UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2005 > May > May 3

Re: UFO Couple Use Story To Spark Alien Abduction

From: Peter Rogerson <progerson.nul>
Date: Mon, 02 May 2005 19:17:55 +0100
Fwd Date: Tue, 03 May 2005 12:24:49 -0400
Subject: Re: UFO Couple Use Story To Spark Alien Abduction

>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark.nul>
>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>Date: Mon, 2 May 2005 10:07:09 -0500
>Subject: Re: UFO Couple Use Story To Spark Alien Abduction Fear

>>From: Peter Rogerson <progerson.nul>
>>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>>Date: Sun, 01 May 2005 21:50:15 +0100
>>Subject: UFO Couple Use Story To Spark Alien Abduction Fear


>>I guess we know why you're a pelicanist, and not a detective,
>Peter. Thank God; your capacity for actual harm to actual human
>beings is thereby considerably reduced.

Meaningless drivel

>You're confusing - conveniently, I must say, and in the usual
>have- it-both-ways fashion of the pelicanist - Webb's dismissal
>of the significance of Barney Hill's confused testimony with the
>significance of what Hill seems to have been trying to say,
>which was that he had memories a very close encounter with
>aliens inconsistent both with his conscious memories and with
>the consciously recalled time line. The significance of Webb's
>dismissal speaks right to the point: that pelicanist doctrine
>notwithstanding, ufologists and witnesses had no concept of
>missing time in 1961.

The idea of missing time came with suggests from Hohmann and
Jackson in 1962, so it wasn't there in 1961 which is what I

>In 1965, looking back on his 1961 investigation, Webb - by the
>way, one of the finest field investigators American ufology has
>ever produced - wrote, "When I met the Hills after their
>experience in the White Mountains, Barney appeared to be deeply
>concerned by the 'leader' in the UFO (first encountered) and by
>his failure to recall events immediately after watching this
>figure. Both witnesses were perplexed that they had no
>conscious recollection of events between the odd beeping sounds
>nor of the route they traveled in that interval."

Yes by 1965 the idea of missing time had been introduced, by, as
I said before, other ufologists

>Now, folks, who you gonna believe: a bright, accomplished
>investigator who actually spoke with the Hills after their
>initial 1961 report - or Peter Rogerson? Who is the authority
>here? Yes, those are rhetorical questions.

That's the same investigator you were saying just didn't get it
about the missing time isn't it.

>>It's hard to remember back damn near 40 years, but I don't
>>recall as a teenage ufo buff finding this story so unprecedented
>>even though I didn't encounter the AVB case till 1967. The
>>literature around at the time prepared us for it. Far from being
>>treated as a wild story heading for the wpb, the Hill story got
>>a respectful hearing from the start, even from my ever skeptical
>>colleague John Harney.

>Your memory is pretty dismal, Peter, though it does serve, if not very
>compellingly, your argument, such as it is. We may assume that no
>memory that failed to do so would ever be permitted to rise to the
>surface of Rogersonian consciousness.

If you are accusing me of lying please come out and say so.

>In reality, the Hill abduction story was a sensation in the
>ufology of the period, which had no known precedent for it. The
>reception, far from being "respectful," was mixed. The largest
>American organization of the time, NICAP, which had been
>responsible for the initial investigation of what then seemed a
>fairly typical CE3, rejected the abduction aspect outright as "A
>Dream via Hypnosis" (actual title of brief NICAP kiss-off in
>U.F.O. Investigator, August/September 1966, p. 8). Other
>ufologists - those who already were interested in CE3s (that
>didn't include everybody in early ufology, as historians of the
>subject are aware) - were more open-minded, but reservations
>about the efficacy of hypnosis remained a recurring theme in
>treatments of the abduction aspect. Webb himself concluded that
>the material that emerged under hypnosis explained aspects of
>the testimony that otherwise had made no sense to him. Again,
>on this subject, who you gonna believe? The guy who was
>actually there, or Peter Rogerson? Again, rhetorical questions.

>The rest of you who may be interested in what pre-Hill
>anomalistics and ufology were _actually_ like may wish to read
>my paper "From Mermaids to Little Gray Men: The Prehistory of
>the UFO Abduction Phenomenon." It's in The Anomalist 8 (Spring
>2000): 11-31. The issue can be ordered from


Jerry, every time you use the word pelicanist, Listfolk should
assume you have lost the argument and have nothing better than
schoolyard abuse to come up with. The fact that most British
ufologists refuse to acknowledge your desire to be the Pope of
ufology issuing ex cathedra statements aiming to close down all
argument clearly galls you

Peter Rogerson

[ 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