UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 1998 > Jul > Jul 4

Re: MAGONIA ETH Bulletin #4

From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
Date: Fri, 3 Jul 1998 19:19:55 -0500 (CDT)
Fwd Date: Sat, 04 Jul 1998 11:10:18 -0400
Subject: Re: MAGONIA ETH Bulletin #4


>To: "UFO UpDates - Toronto" <updates@globalserve.net>
>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
>Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: MAGONIA ETH Bulletin #4
>Date: Thu, 02 Jul 98 12:44:20 PDT

<Total snip>

Jerry,

Before I take the time to respond to your latest post, let me ask
you two brief yes or no questions.

1) Does the word "condescend" mean anything to you? If so, then
don't do it. Please. It merely tickles the tendency in the
respondent to do likewise.

2) Have you read the Mike Davis essay in The Anomalist 5? I'm
pretty sure you have a copy, because I believe I sent you one. If
not, it's a long weekend, so maybe you could stir yourself. And
I'll read Swords's "Extraterrestrial Hypothesis and Science" in
the 2nd edition of your Encyclopedia, which arrived last night,
and for which, many thanks.

I will answer one of your questions now, however.

>And finally, a question: I'm curious. When was the last time you
>took a pro-UFO position in any argument on this subject? Or is
>that occurrence lost in the dim mists of antiquity?

One pro-position I took was to solicit and publish Karl Pflock's
article "UFOs: For RAND Use Only" in The Anomalist. I might also
point out that it precedes Davis's article in the same issue. To
some (except possibly yourself) that would indicate that I have a
high tolerance for ambiguity.

For another recent pro-position, see many of the articles
included in my "UFOs 1947-1997: Fifty Years of Flying Saucers,"
co-edited with Hilary Evans. If I weren't in basic agreement with
them, I wouldn't have used them.
(Sorry, but sometimes one has to state the obvious. I believe you
even referred to it as one of the best books of the year, a
laurel I doubt you would have bestowed on a book highly critical
of the subject.)

For a forthcoming pro-position, read my next book, "A Field Guide
to UFOs," co-written with Patrick Huyghe, and due out next year.
You may be surprised.

And my very next death-defying act of pro-UFO-position derring-do
(when I eventually get around to it) will be to publish on this
List a list of 10-20 cases suggestive of ET UFOs (drawn from the
Field Guide), a pro-position a number of people on this List have
proferred you, as well, to no avail to date.

But, no, I don't get out of bed every morning (such is my
tolerance for ambiguity that it even extends to my own thinking
on any given day) with a burning need to issue a pro-UFO
proclamation.

My doubts about ET visitation (apparently unlike you, I have
some), when I have them, are driven more by the sorts of larger
issues raised by Davis (and others -- yes, there is a so-called
"New Astronomy"), rather than the number of (potential)
civilizations in the galaxy or the immense distances between
stars. After all, if there's only one intelligent observer
species in the universe (the Strong Anthropic Principle), it
wouldn't make any difference how far apart (or near) the stars
were.

From the papers I read, it's clear to me that new discoveries
are being made about the universe almost on a daily basis. Old
theories and best guesses are being overturned regularly. The old
girl is refusing to sit still for her full physical, which makes
it extremely difficult for any of us -- Davis, Swords, you, or me
-- to fully know, or describe, the creature we're talking about.
And, by extension, the role of the UFO within.

Again, a response to some of your other issues later.

Dennis