UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 1997 > Nov > Nov 9

Re: ETH &c

From: Boroimhe@aol.com [Jeff King]
Date: Sat, 8 Nov 1997 20:23:21 -0500 (EST)
Fwd Date: Sun, 09 Nov 1997 00:26:16 -0500
Subject: Re: ETH &c


Salutations to the list, and a response to:

>From: clark@mn.frontiercomm.net [Jerome Clark]
>Date: Fri, 07 Nov 1997 11:00:28 PST
>Fwd Date: Fri, 07 Nov 1997 22:36:54 -0500
>Subject: Re: ETH &c

I realize that interjecting myself into this cat fight is
probably a pointless exercise, but since Mr. Clark comments
(badly) on a passage that I allowed His Grace to quote, I do feel
obliged to do so. (Also, since this is my first attempt at
posting  to the list, I apologize in advance for any formatting,
or other errors I may commit).

>What a load of crapola here.  When have I ever said
>Roswell is one of "the best cases"?  Roswell is difficult,
>complicated, and ambiguous and depends, in the absence
> of more conclusive evidence, whom one chooses to believe.

Yes, you do now describe Roswell as “lost in confusion,” but
 let’s not forget these quotes from yesteryear:

“In short order (in mid-June, to be specific) Kevin Randle and
Donald Schmitt’s long-awaited ‘UFO Crash at Roswell’ will be
out.  It records the most thoroughly investigated, the most
completely documented event in the history of ufology.  The
Roswell incident is, of course, also the most important case of
all.  As its secrets are unraveled (and investigation continues),
ufology’s big questions, the ones that brought our field into
being in the first place, are being answered: What are UFOs?
Who pilots them? What does officialdom know, and when did it
know it?  Those whose interpretation of the UFO phenomenon
is based on empirical evidence will rejoice as the heretofore
unkillable canard, that UFO research has made no progress in
four decades, is disposed of once and for all.”
Jerome Clark
International UFO Reporter, March-April 1991.

“The Roswell incident is the most important known UFO
event in history.  By the time this investigation is over it
will shape our future understanding of the UFO phenomenon.
This investigation gets to the very core of all issues.”
Jerome Clark
Oddysey Newsletter (unfortunately, the copy sent to me
does not include the date of the issue, but it is apparently
from 1989 or 1990)

I will grant the possibility that you believe there is a
substantive difference between the “most important case of
all” and a “best case.”  I, however, believe most “literate
readers” think otherwise.  Perhaps you could explain the
difference to the rest of us or, better still, explain what in
the last six years caused  Roswell, in your estimate, to fall
from “the most important case” to being lost in confusion.

> Budd Hopkins does not "make the same errors" as Mack,
>and it amuses me to see abductionphobes speaking of them
>in the same breath, despite enormous differences in outlook
>and approach.

Yes, Hopkins does make the same fundamental error as Mack- his
beliefs clearly influence how he reports and studies abduction
accounts, to the point of leading his subjects.  But don’t take
my word for it, read Bullard’s  The Sympathetic Ear, pages 66-67,
where he clearly describes Hopkins’ status as the Typhoid Mary of
the hybrid baby motif.  Even one of Bullard’s respondents
recognized this fact.  While Bullard concludes Hopkins’ obvious
influence on such an important element in the abduction narrative
is relatively unimportant in evaluating the source of abduction
claims, I think reasonable people can disagree. (Note the
citation to a relevant work and a brief summation of why I think
readers will find it relevant to my point.)

>And I did not discuss Appelle in the context of the
>ETH; I mentioned him in the context of his careful explication of
>the problems of counterexplanations.

You discussed Appelle as a counter to several non-ETH
explanations for abduction accounts, without making it clear that
Appelle is as (or if you saw him on the recent Discovery Channel
special-more) critical of the ETH explanation as any other.  This
left a clear impression that Appelle’s article supported the ETH,
if in no other way than by the process of elimination.  You may
not have intended it that way, but since several members of this
list, only a few of whom responded, read your citation of Appelle
the same way I did, you may want to consider that the problem
lies in a lack of clarity on your part.

>Incidentally, I recognize the prose of the individual whom Duke
>quotes, for what it's worth.

Oh, really?  Please tell me how you have become so familiar with
my writing that my prose is so instantly recognizable.  Better
yet, tell us who you thought I was so I can at least see if I’m
insulted or complimented by the error.

Jeff




Search for other documents from or mentioning: boroimhe | clark

[ Next Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |

UFO UpDates Main Index

UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp


Archive programming by Glenn Campbell at Glenn-Campbell.com