UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2012 > Apr > Apr 23

Re: The Recent Fuss About The Exeter Case

From: Dave Morton <Marspyrs.nul>
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2012 00:28:18 -0400 (EDT)
Archived: Mon, 23 Apr 2012 07:27:47 -0400
Subject: Re: The Recent Fuss About The Exeter Case


>Source: Michael Swords' The Big Study Blog

>http://tinyurl.com/72jm323

>April 19, 2012

<snip>

>The case was judged as having credible multiple witnesses [by
>everybody] and a strong smoothly visualizable narrative [i.e.
>the story had a natural context and flowed]. Also, though
>somewhat irrelevantly, it was the subject of a major book in the
>field, John Fuller's Incident at Exeter. So this is important in
>UFOlogical history, if one can say that anything is.

John Fuller's book was "somewhat irrelevant"?? I read that book
in the 1960's, as well as another Fuller book about Betty and
Barney Hill called "The Interrupted Journey", and was VERY
impressed with Fuller's work and his writing. I thought he did
an outstanding job in both cases.

Exeter was a landmark case, and John Fuller deserves much of the
credit for it. He publicized it in such a professional and
thorough way that it stands today as an icon in Ufology.

On the subject of debunkers, I just usually ignore them. If I'm
in the mood for some fun, I might toy with them. It all depends.
But one way to learn a great deal about UFO cases (and how to
think clearly and logically), is to read rebuttals by Stan
Friedman and some others. For example, Stan's rebuttal to Susan
Clancy of Harvard, regarding a book she wrote, and posted on his
website, is a classic. Actually, it's a book review, but it's in
the form of a rebuttal, I guess you could say. Think of warm
butter easily being parted by a hot knife on a lazy Sunday
afternoon. He made it look so easy. And it was necessary in that
case. One couldn't just stand by and let garbage like that stand
without being challenged - especially such nonsense coming from
Harvard University, of all places.

But with me, when the hook with the worm dangles, I usually just
ignore it and don't bite, and I often don't feel qualified to
respond, anyway. We know that government agents are paid to
debunk UFO cases. That's their job. Get rid of their upper
management and you get rid of the problem. Who is "upper
management"? I don't know.

Colleges and universities are motivated by money and prestige,
and scared to death of being associated with the "tinfoil hat"
crowd (so-called) since the donations from alumni, foundations,
and government might slow to a trickle, putting them out of
business. My opinion is that these institutions are probably
filled with fear and dishonesty. "Conformity" is the order of
the day, for the most part. Research shouldn't stray too far
from the known world. Exciting research should be very
complicated, arcane, and often useless. (I might be wrong about
this, but that's often the impression I get. Please correct me
if I'm wrong.)

And the academic hypocrisy and puffery is sometimes sickening. I
once sent an email to a music Prof doing research on Mozart,
about an interesting fact that he was totally unaware of, in the
area of his specific expertise. He was an expert in that
particular Mozart niche, and was aware of the phrase I was
citing, but had missed the whole point of it.

When he asked who I was ("I've never heard of you..."), and I
told him I was just a Mozart fan and an amateur, he suddenly
evaporated. We wouldn't want to mingle with the hoi poloi, now
would we? Of course not. So the last time I updated my Mozart
website with something significant, I sent him an email
notifying him of it, just to irritate him.

Think of how difficult it is, then, to get academics to take
UFO's seriously. I'm impressed and proud of what J. Alan Hynek
and John Mack did in ufological/abduction research. But look at
how John Mack suffered for it. Harvard should be ashamed at
their treatment of him. And Hynek should have turned the corner
much sooner, from debunker to realist, rather than hanging on by
his fingernails to untenable beliefs.

(I was just recently informed by a lady friend, totally out of
the blue, that she saw a UFO as big as a house in 1979 in
Scandia Minnesota, and Hynek called her to get more
information.)

All I know is, I've seen the craft and I've met their crews.
Debunking has little or no effect on me. There's nothing for me
to disbelieve or "un-believe" - unless it's completely
ridiculous. And I don't recall reading a "completely ridiculous"
report in the UFO literature in quite a while.

And don't get me started on "vision". Rudiak is our in-house
expert, thank goodness, but even I know that Homo Sapiens
couldn't possibly have survived for more than a few days or
weeks if it were unable to correctly perceive food, tree limbs,
rocks, rivers, animals, bugs, other human beings, etc. Can you
imagine "Chimpanzee Man" stumbling around as if on LSD, shaking
hands with a tree, and unable to distinguish an apple from a
rock? By the same token, the Exeter witnesses knew the
difference between high-altitude refueling operations with
twinkling little red lights, and an ominous bank of glaring red
lights, silently gliding towards them at extremely low altitude.
All normal people agree on that.

Exeter, the Hills, Roswell, and others are solid, and I consider
the researchers, here, to be top-shelf investigators, analyzers,
writers, and people. The finest.


Dave Morton



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

At:

http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/sdi/program/

These contents above are copyright of the author and
UFO UpDates - Toronto. They may not be reproduced
without the express permission of both parties and
are intended for educational use only.

[ 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