UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2005 > May > May 4

Re: UFO Couple Use Story To Spark Alien Abduction

From: Jerome Clark <jkclark.nul>
Date: Tue, 3 May 2005 13:05:12 -0500
Fwd Date: Wed, 04 May 2005 08:01:15 -0400
Subject: Re: UFO Couple Use Story To Spark Alien Abduction

>From: Peter Rogerson <progerson.nul>
>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>Date: Mon, 02 May 2005 19:17:55 +0100
>Subject: Re: UFO Couple Use Story To Spark Alien Abduction Fear

>>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

Sigh, Peter,

>>>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

We are all relieved that you're a librarian and not a cop for a
simple reason which more objective observers than you will see
as obvious and cogent. As you have demonstrated, you prefer not
to listen to what witnesses are actually saying, since what
you're saying about what they said is always of more
significance to you, and finally all that matters. Arguably,
that could make you a good novelist, an occupation where
spinning fantasy from fact is a necessary virtue, but it would
not make you a good police officer. Or, given your penchant for
rewriting UFO history in order to advance a weak argument, a
good historian, either.

>>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

Missing time was, as I have several times remarked, with
appropriate quote to match, there from the beginning, as the
Hills's words to Walt Webb indicate. No one had to place the
idea in their heads, and your continuing insistence to the
contrary - putting your own words into the Hills's mouths, in
effect - does not alter that simple fact. It only demonstrates
that to you conviction matters more than evidence.

>>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

Actually, the Hills introduced the idea to ufologists (first, in
their interview with Walt Webb), as everybody but you appears to
have grasped by now.

Beyond that, missing time seems to have been there in some pre-
Hill cases but was (understandably, given the limitations of
what ufologists knew back then) unrecognized and unremarked
upon. In other words, missing time was there waiting to be
found. Ufologists had nothing to do with it beyond, at last,
finding it. Are you going to tell us next that ufologists
invented daylight discs? Cloud cigars? E-M effects? I know that
pelicanists are attracted to what amounts to magical thinking
about social and psychological processes, but I trust you will
spare us this much.

>>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.

Yup, finally! At least you catch my point - that even the
brightest, most informed ufologists (e.g., Webb) of the period
did not recognize the notion of missing memory in UFO cases.

Now, here's the question:

Why are we even _talking_ about this? Missing time, whatever its
explanation, has been repeatedly demonstrated over the decades
as an aspect of the abduction phenomenon, however explained. It
is pointless and absurd to pretend that only the Hills had ever
had this experience (however explained). Maybe if they alone
spoke of it and it was never heard of again anywhere, this
discussion would have some reason to exist. Since they aren't
alone, this exchange is as urgently needed as a debate on pin-
 top-dancing angels.

Perhaps, Peter, you have more time on your hands than I do (I am
writing a book which, as always, I hope will advance our
knowledge and thinking a little bit more); or maybe, for
psychosocial reasons perhaps unknown even to yourself, you have
an intellectually fatal attraction to dubious-to- hopeless
points of view. Or maybe, you're just being disingenuous, though
somehow, knowing you as I do, I doubt it.

Here's a small suggestion: If you sincerely desire to explain
the abduction phenomenon (I know I do; I hope we have at least
that much in common), then you'd better deal with what witnesses
tell us, in other words the actual phenomenon (whatever its
ultimate nature) that witnesses experience and report. We aren't
interested in the abduction phenomenon that exists only in Peter
Rogerson's imagination. And if you still don't understand why
the construction of strawmen to be knocked down is a very bad,
self-defeating, and profoundly anti-scientific practice, may I
urge you to reread - or read for the first time - David J.
Hufford's The Terror That Comes in the Night, a book-length
inquiry into the dangers of the course you're pursuing?

Or let me put it this way, rather more bluntly:

Anybody who claims to be addressing the abduction phenomenon and
refuses to acknowledge one of its most consistent features,
repeatedly demonstrated over time and space, is not worth my
time. Or any serious person's.

Gently and patiently as I can be under the circumstances,

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