazing, since you dodge the question when it
      raised. If indeed you have evaluated the possibilities, how have
      you eliminated the alternative possibilities?

      In response to my suggestion that Michael did not in fact know
      the origin of the messages, but rather took a guess as to their
      authenticity, he wrote:

      >I don't know why you would suspect that, but it's your
      >prerogative. You claim that I'm guessing, but it
      >seems to me, that you're the one guessing.

      In the absence of any direct answer from you to a direct question
      from me, what alternative do I have but to guess? You leave me no
      choice.

      In response to an example whereby alternative explanations [to
      the literal acceptance] of a witness report existed, Michael
      wrote:

      >There doesn't have to be proof, to make something
      >true. It could be truth, but with no evidence
      >available. This would apply to my own UFO sighting.

      Absence of proof (or even supporting evidence) does not confer
      "truth" either. All that can be said is that it may or may not be
      a literal description of what actually took place. No conclusion
      either way can be drawn from such a scenario, which is exactly my
      point.

      In response to (negative) examples of the effect of faith on the
      actions of people, Michael wrote:

      >I think you're going off on a bit of a tangent. You
      >pick the negative aspects of events to discuss. Why
      >don't you pick out some positive events. Most of the
      >world is going on faith, faith in Jesus, Muhammad,
      >Buddha, Guru Nanak. Frits doesn't want us to discuss
      >religion, but there seems a need to balance your
      >pessimistic offering with something positive. Faith
      >has resulted in a lot of good, too.

      Some of those which you cite include the worst examples of
      faith-led atrocities.

      In response to my question relating to rationale for people's
      opinions, Michael wrote:

      >You're still wanting proof. That's your prerogative.
      >Most of the world is making use of faith. I don't
      >think I should think someone is nutty, deceiving,
      >etc., just because he can't prove something. I'm
      >willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. You
      >seem to be unwilling to do that, even in the face of
      >thousands of sightings, all over the world.

      Actually all I require is some tangible evidence, not proof.
      Society works on such evidence, viz. science and law. If it
      worked primarily from spiritual concerns, the defence "God told
      me to do it" would work every time, and the prisons would be
      empty. Such a society would descend into chaos very quickly.

      Responding to my example of what, under other circumstances might
      have resulted in another animal mutilation case, Michael wrote:

      >MM:
      >This is no match with the surgical precision, which
      >has been found in some mutilations. You should read
      >the story of the human mutilation at Brazil. Here it
      >is:
      >
      >http://www.think-aboutit.com/mutilations/Human_Mutilations.htm

      A singularly unconvincing case if ever I saw one. Working from
      second-generation images of an un-named corpse, the
      sheep-diviners conclude that the body was mutilated by aliens.
      Quite typical of the other material in the so-called "cattle
      mutilation" business-venture.

      Regarding my remark relating to the evidence of a hoax concerning
      the MJ-12 fiasco, Michael wrote:

      >Even you mention "some elements of fakery." Are you
      >open to the idea, that there might be "some elements
      >of truth," to it?
      >
      >I still see a tendency that you would throw out the
      >baby with the bathwater, possibly?

      The evidence is at the very least tainted. Why waste time on it?
      The entire circumstances of the MJ-12 saga points towards a hoax,
      the discovery of document tampering just confirms it.

      In response to clarification of my "Cheesy moon" article, Michael
      wrote:

      >Sometimes, truth is stranger than fiction. For
      >example, if Leonardo da Vinci had explained that he
      >saw visions of airplanes, machines flying through the
      >air, back in the sixteenth century, people would have
      >thought that he was playing with one or two cards
      >short of a full deck. Now, we know the truth about
      >airplanes, don't we?

      And do you recall how Da Vinci was treated by the religious
      authorities at the time? You make my point for me.

      I am sure that this thread is tedious for many of the
      list-members, and I don't have the time to waste on trying to
      convert the devout, so I shan't be prolonging it after I respond
      to Geoff Richardson.

      Regards,
      Joe
    • Michael Martin
      MM: Dear Joe and Members, ... MM: It takes some unmitigated gall to even ask such a personal question, IMHO. ... MM: This is also personal. As I said, in the
      Message 2 of 30 , Dec 5, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        MM:
        Dear Joe and Members,
        My reply will be below:

        --- "Joe (uk-ufo) McGonagle" <joe@...> wrote:

        > Hello Michael, List,
        >
        > It's impractical to maintain all of the original
        > text in a form
        > that would be easy to read, so I am addressing the
        > points which I
        > think require a response.
        >
        > In relation to whether or not Michael has examined
        > the
        > possibility that his "meditative" communications are
        > internally
        > generated or misrepresented by another agency, he
        > wrote:
        >
        > >MM:
        > >This assumption, that I've never asked myself over
        > 41
        > >years is quite amazing.
        >
        > It is not so amazing, since you dodge the question
        > when it
        > raised.

        MM:
        It takes some unmitigated gall to even ask such a
        personal question, IMHO.

        > If indeed you have evaluated the
        > possibilities, how have
        > you eliminated the alternative possibilities?

        MM:
        This is also personal. As I said, in the beginning,
        my testimony can be taken or left behind.

        I could easily reverse this question, and pose it to
        you. You have, apparently, dismissed all the
        sightings of thousands of people, as no more reliable
        than a theory that the moon is made of cheese. Very
        funny. How did you eliminate all the other
        alternative possibilities, most importantly, that what
        they saw was real?

        > In response to my suggestion that Michael did not in
        > fact know
        > the origin of the messages, but rather took a guess
        > as to their
        > authenticity, he wrote:
        >
        > >I don't know why you would suspect that, but it's
        > your
        > >prerogative. You claim that I'm guessing, but it
        > >seems to me, that you're the one guessing.

        MM:
        Don't put words in my mouth. I didn't say anything
        about ME GUESSING. My question is, if you are
        guessing, in case you didn't notice?

        > In the absence of any direct answer from you to a
        > direct question
        > from me, what alternative do I have but to guess?
        > You leave me no
        > choice.

        MM:
        I'd say to be open-minded to the truth. You appear to
        be rather closed-minded to it, IMHO.

        > In response to an example whereby alternative
        > explanations [to
        > the literal acceptance] of a witness report existed,
        > Michael
        > wrote:
        >
        > >There doesn't have to be proof, to make something
        > >true. It could be truth, but with no evidence
        > >available. This would apply to my own UFO
        > sighting.
        >
        > Absence of proof (or even supporting evidence) does
        > not confer
        > "truth" either.

        MM:
        I didn't say it did.


        > All that can be said is that it may
        > or may not be
        > a literal description of what actually took place.
        > No conclusion
        > either way can be drawn from such a scenario, which
        > is exactly my
        > point.

        MM:
        I detect a softening of your position, from
        closed-minded to a more open-minded position.
        Congratulations.

        > In response to (negative) examples of the effect of
        > faith on the
        > actions of people, Michael wrote:
        >
        > >I think you're going off on a bit of a tangent.
        > You
        > >pick the negative aspects of events to discuss.
        > Why
        > >don't you pick out some positive events. Most of
        > the
        > >world is going on faith, faith in Jesus, Muhammad,
        > >Buddha, Guru Nanak. Frits doesn't want us to
        > discuss
        > >religion, but there seems a need to balance your
        > >pessimistic offering with something positive.
        > Faith
        > >has resulted in a lot of good, too.
        >
        > Some of those which you cite include the worst
        > examples of
        > faith-led atrocities.

        MM:
        Again, you're focusing ONLY on the negative. Why?
        How many people have obeyed such moral teachings, as
        the ten commandments? Every religion has moral
        teachings. People would have committed many more
        crimes, without these teachings.

        > In response to my question relating to rationale for
        > people's
        > opinions, Michael wrote:
        >
        > >You're still wanting proof. That's your
        > prerogative.
        > >Most of the world is making use of faith. I don't
        > >think I should think someone is nutty, deceiving,
        > >etc., just because he can't prove something. I'm
        > >willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. You
        > >seem to be unwilling to do that, even in the face
        > of
        > >thousands of sightings, all over the world.
        >
        > Actually all I require is some tangible evidence,
        > not proof.

        MM:
        It's pretty close to the same thing, I'd say.

        > Society works on such evidence, viz. science and
        > law. If it
        > worked primarily from spiritual concerns, the
        > defence "God told
        > me to do it" would work every time, and the prisons
        > would be
        > empty. Such a society would descend into chaos very
        > quickly.

        MM:
        Again, you're talking only from the negative POV.
        Some people have done a lot of good, by the same
        justification, that "God told me to do it." Maybe
        that can't be proven, either, but a lot of good has
        been done, regardless.

        > Responding to my example of what, under other
        > circumstances might
        > have resulted in another animal mutilation case,
        > Michael wrote:
        >
        > >MM:
        > >This is no match with the surgical precision, which
        > >has been found in some mutilations. You should
        > read
        > >the story of the human mutilation at Brazil. Here
        > it
        > >is:
        > >
        >
        >http://www.think-aboutit.com/mutilations/Human_Mutilations.htm
        >
        > A singularly unconvincing case if ever I saw one.
        > Working from
        > second-generation images of an un-named corpse,

        MM:
        I read the guy's name. It's on the internet. I don't
        remember the exact name, however.

        > the
        > sheep-diviners conclude that the body was mutilated
        > by aliens.

        MM:
        Sheep-Diviners?

        > Quite typical of the other material in the so-called
        > "cattle
        > mutilation" business-venture.

        MM:
        Well, since you haven't replied to my case regarding
        the precision of it, it seems that you're just
        tiptoeing through the tulips. Remember the precision
        removal of the belly button, the rectum, etc.. Do you
        think animals are that precise?

        I'm thinking you might not have much of a case,
        regarding attributing it to animals, otherwise you
        would have posted it here.

        > Regarding my remark relating to the evidence of a
        > hoax concerning
        > the MJ-12 fiasco, Michael wrote:
        >
        > >Even you mention "some elements of fakery." Are
        > you
        > >open to the idea, that there might be "some
        > elements
        > >of truth," to it?
        > >
        > >I still see a tendency that you would throw out the
        > >baby with the bathwater, possibly?
        >
        > The evidence is at the very least tainted. Why waste
        > time on it?

        MM:
        To refresh your memory, I mentioned that my
        meditation, regarding the aliens and the enzymes was
        the same as some alleged accounts of the MJ-12. I'd
        suggest that we could, at least, try to be open-minded
        to the MJ-12 theories, and not to dismiss them without
        a thorough investigation. You seem to want to throw
        out the baby with the bathwater on this. I'm simply
        saying to separate the wheat from the chaff. There
        are some points regarding the MJ-12 theories, that I
        don't accept, either.

        > The entire circumstances of the MJ-12 saga points
        > towards a hoax,
        > the discovery of document tampering just confirms
        > it.

        MM:
        How much hoax is it? Is it partially true? Do we
        want to throw out the baby with the bathwater, like
        you? I'll leave that issue to the sagacity of the
        readers. I think we should separate the wheat from
        the chaff on this.

        > In response to clarification of my "Cheesy moon"
        > article, Michael
        > wrote:
        >
        > >Sometimes, truth is stranger than fiction. For
        > >example, if Leonardo da Vinci had explained that he
        > >saw visions of airplanes, machines flying through
        > the
        > >air, back in the sixteenth century, people would
        > have
        > >thought that he was playing with one or two cards
        > >short of a full deck. Now, we know the truth about
        > >airplanes, don't we?
        >
        > And do you recall how Da Vinci was treated by the
        > religious
        > authorities at the time? You make my point for me.

        MM:
        This is immaterial and irrelevant.

        > I am sure that this thread is tedious for many of
        > the
        > list-members, and I don't have the time to waste on
        > trying to
        > convert the devout, so I shan't be prolonging it
        > after I respond
        > to Geoff Richardson.
        >
        > Regards,
        > Joe

        MM:
        It seems that Joe is unwilling to continue this
        dialogue. I'll leave that cut and run tactic to the
        sagacity of the readers. :-)

        Michael Martin
        >
        >




        __________________________________
        Start your day with Yahoo! - Make it your home page!
        http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.