UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2005 > May > May 5

Re: UFO Couple Use Story To Spark Alien Abduction

From: Peter Rogerson <progerson.nul>
Date: Wed, 04 May 2005 19:23:42 +0100
Fwd Date: Thu, 05 May 2005 12:59:17 -0400
Subject: Re: UFO Couple Use Story To Spark Alien Abduction


>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark.nul>
>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>Date: Tue, 3 May 2005 13:05:12 -0500
>Subject: Re: UFO Couple Use Story To Spark Alien Abduction Fear

>>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

<snip>

>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
>>said.

>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,

Just read page p.63 of the Dell edition of The Interrupted
Journey

And while they (Hohmann, Jackson and Macdonald) were here were
they mentally reconstructing the whole trip. One of them said
"What took you so long to get home...you went this distance.",
etc. There is a conversation about seeing the moon on the
ground. Then Fuller has Barney being shaken by realising that at
the rate of speed I always travel they should have arrived home
2 hours or so earlier.

That, according to Fuller is where the 2 missing hours comes in,
not a momentary blocking out of some fearful sight in the field.

Note that that two hours is based on Barney's usual rate of
travel. Thus if they went slower than usual, stopped longer than
they estimated, got lost, fell alseep at one of their stops or
something, a good portion of that 2 hours would be accounted
for.


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