UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 1999 > Oct > Oct 28

Re: British Ufology Has Been Reborn!

From: David Clarke <crazydiamonds@compuserve.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 14:48:56 -0400
Fwd Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1999 08:47:45 -0400
Subject: Re: British Ufology Has Been Reborn!


 >From: Sean Jones <tedric@tedric.demon.co.uk>
 >Subject: Re: British Ufology Has Been Reborn!
 >Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1999 22:49:30 +0100

 >>Date: Sat, 23 Oct 1999 13:10:22 -0400
 >>From: David Clarke <crazydiamonds@compuserve.com>
 >>Subject: Re: British Ufology Has Been Reborn!
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>

 >>I use my training as a journalist and academic to follow where
 >>the evidence leads. If that leads to a rational explanation,
 >>then so be it.

 >And when it leads to a non-rational explanation, what then?

Then I admit that the case remains unknown.
And if you then want to suggest the ETH as one possible
explanation, then fair enough.

 >>If there is an explanation to be found, or which is thought to
 >>be likely, then surely we owe it to everyone to say so.

 >Does that include ET?

Yes, I've no problem with that, but in my opinion there would have
to be some pretty convincing evidence before I would say 'this
case proves ET' (plenty have fallen for that old chestnut).


 >>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.

 >Your statement here dictates your train of thought before you
 >investigate any case. You have already pre-determined that ET
 >and his cousin ALF do not exist.

No I have not, I have said here repeatedly time after time that I
do not dismiss the ETH, but feel it is just a remote possibility.
If you cannot understand my point - that the ETH is a product of
our culture - then I'm wasting my time.

If you want to make it out that I'm prejudiced against the ETH
simply because I follow the rest of the world in accepting the
argument that one's background and exposure to popular culture
affects the interpretation of phenomena, then please go ahead.

You are the one who will look silly, not me.

 >>If you would like I can provide
 >>you with copious amounts of historical sighting reports and
 >>these go back further than a mere 500 years.

 >And speaking of fairies and little folk, some researchers believe
 >these are historical accounts of ET anyway.

Researchers can think what they want, the same sort of people
used to take Erich von Daniken's yarns literally too.

Really - some people have a lot of catching up to do.

I spent ten years in the field recording the stories of people
who claim to seen among other things, fairies, demons, giant
slugs, aliens, Valkyries, etc etc. They were all equally
convinced these things were real, and all of them were
influenced by their cultural background.

As for fairies, could it not work the other way round and aliens
are really fairies in disguise?

That's my opinion, and how dare you dismiss it when there is
plenty of evidence to support it going back hundreds of years
too.

 >>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.

 >In your opinion. And as for one tiny remote possibility, there
 >was one tiny remote possibility that life existed on Mars. Now
 >there's proof.

Granted. But I'm entitled to my opinion as much as you are.

And as for Mars - that proof you refer to has been hotly debated
and is not as clear cut as you would like to believe.

 >>Everyone is exposed to this stuff, we can't escape it,. But if
 >>we expect to be taken seriously by the real world then we need
 >>at least to show we can be dispassionate when looking at the
 >>evidence upon which we base those beliefs.

 >By dispassionate, do you mean: UFOIN will automatically look for
 >a mundane explanation because the public does not like the ETH?

By disapassionate I mean UFOIN will look for rational
explanations for reports, rather than jump the gun and run to
the press saying "There's no doubt this was an extraterrestrial
spaceship" before we have even tried to check with  the local
airport.

The public have got nothing to do with it - there's enough UFO
buffs out there to keep them entertained without more of us
jumping on the bandwagon.

 >>Speculation can only be based upon good evidence, and if cases
 >>are investigated shabbily and by people who are driven by
 >>beliefs to such an extent that the facts become distorted before
 >>they reach us - then how can we make any definitive conclusions
 >>about them?

 >And you are being different because you are expecting to find a
 >mundane answer to all UFO cases?

We're not expecting to find a mundane explanation for all UFO
cases. We're simply going to investigate cases as they should be
investigated - quickly, efficiently and calling upon the best
technical and scientific advice. You got a problem with that?

 >>UFOIN welcomes those who can investigate fairly and objectively
 >>without allowing beliefs and prejudices to cloud conclusions.
 >>Open minds are what we want - but not so open that the contents
 >>dribble out!

 >You have practically stated that your opinion is  a closed mind
 >to the ETH, so does this not prejudice your investigation?


Does believing in the ETH make people hard of hearing? One last
time, I do not discount the ETH, so your proposition is a
non-starter.

All best wishes,

Dave Clarke



[ 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