"You need to get out more." (chrlzs)
A healthy suggestion. By now everybody knows about sunlight and vitamin D (or K, maybe?). However, you don't need a walk in the park if you eat large amounts of butter and egg white (albumen). Going out is not at all pleasant in big cities.
"Is that because you cannot back up the claims? The proper thing to do, I would think, would be to either back them up or withdraw them..." (Ibid.)
How could I possibly supply anyone with indisputable proof? Even if I were to arrange a meeting between you and the abductee, and I don't even know if he's still with us, he might not be able to convince you. Ultimately you have to rely on your own good judgement in such cases, based on the published data available. You can't go around interviewing people all over the world. My educated or uneducated guess was that it could, in fact, be an authentic case.
Hynek discusses these "close encounters of the third type" in chapter 10. He chooses not to rely on that kind of evidence on the grounds that he was able to talk to very few witnesses.
"What exactly do you mean by 'pseudophilosophy' (…)?" (Ibid.)
It was a pun that was mistaken for something else, yet I do object to the usual attitude associated particularly with the natural sciences. It has to do with refusing to examine what Hynek calls "(new) empirical observations". Please see further ahead.
"Just ONE piece of indisputable evidence, and ET will be accepted as valid. If we are being visited in numerous forms and multiple times, why would that be so difficult?" (Ibid.)
That's a common and logical reasoning: "They come and go. By now there ought to be a museum somewhere full of hard evidence." It's as though they were playing hide and seek, and that's exactly the case. There's such a thing as the Law of Free Will or Law of Confusion. They respect the right to decide for ourselves. If everything were perfectly clear --if they were to make a parade down a big avenue and then proceed to solve all our problems--, it would be an illegitimate involvement in affairs that are our own responsibility. Their purpose is to intrigue people and lead them to look into the matter.
Besides, it's broader than just ET's. It's our older brothers and sisters, or "spiritual guides", with or without the hardware. Some of them have no physical presence. That some of them actually come on spaceships is irrelevant because it's a collective enterprise.
"No, he didn't claim that." (Ibid.)
In that case then I don't understand his point. He seems to be focusing on a single case in order to show that the entire affair is ridiculous.
"You're filling an already wonderful universe with sordid inventions that are completely unnecessary. Why?" (HenrikOlsen)
That's your personal interpretation of the matter. I am not inventing anything. Your innocence is childlike, and even charming. So many astonishing things are going on that you refuse to look into. There is a blind spot in your mind.
"Please tone down your style or you will find yourself being infracted for rudeness." (Capt. Swoop)
I'm striving to adjust to the strictness of the rules here and I understand the need for them, given the human tendency towards violent strife. Maybe this forum will manage to take it out of me? It's not bad if you're somewhat on the wild side, if you're eager to learn.
"Kindly identify what you assume to be the higher ground, and why you consider it to be so." (Abaddon the Avenging Angel, or something like that)
This is a good place to go back to Hynek's concept of "new empirical observation". The phrase is self-explanatory and has to do with the history of science --the way it progresses. Science moves forward whenever it encounters NEO's that don't fit the present theoretical framework and lead to drastic changes in the same. This is discussed in Thomas Kuhn's book on scientific revolutions. Hynek claims that unexplainable UFO's are, in fact, an example of a NEO, and that most scientists refuse to deal with the problem. This is the gist of the matter. We are witnessing it right here in this forum. The "higher ground" involves a willingness to examine NEO's.
" (…) there are several French speakers here who would happily translate for you." (chrlzs)
I learned French at school decades ago. Otherwise, how could I have read a book in French? What I meant was that if I was to quote I'd have to translate the quotes and it would be a little time-consuming, but it looks like it wasn't necessary.
I'm sorry. This is exhausting. I'll have to continue some other day.