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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 30 , Dec 5, 2005
      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.

      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?

      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.

      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.

      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.

      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.

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

      > 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.

      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.

      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.

      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:
      > >
      > A singularly unconvincing case if ever I saw one.
      > Working from
      > second-generation images of an un-named corpse,

      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.


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

      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?

      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.

      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.

      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

      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!
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.