UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 1997 > Nov > Nov 11

Re: Clark on Abductions 2/2

From: rfsignal@sprynet.com [Cathy Johnson]
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 09:50:37 -0800
Fwd Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 02:30:10 -0500
Subject: Re: Clark on Abductions 2/2

On Mon, 10 Nov 1997, UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>

>From: Greg Sandow <gsandow@prodigy.net>
>To: "'UFO UpDates - Toronto'" <updates@globalserve.net>
>Subject: RE: UFO UpDate: Clark on Abductions 2/2
>Date: Sun, 9 Nov 1997 23:47:56 -0500
>X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI -

>Memory, to rip a lyric from "Porgy and Bess" out of context, is a
>sometimes thing. We're constantly being reminded of that by
>abduction skeptics, so it's amusing to find our silly friend
>Peter providing a perfect example.

>> Date: Sat, 8 Nov 1997 19:20:41 -0500
>> From: Peregrine Mendoza <101653.2205@compuserve.com> [Peter
>> Brookesmith]

>At issue is Martin Kottmeyer's contention that Betty and Barney
>Hill derived their description of UFO aliens at least in part
>from an "Outer Limits" episode. Betty Hill denies that she and
>her husband ever watched the show, but Peter notes:

>> There is also a point in [John] Fuller's book {The Interrupted
>> Journey], I think during the initial UFO sighting, at which
>> Betty exclaims > something like "Jeez, Barney, what've you
>> seen in all those > 'Twilight Zone' shows you watch?", which I
>> can't put my finger on > at the moment. This isn't conclusive
>> evidence of anything, but it is somewhat suggestive.

The microscopic conversations going on here are punitive
bewilderments not relevent to the overall picture.  These kinds
of analysis fail to consider that  human memories do alter, are
chnageable to a great degree and do not necessarily have to agree
with anything.  The original experiences of the persons involved
are translations at best of the original circumstances.  So much
for the mythical legendary literary accuracy you are searching
for.  Look for the Grail instead.  It is more likely to be found
than what you are looking for.

Just what do you intend to prove by sticking supposed facts in
everyone's face and crying that these are not facts at all?  I
would suggest you rethink your direction of attack.

How do you think I feel about all of this dissection?  I am no
less involved in these discussions whether or not you realize it.
I read a lot of stuff and comes a time when even I have to say
something about what is going on when it becomes so surgical.

How much have you considered the human part of these
conversations?  Are you seriously trying to see what actually
happened way back when, or are you just cutting and editing the
words of transcripts?  If you weren't actually there, then what
part do you think you play in those recorded events?

I have vivid memories that go as far back as I can remember. I
have found that there is a problem with the sequences or even
time of those memories.  But, the details that I can remember are
enough to satsify my own questions about the early fifties time
period.  These memories of mine are my own little artifacts. No
one can claim them. No one can view them.  But when I translate
them, and in turn those memories are re-translated into print,
how well do the original memories compare with the printed
versions of the same thing?  We would have to admit that the
track record is pathetic, enough to tease us into believing there
is accuracy in our memories, but incomplete, convoluted, or
muddled enough to be unreliable.  Yes, unreliable.

Do you not see the same thing happening here?  Memories of
experiences are taken in or out of context to convert or divert
believers?  Who do you think you are influencing by all of these
arguements?  Certainly not the experiencers themselves.  They
have their own convictions.  But, to the people not directly
involved in all of this, just how do you think you are appearing
to them?

Personally, I would have said, "Song and Dance! Now, where's my
money?"  But, I wouldn't give that to you when I see everything
you have hacked to death, with help, I might add.

>What's at stake here is simple reason, and common sense. Are we
>actually asked to take the following remark seriously?

>> Betty's denial is pretty thin gruel, unless someone is going to
>> seriously argue that she can remember every single show
>> (not just series), commercial or trailer that Barney saw,
>> even a part of, in the 1960s.

>Here we have a perfect example of a proposition that can't be
>disproved. Betty and Barney Hill, it's claimed, derived their
>alien from a television show. "But," cries Betty, "we never
>watched that show!"

Do you call Betty a liar?  It is obvious to me that you have not
had the experiences that Betty had.  You fail to listen to what
is being said to you and everyone else.  Something did happen.
Whatever that something was, some of the details are right, and
some are mixed up.  Some of the details are even missing.  Does
this in anyway have anything to do with the actual occurrence of
the incident in the first place?  Not on your life.  The incident
happened, unjustified and unwanted.  It happened like so many
other incidents to innocent people going about their lives in so
many other places around the world.

Go ahead, pick any of the thousands of abduction reports apart.
And, it won't matter at all about who wrote it or who reads it.
Have a greeat time!  But, you will still fail to see what is
going on just as you are now.  You will continue to make the same
mistakes like the rest of the non-participants.  You will always
be on the outside looking in.

Take care for now,
Cathy Johnson

Search for other documents from or mentioning: rfsignal | gsandow | 101653.2205

[ Next Message | Previous 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