Re: [UFOnet] Fwd: Re: John Lear's comments on Area 51
Dear Joe and Members,
My reply will be below:
--- "Joe (uk-ufo) McGonagle" <joe@...> wrote:
> Hello Michael, List,MM:
> 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
> possibility that his "meditative" communications are
> generated or misrepresented by another agency, he
> >This assumption, that I've never asked myself over
> >years is quite amazing.
> It is not so amazing, since you dodge the question
> when it
It takes some unmitigated gall to even ask such a
personal question, IMHO.
> If indeed you have evaluated theMM:
> 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 inMM:
> 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
> >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 aMM:
> direct question
> from me, what alternative do I have but to guess?
> You leave me no
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 alternativeMM:
> explanations [to
> the literal acceptance] of a witness report existed,
> >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
> 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 mayMM:
> 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
I detect a softening of your position, from
closed-minded to a more open-minded position.
> In response to (negative) examples of the effect ofMM:
> faith on the
> actions of people, Michael wrote:
> >I think you're going off on a bit of a tangent.
> >pick the negative aspects of events to discuss.
> >don't you pick out some positive events. Most of
> >world is going on faith, faith in Jesus, Muhammad,
> >Buddha, Guru Nanak. Frits doesn't want us to
> >religion, but there seems a need to balance your
> >pessimistic offering with something positive.
> >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 forMM:
> opinions, Michael wrote:
> >You're still wanting proof. That's your
> >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
> >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 andMM:
> 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
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 otherMM:
> circumstances might
> have resulted in another animal mutilation case,
> Michael wrote:
> >This is no match with the surgical precision, which
> >has been found in some mutilations. You should
> >the story of the human mutilation at Brazil. Here
> 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.
> sheep-diviners conclude that the body was mutilated
> by aliens.
> Quite typical of the other material in the so-calledMM:
> 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 aMM:
> hoax concerning
> the MJ-12 fiasco, Michael wrote:
> >Even you mention "some elements of fakery." Are
> >open to the idea, that there might be "some
> >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 pointsMM:
> towards a hoax,
> the discovery of document tampering just confirms
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"MM:
> article, Michael
> >Sometimes, truth is stranger than fiction. For
> >example, if Leonardo da Vinci had explained that he
> >saw visions of airplanes, machines flying through
> >air, back in the sixteenth century, people would
> >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
> 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 ofMM:
> 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.
It seems that Joe is unwilling to continue this
dialogue. I'll leave that cut and run tactic to the
sagacity of the readers. :-)
Start your day with Yahoo! - Make it your home page!