UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 1998 > Jun > Jun 11

Re: The Ten Cases

From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1998 22:13:09 -0500 (CDT)
Fwd Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1998 23:48:36 -0400
Subject: Re: The Ten Cases

>>  Subject: UFO UpDate: Re: The Ten Cases
>>  From: Mark Cashman <mcashman@ix.netcom.com>
>>  Date: Tue, 9 Jun 1998 23:43:29 -0400
>>  To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>


>>  You see, this is why 10 cases are a futile exercise. The
>>  question was, which cases are the most suggestive of ETI? ETI is
>>  suggested by structured objects, unconventional performance,
>>  escape velocity, vertical departure to high altitude, non-human
>>  beings, unusual physics, and unconventional interest in
>>  humanity. These cases present that sort of material.


Mark, J. Clark, et al:

Contrary to the opinion that top ten lists represent little more
than an idle exercise in Lettermania, I find them quite
instructive. Either one has something to talk about when one
raises the subject of UFOs, or one doesn't.
If one does, then one ought to be able to come up with at least
ten convincing cases illustrative of the phenomenon, as it were.

But that's exactly the rub, isn't it? And Cashman is right to
hint that you need ten cases in ten categories.

But why should that be the case? After all, if every reported
abduction were accompanied by an implant, missing fetus and time,
scoop mark, burnt ring of grass in the backyard, radar
confirmation, multiple independent witnesses, dramatic
acceleration to high altitude, unconventional physics and so on
-- all routinely captured on 35mm film and videotape -- then we
probably wouldn't be having this discussion, would we?

So is the ET hypothesis the result of even ten consistent cases
over time, or merely an afterthought based on some sort of
collective body of evidence, specific examples of which may or
may not be related to one another, and therefore may or may not
be indicative of extraterrestrial origin(s)?

For example: the ability (or is it liability) of UFOs to be
detected by Earth-based radar was once thought to be one of the
weightiest pieces of evidence in favor of their extraordinary
nature. But times and technologies change. Now it's almost an
axiom: if you don't want to show up on radar, you don't have to.
So one might just as well make the following contorted argument:
it's only those cases in which UFOs *don't* show up on our radar
screens that indicate true advanced intelligence, viz., anyone
who had already solved the problem of interstellar travel would
long before that have solved the problem of an unwanted radar

I raised the issue of ten best cases not to be impish or
perverse, but because I was in the final stages of completing a
Field Guide to UFOs (with Patrick Huyghe) to be published next
year by Avon. For that, we had to come up with 50 cases, each one
to be illustrated. And, frankly, after 40 cases, I thought we
were huffing and puffing pretty hard.


[ 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