Kevin Randle has some interesting items at his site
posted by RRRGroup at
Tuesday, July 19, 2022
|
0 comments
Tuesday, July 19, 2022
The Bryan Sentes Problem
Copyright 2022, InterAmerica, Inc.
My one-time pal Bryan Sentes isn’t forwarding his Skunkworls
postings to me any longer.
That’s probably because I’ve been ragging on his approach to the UFO topic (phenomenon).
I’m not dissing Bryan personally; he’s a brilliant fellow as I often write. It’s his tack I'm after.
Bryan likes to commiserate about UFOs within the philosophical context. You know, arguing with the tropes of philosophy…
But I’m sure that philosophy or math or technological studies of alleged UFO after-effects – radiation measurement, electro-magnetic residue, photographic analysis, et al. -- can’t produce, and haven’t produced anything conclusive or even circumstantial about the mysterious phenomenon.
My ache with Bryan and those continuing to pursue the phenom- enon by way of human logic and/or technology (science) will come up short and have come up short.
Bryan likes to tout others who engage in the will-o-the-wisp acti- vities. Why? Bryan just likes being ensconced in the UFO milieu, like many long-timers. He likes the vague camaraderie of the UFO community, at least the apparent thinking element of the community.
He shouldn’t take my asides about the uselessness of philosophy to solve the UFO riddle as a personal affront.
And my comments about his failure to see the 16th Century broad- sheets – the Nuremberg and Basel “UFO images” – as editorial commentary are not just to point out his gullibility but to eliminate the doltish idea that the images are a reflection of UFO battles over the cities.
I’m sorry he feels I’m attacking his UFO pronouncements – well, I am – but he shouldn’t be upset about that. After all, in philosophy, argumentation is the end-all and be-all, is it not?
RR
That’s probably because I’ve been ragging on his approach to the UFO topic (phenomenon).
I’m not dissing Bryan personally; he’s a brilliant fellow as I often write. It’s his tack I'm after.
Bryan likes to commiserate about UFOs within the philosophical context. You know, arguing with the tropes of philosophy…
But I’m sure that philosophy or math or technological studies of alleged UFO after-effects – radiation measurement, electro-magnetic residue, photographic analysis, et al. -- can’t produce, and haven’t produced anything conclusive or even circumstantial about the mysterious phenomenon.
My ache with Bryan and those continuing to pursue the phenom- enon by way of human logic and/or technology (science) will come up short and have come up short.
Bryan likes to tout others who engage in the will-o-the-wisp acti- vities. Why? Bryan just likes being ensconced in the UFO milieu, like many long-timers. He likes the vague camaraderie of the UFO community, at least the apparent thinking element of the community.
He shouldn’t take my asides about the uselessness of philosophy to solve the UFO riddle as a personal affront.
And my comments about his failure to see the 16th Century broad- sheets – the Nuremberg and Basel “UFO images” – as editorial commentary are not just to point out his gullibility but to eliminate the doltish idea that the images are a reflection of UFO battles over the cities.
I’m sorry he feels I’m attacking his UFO pronouncements – well, I am – but he shouldn’t be upset about that. After all, in philosophy, argumentation is the end-all and be-all, is it not?
RR
posted by RRRGroup at
Tuesday, July 19, 2022
|
8 comments
