UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 1998 > Jul > Jul 10

Re: Sturrock Report

From: John Rimmer <j_rimmer@library.croydon.gov.uk>
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 1998 13:56:18 +0100
Fwd Date: Fri, 10 Jul 1998 09:14:43 -0400
Subject: Re: Sturrock Report

Again, my apologies for not being able to quote directly from
previous posts.

[quotes inserted by Moderator --ebk]

>From: Greg Sandow <gsandow@prodigy.net>
>To: "'UFO UpDates - Toronto'" <updates@globalserve.net>
>Subject: RE: UFO UpDate: Re: Sturrock Report
>Date: Thu, 9 Jul 1998 15:31:23 -0400

>>Date: Thu, 09 Jul 1998 11:16:13 +0100
>>To: updates@globalserve.net
>>From: John Rimmer <j_rimmer@library.croydon.gov.uk>
>>Subject: Sturrock Report

>> Also BTW, still no response to Harney's attack on Klass's
>> dismissal of the
>> Travis Walton abduction. Come on you guys, give the chap a hand!

>John,

>You seem to think that this is about taking sides. "Our" side,
>you seem to think, should be glad that someone on "your" side
>acknowledges one of "our" points.

>But that's not the issue. I hope my praise of Peter Brooksmith's
>Occam's Razor post some time ago shows how eagerly I welcome
>serious thinking by those I disagree with.

>Harney's piece, however, wasn't serious, because he hadn't done
>his research. That was the problem with it. That's why Jerry
>Clark and others objected so much.

>Harney clearly had little idea of who Jerry is or what he's
>written. He uncritically accepted Phil Klass's very old analysis
>of the RB-47 case, which is, very simply, bad journalism.
>Klass's analysis appears in a book published in 1974, for God's
>sake. Before Harney publishes anything that accepts Klass as
>gospel, it's his responsibility to ask if any new information or
>analysis has surfaced in the past 24 years. I could get fired
>from some of my professional journalistic jobs for not doing
>something like that.

>So when Harney says Phil's debunking of the Walton case is
>mistaken, I'm not impressed. What's his source for that? Maybe
>he has no more idea of what he's talking about here than he does
>when he goes on about Jerry or about the RB-47 case.

>Let me repeat. I'm not keeping track of which side scores more
>points, and I'm not impressed with ignorant or unintelligent
>writing, no matter whose side it takes.

>Greg Sandow

I agree entirely with Greg Sandow that discussion of Sturrock
should not be a question of taking sides, especially since,
behind the rhetoric, we all seem to be more or less agreed on
its conclusions. It is certainly a more "media friendly"
document than other UFO related reports in the past. There is
certainly no need for comments such as PSH proponents "taking it
in the chops"!

It is unfortunate that the more recent investigation of the
RB-47 case does not seem to be available in the UK yet. Perhaps
Jerry could send a copy to us?

As far as Harney's rebuttal of Klass on Walton, I am not putting
it forward as a point scoring exercise, but simply as a request
for comment and information. One of the problems for the 'ETH as
an Option' (I will no longer call them ETH-proponents) faction
is that the abduction scenario has made part of their argument
rather embarrasing. I note that in the ten cases which Greg did,
bravely, put forward on this list, there was (I think, I don't
have back listings easily accessible at the moment) not one
abduction case. I fully understand why, but the problem is that
the general public, and for this purpose editors of popular
science journals such as New Scientist are no better informed
than the general public, do see the abduction stories as being a
major part of the ETH 'evidence'.

So when even a hard-bitten PSHer like John Harney finds an
abduction case puzzling, and is prepared to enter into a heated
correspondence with PJK about it, surely it is not unreasonable
to ask for a bit of back-up from his ufological coevals? Please
re-read the piece in Magonia ETH Bulletin and let's have your
comments.

Despite Jerry's continued declarations that PSH ufology is
simply debunking with a smiley-mask, they are quite different
things. I feel however that I have tested you patience quite
enough for the moment, but it is a question I may (EBK willing)
return to in the future when I am back on line in my own right
and can reply more immediately.

Yours for Liberty

John Rimmer
Magonia (still just about) On-Line
www.magonia.demon.co.uk
"The flagship of psycho-social ufology" - Jerome Clark