UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 1997 > Nov > Nov 23

Re: Clark and ETH

From: Chris Rutkowski <rutkows@cc.UManitoba.CA>
Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 22:16:12 -0600 (CST)
Fwd Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 03:35:05 -0500
Subject: Re: Clark and ETH


> From: DevereuxP@aol.com [Paul Devereux]
> Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 23:48:44 -0500 (EST)
> To: updates@globalserve.net
> Subject: Solved Abduction Cases?

> >I guess the good news is that there is so little of substance
> >in it, beyond Paul's by now well-worn ax-grinding act, that
> >little comment is warranted.  Suffice it to say I stand by
> >everything I've said.  To Paul I'd simply say that your
> >emotional -- even fanatical -- commitment to a particular
> >reading of the UFO question has apparently led you to
> >chronic incivility, as not a few others, even individuals
> >more sympathetic to your beliefs than I am, have noted.  In

No kidding, Jerry. Is this guy amazing, or what?

> have been trying to discuss with you. I have dealt with ELs and
> Chris Rutkowski on other occasions, and will doubtless do so in
> the future just as Chris will doubtless keep bashing away at his
> pet hate. All I will say on the topic here - as you raise it - is

My pet hate? Paul, Paul, Paul ... there are many things I hate,
but your EL theory barely ranks as one of my pet hates.
Voicemail, maybe, but ELs, ....

> that unusual geophysical luminous and non-luminous phenomena do
> exist, they are undoubtedly a part of the material that passes
> through ufology's alimentary canal, and they just as certainly
> have not been digested by most ufologists - i.e. they have been
> under-recognised and under-researched. A small number of us have
> been doing a heroic job in raising funding for field and other

Um - Paul ... you're calling yourself a hero? Aren't you patting
yourself on the back a wee bit too much here? You certainly have
managed to raise money for yourideas - and maybe others in
ufology should take note of how ufology can be funded in such a
manner.

BTW, no one, not even me, is arguing that geophysical luminous
and non-luminous phenomena don't exist. Geophysicists have shown
that long ago. But it's just that part about them being part of
ufology's esophagus or whatever ...  We all know they are *part*
of the overall UFO picture, but where you seem to fervently
disagree is in the extent. Most ufologists recognize that a very
few UFO reports may be due to natural phenomena. You appear to
think many more may be. So where's the fuss?


> research, have involved mainstream science, have already produced
> more than anecdotal results, but instead of that being
> acknowledged, we are almost automatically criticised or even

That's funny. I've always acknowledged you, as well as others.
Can't we disagree with you?

> strand of this evidence. If Chris Rutkowski does not like the TST
> or the association of tectonic factors with EL incidence, then
> fine -  if he can shed new light on the mechanisms that produce
> ELs, I for one will be delighted and I will not stint my praise
> of him (and you can mark those words). But what is not logically
> acceptable is to say that if the mechanism isn't proven first,
> anomalous geophysical phenomena (aka 'earth lights') cannot exist
> until it is.

OK, here's the nub of it all.

No, I don't like the TST as a theory. There! I said it. I do not
think it holds up to scrutiny and certainly is not appealing in
terms of either science or methodology. Of course, neither are
many theories. Remember the "glowing bugs" explanation for UFOs
in the Uintah basin? Remember Klass' original papers about plasma
UFOs? Remember the "mating hedgehogs" theory of crop circles? All
nice theories which used case data to explain the reported
sightings and effects, but all were lacking in one way or
another. I didn't like those theories, either.

OK. You are asking me to study and/or define the mechanisms which
produce ELs. Fine. Of course, I live in a seismically-inactive
area where ELs are not seen, so I don't have any data, like you
do. Oh, I still receive UFO reports from around here, but I can
explain most of them as airplanes and bolides and stars. How can
I *not* doubt the EL and TST?

Furthermore, I'm not a geophysicist. (And neither are you.) In
order to properly analyze and test the data and EL theory, I'd
need more resources and background. I also have many other
projects and topics of interest, seemingly unlike you, so I
cannot devote more time to the theory. Sorry. But maybe you'll
"mark my words" some day, if I have the opportunity and resources
to take yet another look.


(Incidentally, I was just interviewed as the "token skeptic" for
a CBC One radio special gushing admiration for the TST work of
Persinger. It'll be aired in February. I was challenged to
discount the TST as a viable explanation for the noted Falcon
Lake CE2 case, where the witness was physically burned in a
geometrical pattern, brush was set on fire, radioactive silver
pieces were found at the site and the witness spent the better
part of an hour observing and making detailed drawings of an
apparently solid, metallic Hollywood-style saucer with cupola,
intense lights, opening and closing doorway, and even some voices
heard emanating from within. Was there quartz in the area? Yes.
Therefore, according to the interviewer, who was biased in favor
of Persinger, the case could be explained as a TST effect. I
stated in no uncertain terms that there are many other, more
probable explanations for the case, such as a hoax or a military
aircraft, but> that the TST is stretching things in this case and
would certainly be at least as likely an explanation as that of
visiting, clumsy aliens. It is this this moulding and stretching
of data to fit a particulat viewpoint which is the EL and TST
problem, in my view.)

> wrong",etc.). I suggest we cut the crap, and turn to
> topic-focused exchanges. All right?

Hear, hear!

> way.I'll focus in this posting with what is perhaps the most
> fundamental and in many ways most pressing issue - the dominance
> of ETH thinking within mainstream ufology.

Wait a minute, I thought you were going to cut the crap ...

> THE ETH AS THE DOMINANT PARADIGM IN UFOLOGICAL THINKING.

Yes, so? It's what's being hyped in the media, and most newbie
ufologists adhere to what's trendy. Other, more seasoned
ufologists, such as Stan Friedman, think that the ETH is a viable
hypothesis for reasons he has explained in detail in many papers
and some books. I make no excuses for ufology being mostly
ETH-oriented. But you have to recognize it's not all like that,
and the ETh has been examined and reworked many times over the
years. I'm not a by-the-book ETHer, but I don't agree with
Tipler, either, so I can't endorse a Tiplerian universe. The ETH
has its problems, though, and certainly all the serious
researchers on this list know about them. So don't act like
Derrel Sims or Phil Corso and say that you alone have the answer
and will save us from ourselves. Some great scientists who made
earth-shattering discoveries also had modesty.

But keep up the good fight!
The CBC producer said you were a nice guy, and I believe him!

Regards,


--
Chris Rutkowski - rutkows@cc.umanitoba.ca
(and now, also: Chris.Rutkowski@UMAlumni.mb.ca)
University of Manitoba - Winnipeg, Canada


Note to Errol and Jerry: Tell me why I am bothering with this again?


[Because you're a very patient, caring man who believes that
 everyone has an innate ability to eventually attain clarity?
 - ebk]

Search for other documents from or mentioning: rutkows | devereuxp | chris.rutkowski

[ 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