UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 1998 > Jul > Jul 26

Re: Triangular UFOs over Belgium

From: Peter Duke of Mendoza Brookesmith <DarkSecretPB@compuserve.com>
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1998 22:42:42 -0400
Fwd Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1998 00:41:38 -0400
Subject: Re: Triangular UFOs over Belgium

With the compliments of the Duke of Mendoza, who acknowledges the
assistance his religious advisor and poker tutor Brother
TimeSpoke in the composition of this message:

>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>From: Serge Salvaille <sergesa@connectmmic.net>
>Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: Triangular UFOs over Belgium
>Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1998 23:54:12 -0400

>You have your references all mixed up, Archbishops
>fit in a highly structured organization (such as the
>Catholic Church) kept together with rigorous discipline
>through widespread dogmatism. In such a system, obedience
>is the rule, Public criticism of this system will have you

The Anglican Communion, which has recently been reminding itself
that it is broad & tolerant church while debating in Synod its
attitude to gay people, has plenty of archbishops. Some of its
bishops have recently caused a spot of bother by questioning the
Virgin Birth, Resurrection of the Christ, &c., which ought to
make them heretics in the light of the 39 Articles. None has
been excommunicated. I first became interested in theology (and
appalled by Christianity) in 1963, following the publication of
(Bishop) John Robinson's "Honest To God", which was more or less
a confession of atheism, tho' the Bishop hid behind Paul
Tillich's skirts in the hope of justification. Robinson wasn't
excommunicated either.

>You will agree that ufology is exactly the opposite of that: it
>is mostly unstructured, it is not unified, Voices can be heard
>from almost every direction, Ufologists don't seem to be tender
>towards one another, but the constant questioning of respective
>positions and opinions and feelings makes the confusion only
>apparent: in the end, you get a pretty good idea of what is
>really happening in the field, This is called freedom of
>expression: it is the seed of knowledge.

Free expression by itself was never a seed of anything but more
free expression. (Cf. D.H. Lawrence: "Thank God I am not free,
any more than a tree with roots.")

I'm not suggesting ufology is _one_ church. It's a mass of
communions, cults, sects and congregations. And agnostics,
heretics, apostates, atheists, and bemused unlookers. Your
average member of the Exclusive Brethren would probably not be
terribly tender toward your average Mormon. Seventh Day
Adventists seem not to like anybody at all, even themselves.
Quite a lot of Protestants like to think the Pope is the
Antichrist. All these people call themselves Christians. Calling
yourself an ufologist but getting picky over details is to
invite similar deprecations from other ufologists.

>From an outside point of view, the skeptics are exactly the
>opposite, They behave like members of a church: they look very
>unified, never questioning their peers, and engaged in a battle
>against ufheretics.

Skeptics in the CSICOP sense of the word, aka debunkers in the
private dialect of ufological theologians, most resemble those
called atheists in ecclesiastical language. Personally I've long
thought atheism an untenable position, even though it can,
strictly, stake respectable claim to the position of the null
hypothesis. But explaining how I can slide down that razorblade
seems to cause as much consternation as explaining that I think
"alien abductions" are not alien _but_ are real experiences in
some cases. (I lay claim to the dialect title "skeptic" rather
than "debunker", by the way.)

>I have never seen or read or heard a skeptic criticize
>in the most remote way another skeptic

Then get thee to "Alien Abductions" by yrs truly, where I take
my old friend Phil Klass to task on at least two counts (I am in
receipt of a letter from Phil complaining about them, too) and
quibble wih others implicitly throughout. I can also cite
instances of Kottmeyer being unenchanted with Stacy (not a
debunker) over the latter's Abortion Anxiety Hypothesis, Klass
disputing Kottmeyer's interpretation of the Father Gill/PNG
case, and John Harney (Magonia ETH Bulletin) questioning Klass
on the Walton case. Just off the top of my head. Even atheists
can disagree over why they don't believe in someone else's

>the skeptics, are counterproductive, YOU feed on ufology but
>bring nothing back to your host, This his the quintescence of
>parasitism, I dare say YOU are betraying yourselves: the credo
>of the skeptics should be "let's look into it" - the prelude to
>every adventure - not "I believe only in skepticism" which is
>the closest thing to 4_letter_word + "ing" + space + yourself.

I do say "let's look into it". I've done a bit of looking myself,
marrafack, tho' not all the results have been published. I found
(as I think I said in passing on this list) the recent Sturrock
report unexceptionable: even obvious. There are dozens of ways
I'd like to see "abductions" looked into, not least because I'd
like to bring some comfort and relief to the abductees of my
acquaintance; with whom I have had no problem so far agreeing to
disagree over the source or cause of their experiences. Give me
adventure every time.

If you're living on a precipice - and who isn't? - you may as
well get up and dance on it.

None of which will let Serge wriggle away from his
misrepresentation (the kindest word that comes to mind) of the
UpDates debate last year on the Belgian so-called FT of 1990.
Although out of kindness to most UpDates subscribers and all
native Francophones everywhere, I won't attempt to say that in

best wishes
Parlophone D. Mercury
Old Forty-Five