A Poverty in the Responses here (and elsewhere too)

Copyright 2020 InterAmerica

2020 is providing some zippy but vacuous commentary here.

With the 1979 Robert Taylor event, everyone (including me) is rehashing the various “explanations” for the bizarre incident.

And without, so far, and definitive cause for what Robert Taylor experienced, all cards should remain on the table, even the preposterous Venus mirage hypothesis.

That Robert Taylor may have had a temporal lobe epileptic seizure, seeing how he had been attended to a few months earlier [four], for extreme headaches as David Clarke reports, resorting to clari- cation(s) from the eminent Oliver Sacks about epileptic , seizures, and like ailments that could pertain to Robert Taylor’s temporary blackout, is far from ridiculous.

But a few admired visitors here, who hold their own subliminal ET explanations for UFOs, insist that such guarded and sensible explanations are foolish.

This is not good, intellectual rumination. It’s a desire to thrust the extraterrestrial theme into the discussion here, while pretending to be objective and intellectual. I, and others, are not gulled.

Then there are the ongoing attacks of Daniel’s seeming acceptance of an ET explanation for the many precise and awe-inspiring mega- lithic structures found all over the planet, the subliminal ETers not supporting Daniel worrying that their “secret” ETH predilection may become overt.

A while back, someone mentioned – forgive me for not remem- bering who -- my incorporation of “old books” in postings and commentary, the person wishing for up-to-date pontifications, as if new information has replaced all that has come before – all.

And my pal Matty going after Tim Hebert and me for resorting to psychological information that has been tested by time, Tim working in the field and me still using psychometric data and evaluations for news media, government agencies and business outlets via InterAmerica, Inc.

Matty’s view of psychology is not unlike the views of the New Atheists, noted here recently: views that are couched in old argu- ments but with a new patina.

Matty’s views of academic psychology are exactly that, academic, at a time when academic thinking is under attack, itself, for superficial and gaudy remonstrations that objective intellectuals eschew with a proper vehemence.

I appreciate the reflections offered here by visitors, many who shame Zoam Chomsky for his anti-UFO views but who, themselves, are immersed in a cloaked belief in the AA/ET premise, but pre- tending not to be.

It’s a shameful dialectic that intrudes here lately, and while I allow an open forum, I can’t abide the intellectual pretense that keeps showing up in comments that are really a reflection of ignorant biases.

Keep open minds and answer alternate-to-your-beliefs commentary a proper response, not an open-ended rebuke that is nothing more than sophistic nonsense.

RR