UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 1999 > Oct > Oct 26

Re: British Ufology Has Been Reborn!

From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 99 11:07:48 PDT
Fwd Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1999 21:29:59 -0400
Subject: Re: British Ufology Has Been Reborn!


 >From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
 >Subject: Re: British Ufology Has Been Reborn!
 >Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 12:38:02 +0100

 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
 >>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >>Subject: Re: British Ufology Has Been Reborn!
 >>Date: Sat, 23 Oct 99 10:25:42 PDT

 >>>From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
 >>>Subject: Re: British Ufology Has Been Reborn!
 >>>Date: Fri, 22 Oct 1999 20:54:23 +0100

 >>>>Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1999 21:55:06 +0100
 >>>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
 >>>>From: Sean Jones <tedric@tedric.demon.co.uk>
 >>>>Subject: Re: British Ufology Has Been Reborn!

 >>>>>Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 13:48:38 -0400
 >>>>>From: Andy Roberts <Brigantia@compuserve.com>
 >>>>>Subject: Re: British Ufology Has Been Reborn!
 >>>>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>


Jenny,

 >>>1: UFOs are not a single phenomenon. There are multiple and
 >>>different UFO phenomena with a range of explanations.

 >>I have sometimes thought along the same lines myself
 >>(specifically in the area of high-strangeness cases), but I
 >>certainly would not state it, as you have here, as if this were
 >>an established fact, because it isn't.


 >>From my experience as an investigator I have encountered cases
 >that I am overwhelmingly convinced to be a form of UAP (eg an
 >extreme form of ball lightning is one example). (A first hand
 >instance of this would be the Nelson car stop case from March
 >l977)  I do not think all unexplained cases are super BL. This
 >option does not, for instance, explain alien contact encounters.
 >Therefore this means we must have at least two types of UFO to
 >explain different sorts of case. I think the evidence in support
 >of that contention is strong enough to convince me - especially
 >given, for instance, basic differences such as the witness per
 >case ratio for each type. But if it doesnt convince you thats
 >okay by me too.

What you're discussing here is a form of ball lightning, a
generally recognized, accepted meteorological phenomenon.  Why
are you lumping BL in with UFOs? I think that no serious
ufologist would disagree that on occasion BL, like lots of other
things in nature, gets mistaken for a UFO.  That, however,
doesn't make BL (or any other unusual but known natural
phenomenon) a UFO.

 >>Why is the idea of alien visitors "impossible"?  I suspect that
 >>you do not mean what you say quite the way it sounds.

 >I did not come up with this possible/impossible analogy if you
 >follow the original posting to which I replied. I was responding
 >to a note that argued by citing Sherlock Holmes, from which this
 >famous quote appears. The point being made by the use of this
 >quote was - as I understood it - that exotic solutions like
 >aliens or time travellers forced themselves upon you when you
 >had ruled out the more mundane ones for any case. As such I did
 >not choose to substitute 'possible' and 'impossible' into this
 >scenario - that was done in the quote to which I was clearly
 >responding !

Sorry for the misunderstanding.

 >As you know (because I have said it many times in recent months
 >on Updates) I do not regard alien contact as an impossible
 >theory or even an improbable one.

 >>I think you are making far, far too much of this isolated
 >>instance.

 >Its not just one instance. 'The UFOs that never were' features
 >about 25 cases which have progressed from UFO towards sometimes
 >surprising IFO conclusions as you will see. More than one
 >involved an answer that required guesswork, skill, good luck or
 >good judgement to find. Without that often lengthy research they
 >would have stayed UFOs. In many cases UFOlogists still regard
 >them as such. Our book aims to make that point from various
 >examples  - illustrating how UFOs do sometimes become IFOs years
 >down the track and involve quite unsuspected explanations. I
 >think it proves that to occur much more than in just one
 >isolated example - although, of course, most IFOs are not
 >unusual or surprising. We are simply saying that some are and
 >these suggest that presently unsolved cases may one day prove to
 >be IFOs that we have yet to recognise.

I look forward to reading your book, which I have no doubt will
be an excellent one.  As you know, I have the greatest respect
for you and your work.  I think, however, that my point remains.
We've seen some dreary instances in recent months on this very
list where some strutting, self- styled "skeptic" has announced
his explanation for a classic UFO case, only to have it
disintegrate virtually upon impact. I am not, I hasten to add,
putting you into this category.

Cordially,

Jerry Clark




[ 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