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: Andy Roberts <Brigantia@compuserve.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1999 13:30:44 -0400
Fwd Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1999 21:40:26 -0400
Subject: Re: British Ufology Has Been Reborn!


Seeings as various people have been menting my name and my
colleagues' I thought I'd better reply before my tea.

I fail to understand why saying that _all_ UFOs have the
potential to be IFOs causes such a problem. Many, many
_good_ cases in the UK, which as Jenny points out have been
held as ET and/or unexplained have fallen to the IFO
explanation. Surely this is a _good_ thing? Surely
a mound of cases which we can't explain must infuriate
ufologists?

The bald facts are that as a  great many cases have been
downgraded from UFO to IFO, and that no UFOs have been (yet)
proven to be ET in origin.

That fact alone makes it reasonable to suggest that _all_ UFOs
are thus resolvable.

But.....

 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
 >From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >Subject: Re: British Ufology Has Been Reborn!
 >Date: Mon, 25 Oct 99 09:42:17 PDT

In response to Dave Clarke's

 >The ET explanation for UFOs is simply an artefact of the era in
 >which we live. Go back 500 years Sean and if we had email I
 >would venture to suggest you would be blaming UFOs on the
 >fairies and little folk.

 >What I'm trying to say is that opinions about the ultimate
 >origin of unknown UFOs are legion and ETs are just one tiny,
 >remote possibility, and are themselves a product of our Space
 >Age culture.

Jerry wrote

 >>These are not the sorts of statements designed to encourage
 >>confidence in your judgment, my friend. They tell us more about
 >>you (and maybe about UFOIN as well), I'm afraid, than about the
 >>UFO phenomenon or the ETH.

Innit great how Jerry uses 'my friend' when he's attempting
sarcasm? Dave's (a Doctor of Folklore I hasten to add) statement
tells us about his experience after 20 years in the field and
his research Jerry. It tells us what _he_ has come to believe
about the UFO phenomenon, based on more research than most
ufologists will ever be able to shake a stick at. And Dave has
changed his views dramatically in the fifteen or so years I have
known him from being postive that some UFO cases were ETH in
nature to a far more sceptical position. All based on research
and investigation. Surely not a bad way of reaching conclusions?

 >>One hopes that this sort of empty posturing -- especially coming
 >>from someone smart enough to know better -- disappears from
 >>ufological discourse soon.  It is, as we have already seen
 >>demonstrated repeatedly, much less than helpful, and among other
 >>things, it betrays a fairly shocking ignorance of the literature
 >>of astrobiology.

'Smart enough to know better' - sheer brilliance Jerry! It's not
empty posturing - see above. 'Astrobiology'? Yor avin' a laarf
incha? Don't we have to actually have some hard biological
evidence before we can talk about such a thing?

The fact is, as Dave has been making, UFO belief is culture and
age-specific. Thirty years from now and it will be as completely
different as it was thirty years ago. Three hundred years from
now and who knows what people will be experiencing. I'd like to
see your evidence to the contrary please.

and

 >From: Pat McCartney <ElPatricio@aol.com>
 >Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 13:58:33 EDT
 >Subject: British Ufology Has Been Reborn!
 >To: updates@globalserve.net


 >I would submit that the premise which Andy boldly outlines, that
 >the ET hypothesis is "just one tiny, remote possibility,"
 >practically guarantees his dismissal of evidence that points
 >toward an ET explanation in favor of more conventional
 >explanations.

No it doesn't!

What is actually means is that 'the ET hypothesis is "just one
tiny, remote possibility,"' In that there is no evidence or
proof  that ET either exists or has steered his starcars
in our direction.

 >But I would go further, and suggest to Andy that ET visitation
 >is more than a "tiny, remote possibility." All one has to do to
 >realize that is simply extraplolate the human experience of the
 >past century by a thousand years or more. If interstellar travel
 >is possible, humans will achieve it within that time span. And
 >that's discounting a possible exchange of technology with other,
 >more advanced species.

Isn't this just a version of 'there's so many stars etc out
there that some of them -must- support life bearing planets'?
Again an interesting speculation but as we have no proof of ET
it remains just that. You are confusing your _belief_ with
reality. I can't discount ET - no-one can, but in lieu of hard
evidence it must remain a temporarily held belief and a 'tiny
and remote possibility'/ Got any evidence to the contrary Pat?

The point I am trying to make is that because so many _good_ (in
the UK at the very least) cases have been proved to be IFOs then
it is reasonable to suggest _based on that reality_ that all UFO
cases may be reduced to an IFO _eventually_. The fact there are
cases which are as yet 'unsolved' does not (as Sean Jones
appears to be saying) make them _unsolvable_ or ET or paranormal
in origin. It may just mean we don't have the relevant
information, which if we had would enable us to turn them into
IFOs.

 >Rather than being fuzzy minded adherents of a nebulous power
 >akin to witchcraft, I would submit that backers of the ET
 >hypothesis have a far better grasp of what the universe _in all
 >likelihood_ will prove to be than researchers who view ET
 >visitation a "tiny, remote possibility."

You can submit what you like Pat but the ETH still looks shaky
from my pink half of the drainpipe.

Happy Trails

Andy


[ 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