.
.
.
"David"—"Goliath." ...Still fighting it seemed.
One's over-cocky and predictably reamed.
One strides the "mainstream" opposed by too few
while his honored opponent's courageously true.
See? One narrows scope to a facile percentage,
the other is open to "data," comprende?
One is a scoffer with "knee-jerk dismissals";
the other's employing the...facts... (!) as his missiles!
.
Filled with his "confidence," and the girth of his "creed,"
Goliath was RIPE for a fall that he needs.
David, well-read, was prepared for his role;
Goliath shows up with his head in a bowl!
David shoots well, and infuses his points.
He cited them; hell—he was owning the joint!
.
Then, Goliath seemed caught in his own vicious trap;
he hadn't prepared and was pinned to the mat!
Stone-marked and bleeding he moans on the floor!
He proves to his last that his "less" is not "more."
.
Bereft of his homework, Goliath's ungainly.
He fumbled around for his words so inanely.
He cheery-picks data: so grinding an ax
to qualify "comfort" he knows cannot last.
See, profoundly ill-read and bereft of a clue?
He insults all intelligence to misinform you!
.
Goliath is vanquished for arrogance, friend.
He lies "belly-up" for his close-minded kin.
Plus? The sneers from his camp are the stones that are used
in the sling of a righteous, experienced few.
Friedman's experienced, sober, and fair...
debate is a conflict, and Mike's blood is shed there.
.
'Round and around went the heft of Stan's sling;
his arguments whistling like fiery stings...
on the physics, the cosmic, and base relativity!
Shermer seems mired in mawkish proclivity...
his ignorance plain of our search for the answers
that excise an "ignorance"—our cognitive cancer!
.
See, Friedman could read and he'd read the man's book.
He's studied his "Rommel," so like "Patton"? He cooked!
Soaring in argument, cleaving said air,
he showed beyond doubt that his argument's fair.
.
Shermer, assured of his "glorious might,"
that he's to prevail in his "no contest" fight,
was covered with gaps in his "armor-cum-science"
which weakened his impact—was itself pseudoscience.
.
Goliath is beaten, but will not admit
that the intrepid David had merit and grit.
Dismissal's outrageous, a listener concludes.
The argument's valid, and the thought now intrudes...
that space is a huge place, completely unknown,
and it's filled to the BRIM with "anomalous foam"!
.
Lost in its hugeness is mind undefined
by concepts which limit and keep it *confined*.
.
We hold to these tails of "too timid" tradition—
are blind to the front by this backward transition.
.
Complacent, believing proud science must win,
we turn a blind eye to the discounted fringe...
which begins a small distance from what we now know
is the little we know of what's hidden there, Bro!
What can be measured; what can be seen?
What is seen CHANGES to fit any scheme!
.
Friedman won out once again 'cause he's right.
His scholarship proves what he sees in that light!
He follows the traces the data proscribes,
arriving at places the facts can't deny!
.
Why, he has what compels me to question the *man*,
for all the *man's* blandishment—pretended elan.
Stan had the right stones, and he hurled them well.
Degrees will mean nothing if cheating to sell.
.
So flourish, false skeptic, your arrogant spite—
and feel that stone as your forehead it strikes!
lehmberg2002@gmail.com
www.AlienView.net
Dr. Shermer: "...is a reasonable man who can at last be convinced given extraordinary evidence for extraordinary claims"? What a load! See, none of these guys are!
No. Nothing would *do it* for him, it is offered, but that *it* is sent back for some "additional analysis." He would continue to demand further analysis until *it* was either proven "wrong," however ephemerally, or he was checked into a rubber room and Thorazined to incontinence... the same things, actually.
The late Stanton Friedman believed we are not served by our ignorance in these matters. I suspect that Dr. Shermer believes we are. That's why he'll lose the real debate, every time.
Moreover, with regard to Dr. Shermer: I suspect all his points as based on ignorance, misinformation, and an apparent will to promote these things! Who did he cite for support but his fellow axe grinders. Axe grinders handily blown away by Friedman already: Nickell, MaGaha, Nye, Clancy and Pflock spring to mind... but forget that. Shermer, once a "Jesus played with Dinosaurs" born-again Christian himself, perhaps only prosecutes a new way to be a religious fundamentalist.
Asked who tries to cleave closest to the "spirit of science" and "consistent method," one can only give Stanton Friedman that nod. See, Shermer insists on taking inappropriate, unnecessary, self-serving and so unproductive pains to satisfy Occam. His assumptions are contrived. His premise is flawed. His assertions are fatuous. His presumptions are uninformed.
Indelibly canted, he's a lost fundie ball in a tall grass he refuses to mow himself, and with the most tedious and intransigent steadfastness, too. The preceding is an essay map for a paper exposing Shermer's "to-a-fault" reluctance to remotely complicate the UFOlogical hypothesis, a reluctance of his own unbrave needs, and so not in accordance with Occam.
There's some irony, on the surface at least. Dig—shallowly—to find there's no irony, really, at all.
And did you notice, reader? At 27:33 remaining in the fourth hour of the referenced C2C podcast... Dr. Shermer made still one more reference to an "anal probe." What is it with Dr. Shermer and anal penetration but that he titillates or otherwise rubs the salacious crotches of the left half of humanity's "Bell Curve" with his errant conversational puppets and gross anal fixations, eh?
...And again, I have to ask. Is any of this in any way comforting considering all the psychological training he has had? Is this appropriate behavior? Read on!
 |
| ...Whistling Sling! |
No comments:
Post a Comment