X-Sender:
updates@mail.globalserve.net
Date: Sun, 09 Nov 1997 15:24:01 -0500
To: updates@globalserve.net
From: UFO UpDates -
Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> Subject: UFO UpDate: Re: ETH
&c
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by
smtp.globalserve.net id PAA03272
From: clark@mn.frontiercomm.net [Jerome Clark] Date: Sun, 09
Nov 1997 12:59:22 PST
To: updates@globalserve.net
Subject: RE: UFO UpDate: Re: ETH &c
>From: Boroimhe@aol.com [Jeff King]
>Date: Sat, 8 Nov 1997 20:23:21 -0500 (EST) To:
updates@globalserve.net
>Subject: Re: ETH &c
>Salutations to the list, and a response to:
>>From: clark@mn.frontiercomm.net [Jerome Clark]
Date: Fri, 07 Nov 1997 11:00:28 PST
>>Fwd Date: Fri, 07 Nov 1997 22:36:54 -0500 Subject: Re: ETH
&c
>I realize that interjecting myself into this cat fight is
probably a pointless exercise, but since Mr. Clark comments (badly)
on a passage that I allowed His Grace to quote, I do feel obliged to
do so. (Also, since this is my first attempt at posting to the list,
I apologize in advance for any formatting, or other errors I may
commit).
>>What a load of crapola here. When have I ever said
Roswell is one of "the best cases"? Roswell is difficult,
complicated, and ambiguous and depends, in the absence of more
conclusive evidence, whom one chooses to believe.
>Yes, you do now describe Roswell as lost in confusion, but
let's not forget these quotes from yesteryear:
>"In short order (in mid-June, to be specific) Kevin Randle
and Donald Schmitt's long-awaited 'UFO Crash at Roswell' will be out.
It records the most thoroughly investigated, the most completely
documented event in the history of ufology. The Roswell incident is,
of course, also the most important case of all. As its secrets are
unraveled (and investigation continues), ufology's big questions, the
ones that brought our field into being in the first place, are being
answered: What are UFOs? Who pilots them? What does officialdom know,
and when did it know it? Those whose interpretation of the UFO
phenomenon is based on empirical evidence will rejoice as the
heretofore unkillable canard, that UFO research has made no progress
in four decades, is disposed of once and for all." Jerome Clark
>International UFO Reporter, March-April 1991.
Jerry responds,
I still think Roswell is an extraordinarily important case,
potentially the most important of all. It is not, however, the best
case. I think critics have considerably over-stated their argument,
but I do think they have succeeded in highlighting weaknesses and
ambiguities which ensure that as things stand Roswell is far from the
"best case." (Literate readers will know the difference, Jeff, even
if the distinction escapes you.) I have followed the debate, listened
seriously to all sides, and adjusted my thoughts accordingly. I would
like to think you'd do the same, Jeff, but maybe you think a view
once lodged in your mind can never be removed or even modified.
Personally, I harbor a sentimental preference for an always open
mind.
The core of the problem is that the serious investigation did
not begin until 30 years after the fact. The reconstruction of any
historical event, and particularly one that was quickly covered up
and forgotten (in this latter instance even by ufologists), is
extraordinarily difficult, even when done by trained historians --
not one of whom, I might add here as a lifelong student of history,
participated in the research. As Mike Swords points out in his recent
IUR article, the debate is further confused by "clashing visions of
the possible" and also by the absence of a single relevant document
on whose authenticity and/or relevance everyone agrees. (I urge
open-minded readers to Swords' piece as the most lucid exposition yet
of the opposing camps' a priori assumptions. The article appears on
pages 11-13,33-35 of the Fall 1997 issue.)
My mistake was in having and expressing excessive optimism
about what we could learn about something that occurred long ago and
under circumstances that would have rendered truth-determination
difficult even had a (civilian) investigation been launched
immediately.
>"The Roswell incident is the most important known UFO event
in history. By the time this investigation is over it will shape our
future understanding of the UFO phenomenon. This investigation gets
to the very core of all issues." Jerome Clark
>Oddysey Newsletter (unfortunately, the copy sent to me does not
include the date of the issue, but it is apparently from 1989 or
1990)
All true, should it be determined, conclusively, that the
Roswell object was a UFO. For the difficulties of making a
determination, see above. I have never heard of the Oddysey
Newsletter, by the way.
>I will grant the possibility that you believe there is a
substantive difference between the Ïmost important case of
allÓ and a Ïbest case.Ó I, however, believe most
Ïliterate readersÓ think otherwise. Perhaps you could
explain the difference to the rest of us or, better still, explain
what in the last six years caused Roswell, in your estimate, to fall
from Ïthe most important caseÓ to being lost in
confusion.
Literate readers, as I've said, will understand the
difference.
>>Budd Hopkins does not "make the same errors" as Mack,
and it amuses me to see abductionphobes speaking of them in the same
breath, despite enormous differences in outlook and approach.
>Yes, Hopkins does make the same fundamental error as Mack-
his beliefs clearly influence how he reports and studies abduction
accounts, to the point of leading his subjects. But don't take my
word for it, read Bullard's The Sympathetic Ear, pages 66-67, where
he clearly describes Hopkins' status as the Typhoid Mary of the
hybrid baby motif. Even one of Bullard's respondents recognized this
fact. While Bullard concludes Hopkins' obvious influence on such an
important element in the abduction narrative is relatively
unimportant in evaluating the source of abduction claims, I think
reasonable people can disagree. (Note the citation to a relevant work
and a brief summation of why I think readers will find it relevant to
my point.)
In fact, phantom pregnancies were noted in the UFO literature,
but ignored and forgotten soon after, in John Keel's 1970 book The
Mothman Prophecies. I made an interesting discovery while doing
research on early CE3s for my Emergence of a Phenomenon (1992): the
extra- ordinary numbers of CE3s in which witnesses have reported
human or near-human entities. The possible implications, in light of
the later abduction hybrid claims, are intriguing to speculate about,
though of course impossible to prove.
In any event, Jeff misses the larger, more important point:
that unlike most abduction-related claims, phantom pregancies are
falsifiable. As I have had occasion to say before, it is arguably
Hopkins' major failing to bring forth no medical documentation
proving or disproving abductees' claims that they experienced
anomalously terminated pregnancies. About Hopkins' general
methodology much can be, and has been, said for and against (the
former usually by those who've observed it up close, the latter
usually by those farthest from such observation); in any event, that
argument can go on forever, inconclusively, to inflict onlookers with
terminal cases of MEGO. In this one area, however, it seems to me
that reasonably conclusive answers are possible and not that hard to
obtain.
>>And I did not discuss Appelle in the context of the
ETH; I mentioned him in the context of his careful explication of the
problems of counterexplanations.
>You discussed Appelle as a counter to several non-ETH
explanations for abduction accounts, without making it clear that
Appelle is as (or if you saw him on the recent Discovery Channel
special-more) critical of the ETH explanation as any other. This left
a clear impression that AppelleÌs article supported the ETH,
if in no other way than by the process of elimination. You may not
have intended it that way, but since several members of this list,
only a few of whom responded, read your citation of Appelle the same
way I did, you may want to consider that the problem lies in a lack
of clarity on your part.
That's possible. We're not churning out deathless prose here.
We're writing ephemeral stuff, and we're writing it fast, and it's
not going to stand in print to get quoted back to us years (or, in my
case, sometimes decades) later. My impression of Appelle, whom I know
slightly (as a fellow CUFOS board member), is that he's open-minded
about the ETH, sensitive to the difficulties of proving it, and
focused more sharply on ufology's more immediate, pragmatic,
methodological concerns -- rather like me. Meantime, again allow me
to urge readers to turn to Appelle's splendid piece. It's in JUFOS 6
(n.s., 1995/1996), is titled "The Abduction Experience: A Critical
Evaluation of Theory of Evidence," and appears on pages 29-78. it's
available through either Bob Girard or the CUFOS office. If the
general level of ufological discourse were on this level, or even
close to it, we'd all be better off.
Thanks, Jeff, for a chance to comment on the above and to
clarify my views. Good luck in your own inquiries.
Cheers,