UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2007 > Aug > Aug 10

Re: SDI #446 -- Twenty Questions

From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99.nul>
Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2007 21:24:06 +0000
Archived: Fri, 10 Aug 2007 12:38:36 -0400
Subject: Re: SDI #446 -- Twenty Questions

>From: Alfred Lehmberg <alienview.nul>
>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2007 14:43:44 -0500
>Subject: SDI #446 -- Twenty Questions

>SDI #446 -- Twenty Questions...

>20 Questions eerily addressed with some outraged, concerned, and
>fearful sincerity by Dave Furlotte, Stuart Miller, and noted
>Abduction researcher Dr. David Jacobs as related to
>Errol Bruce-Knapp:

Great, creaking, quirky, quarks, here he goes again! This time
(though I haven't heard the interviews) I will attempt some
answers based on my 50 years or so of experience, 'irregardless'
of creeping senility and other deficits of aging that may be
attributed to me by detractors.

>1. Whither Larry King and his periodic interest in UFOs? Is he
>interested in forthcoming information from legitimate
>authorities or to smudge the credibility of same?

Not an either-or question. Certainly he has no serious,
scientific interest; it's show biz folks! Why is that so hard to

>2. Is default media skeptic Michael Shermer a legitimate
>skeptic? What was Dr. Shermer's fascination with anal probing
>all about?

No; and sarcasm.

>3. Why is Buzz Aldrin not called to account for his errant and
>insulting ufological flippity-floppage?

I think Aldrin is just tired of UFO nuts.

>4. What monstrousness motivates Miller's "mouthful of bile"?
>What must constitute "much unpleasantness"? Who is it "whining
>and moaning and complaining"?

Hun? No comment.

>5. Where is a _rudely_ criticized Jerry Clark otherwise heartily
>celebrated? Why is Dick Hall's largely taciturn 'chub' all
>bunchy? Is the rudeness of the aforementioned remotely

I don't know what bunchy chubs are, so I pass on this. Jerry
Clark knows more about UFOs probably than you and I combined,
and he has been talking sense about scientific method. In
response he has been accused of all sorts of silly things by
people who clearly are ignorant (literally) about science.

>6. Are Dick and Jerry self-appointed authoritarian guards at the
>gates of "Extraterrestrialdom" Ufology ?

Who the hell ciaims that? Surely (again) someone quite ignorant
about scientific method and apparently ignorant of our writings
about UFOs as well.

>7. Is revulsion with regard to Ed Gehrman's ufological Alien-
>Autopsy-based Theory a justification for the aforementioned

Who is being rude here? If a totally ill-founded and outright
groundless 'theory' is ridiculed, so be it.  But when a person
is ridiculed (ad hominem) that's another story. Ed Gehrman may
be the nicest human being in the worrld, but his 'theory' is

>8. Is science the only way that UFOs can be approached, and is
>science only waiting for an _excuse_ to provide for a mainstream
>interest in same?

Actually I have published writings on this exact topic, but of
course the name-callers are (yes) apparently ignorant of my
writings. No, UFOs can be (and should be) approached by military
intelligence and legal/judicial methods as well as by science.
Adherents also can, if they wish, read tea-leaves or entrails or
scattered chicken bones, or try New Age woo-woo shortcuts to
direct knowledge, though I don't recommend those.

>9. What has science concluded in a recently released 150 page
>report on the very strange O'Hare incident?

Nothing yet. Science involves peer review, a concept apparently
more alien than UFOs to many listers, and there should be peer
review as well as further fact-finding.

>10. What punches holes through several hundred feet of cloud and
>lurks over one of the busiest airfields in the world?

Question to be answered.

>11. When does a rowdy rugby club find occasion to play with
>Japanese lanterns so others can later confuse these lanterns for

>12. When Stuart Miller and Alfred Lehmberg agree about
>something, is it fact?

Only they can tell.

>13. Upon being accused of trespass for using the Title 'UFO
>Magazine' for his own purposes, is 'UFO Geek' Mike Coletta
>innocent of wrongdoing and harassed by the "evil empire" of
>William and Nancy Birnes; or is he a thief and a spoiler who
>should be charged with and pay damages for his trespass on same?

No comment. We may have a poit and a kettle here.

>14. How can an activity having almost nothing to do with UFOs
>_rationally_ call itself UFO Magazine?

I raised that very question about the Birnes UFO Magazine when I
resigned as a columnist. They were covering Egyptian pyramids
and all sorts of off-topicnon-UFOsubjects, and not allowing
critiicism of wild-eyed claimants. Talk about gate-keepers!

>15. Have over 1000 hypnotic regressions with regard to over 1100
>abduction events corroborated the phenomenon as David Jacobs
>describes it or confused an appreciation of same?

>16. What conclusions has Dr. Jacobs come to? Has he changed his
>mind about anything discovered in his _decades_ long look at the
>abduction phenomenon?

>17. Do we have any idea what this conjectured alien abductor has
>planned for humanity?

To this I say, obviously not. In the first place we don't know
anything about their plans if 'they' exist in the first place as
roughly human-like intelligences, as opposed to some vast
entities or forces. We know virtually nothing about who or what
we are delaing with. We can make some inferences about what they
may or may not be up to with us, but that's about it and human
analogies tend to be weak arguments.

>18. Is Jacobs' book, The Threat, a _prescient_ book? Has it born
>itself out?

I assume you meant 'borne'. If you compare the books by Jacobs,
Hopkins, and Fowler (as I have done) you get essentially three
different readings about what is going on. I have great respect
for all three, but tend to agree more with Budd Hopkins most of
the time.

>19. When can abduction _reality_ be determined as apart from
>abduction _fantasy_? How are disparate persons able to tell the
>same story with regard to an abduction event?

By (gasp) using science. There are many possible answers
(hypotheses) to the second question.

>20. Do persons from different countries, having different
>cultural mores, and speaking different languages express
>identical reports? Do these stories subscribe to narrow

See the Proceedings of the UFO Abduction Conference at M.I.T.,
among other published papers bearing on this question.

>Zotted Zounds & Exspecto Patronus! 65 minutes remain! David
>Jacobs continues to explicate his unrest and we are put paid our
>_own_ as a result! Excelsior! The ride continues, faster and
>faster, weirder and weirder, but farther and farther!

>Sincerely reader... Ufological sensibilities empowered are the
>listener's own! Subscribe!

Yes, and use Critical Judgment of a Scientific Kind as you
listen, not Slack-Jawed Credulity of the Worst Kind.

 - Dick


Listen to 'Strange Days... Indeed' - The PodCast