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: Alfred Lehmberg <alienview.nul>
Date: Tue, 3 May 2005 13:17:08 -0500
Fwd Date: Wed, 04 May 2005 08:15:36 -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

><snip>

>>>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

Parsecs away from meaningless and decidedly not drivel, Sir.
But, that would be your reflexive reaction to being too well
described, found out, and then summarily unmasked. Like many
with your limited philosophy and abject homocentrism you protest
too much, too quickly, and for too long a time.

>>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
>said.

It's pretty clear where you are on this, though, and given your
tedious intransigence on this and other subjects in the milieu
it's a good bet that you can be ignored on this point whether
your are correct or not. Face it Mr. Rogerson, you're dry at the
credibility bank, suffer an expanding paucity of relevance, and
whimper the same tired tune as if it still had value. Pack it in
or risk humiliating yourself further. Verily.

>>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

But likely not in the way that it is presently understood and
far from something the Hills would have made up on their own for
purposes of their own all invented by you and your flock. I
don't forget how important it is to you that ufology be
discredited so your wounded worldview can be assuaged... I just
don't have any concern, appreciation, or respect for it. Your
world view twitches to its inevitable death, and the world will
be improved thereby.

>>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.
>

That was weak, Sir. "Accomplished" and "bright" were the words
used, not infallible and omniscient.

>>>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.

I would imagine that both things, lying and truth-telling, are
pretty much the same in your crowd, Mr. Rogerson. Whatever it
takes to suit the whims of the churlish ideologue in portentous
pursuit of a discredited status quo.

>>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

>>http://www.anomalist.com/

>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.

Or, every time they read the word "pelicanist" they can be
reminded that it is a _mild_ representation of a person without
courage, intelligence, imagination, or sense... one who dotes on
discredited conventional wisdom, honors a suspect status quo,
and thrives only within his mainstream of tired disrepute.
Pelicanist is shorter.

>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

Ahh! There's some pompous pride that will go before the
inevitable fall. _Who_ wishes to be Pope, Sir?

"Clark's a snob elitist and an ET plutocrat? There's precious
little value in ones thinking such as that. Like all preceding
indicates (in decades of our time), of _that_ there is no
evidence, small reason, and ill-rhyme. An honored man won't
suffer fools who beg to be corrected, then prattle an
'inconsequence' to keep their ass's 'face' protected..."

alienview.nul -:|:-
  www.AlienView.net






[ 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