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 - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp