UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 1997 > Oct > Oct 12

Re: The Decline and Fall of American Ufology

From: wlmss@peg.apc.org [Lawrie Williams]
Date: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 07:38:14 +1000 (GMT+1000)
Fwd Date: Sun, 12 Oct 1997 20:39:48 -0400
Subject: Re: The Decline and Fall of American Ufology

> To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
> From: Mark Cashman <mcashman@ix.netcom.com>
> Subject: re: UFO UpDate: Re: The Decline and Fall of American Ufology
> Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 12:27:54 -0700

>>  I think most people have made up their minds either way by now, and
>>  those who believe the photos accept that the other effects do occur,
>>  and those who think they are a hoax have real problems believing that
>>  the rest of Ed Walters' account is true too.

I am not sure this is the best way to think of the problem.

Maybe not. But it is a practical approach.

> There are those, such as myself, who accept the photos as true -
> provisionally. If someone were to come along a provide devastating
> proof of the hoaxing of the occultation photos or the stereo shots,
> or if Ed were to admit a hoax, I would, subject to careful
> examination of any such claim, be willing to accept whatever truth
> is revealed. This represents the scientific viewpoint.

Surely 10 years is long enough for any decent challenge to arise.
Instead there have been more witnesses, more photos!

Becker's case was the last best chance for anyone to debunk the
extraordinary evidence about UFOs at Gulf Breeze. The fact that
the debunker community has resorted to distraction and legal noises
shows that we owe Becker deep gratitude. Gulf Breeze has been well
and truly confirmed! From now on attempts to debunk this and
similar events might just as well be ignored as a waste of
time, energy and bandwidth.

From here on in I certainly will not be bothering with those who
want to argue about minutae, or who "get personal". There is more
than a little evidence that abductees, perhaps as a result of their
experiences or perhaps because that is the kind of people UFOs go
for, are fairly emotionally labile. I advocate that all of us,
abductees definitely included, look forward so we can tackle the UFO
mystery and the possible threats it poses - together. Don't get
dragged into debunker-type bickering.

> Then we have those who will not accept the photos despite any proof.
> They have valid reasons for their discomfort. The Walters case displays
> nearly the full panolpy of UFO-related phenomena, and in most
> situations, this appropriately raises suspicion.

Yes, and in 1994 I was treated to a smorgasbord of paranormal events
immediately after a UFO visitation. This is a very real aspect of the
UFO phenomenon, not an indicator of fraud.

> In addition, there are unusual aspects to the object geometry and
> the absence of normally reported luminosity. And finally, repeaters,
> like it or not, are more likely to be hoaxers than non-repeaters.

If by "repeaters" you mean return visits, you are totally wrong and
have demonstrated unfamiliarity with this field of study. UFOs do
come back to the same people, and to their offspring, and theirs.

[stuff about photo validity deleted as anyone who wants can go
and see UFOs and photograph them so it is no longer relevant]

[stuff about "Hovering 'craft'" deleted as it confused me no end.]

> * Exotic humanoids are a substantial percentage of the unknowns. If
> one accepts that unknowns represent a real phenomenon, it is
> impossible to reject the occupant cases. However, that does not
> mean that every case with occupants must be considered valid.

Agreed. But on the evidence it is most likely it is valid and that is
what is important.

> * Unusual light beams have been reported in many cases, as have
> effects from those beams. However, there does not seem to be a
> clear link between beam color and effect, which weakens this
> part of the pattern; on the other hand, this may be accounted for
> by variations in human color perception.

Blue and green are often mixed. The Walters photos show an electric
blue. An aqua colour has been described to me. In dim light conditions
either will seem to be white.

> * Telepathy, on the other hand, is a relatively rare part of the entire
> phenomenon.

I doubt this very much. It is likely this is not reported often
because it can be used to discredit both witness and incident.

Thanks Mark for the three incidents from the Magonia catalog from
1957, 1957 and 1966.

We can add two incidents in Gulf Breeze in 1987. Also mine in 1995.
None of these involved face-to-face encounters at that point in time,
maybe we should look at cases where a ufo is nearby, pre contact
and post contact for a richer trove of telepathy testimony. If
anyone else knows of telepathic encounters, please post them.

Telepathy also gets mention several times in the context of Roswell.

We also have to consider that telepathy comes in a variety of forms.
One is that of hearing a voice "grinding" in the head, such as Ed
Walters reported, which struck a strong chord with me. Another is of
not hearing a voice but of apperceiving a situation directly. Another
is of hearing familiar spirits as a child, apparently after a UFO
visitation and *perhaps* through an implant. And many adults report
similar experiences, and many sane people report a presence in their
head that converses with them, even though they recall no initial
contact experience. Up to 3% of people reportedly have this.

I can tell you that in my 1975 abduction I do not know if I was
conversing with my "interviewer" via mouth or mind, or indeed
whether he was an alien or one of Scott Jones' team.

> In other cases, the occupants made unusual sounds or spoke in a
> language unknown to the witness. In a fairly small percentage of
> cases (still much larger than the telepathy percentage) the
> occupants spoke in a language known to the witness, sometimes with
> a strange accent, sometimes in broken speech, sometimes mixing
> languages.

In some of these cases it is quite possible that telepathy has been
reported as speech, either a rationalization by the witness or an
attempt not to seem totally crazy. I have seen scenes on TV where
the actor is not moving his lips but his speech has been dubbed in.
We all tend to "edit" what we perceive which is how post production
video-editors can sometimes get away with inadequate footage.

My case is especially curious, I feel. For some months before the
May 1995 contact I had been striving to analyse the correlatons
between Norlitic speech, Greek mythology and modern UFO observations.
(I still am.) It is quite likely this was on my mind in the hours
leading up to the "message", almost as if there was an attempt to
answer my question.

> It may be no accident that the only "telepathy" cases are those
> which one might term either "higher-strangeness" cases or
> "less-reliable" cases, depending on one's inclination. At any
> rate, the evidence substantiating "telepathic" communication is
> certainly small at best, and possibly marginal in quality.

I respectfully resent that. Witness testimony is considered reliable
enough to convict a person of murder, yet you declare it in ufology
to be "marginal in quality". I invite you to explain that. I have to
point out you are addressing a person who is just such a witness, its
not second or third hand testimony. I am answerable. It has happened
to me several times in my life and at no other time have I heard
"voices in my head" even remotely resembling these effects. I've
also established that apart from ADD (or because of it) I am in
splendid mental health. Too many people play amateur psychiatrist
and say: "Voice in your head? Oh well, you must be mad!" I hope
you clarify your statement there Mark, and soon.

> In addition, one must consider that perception of "telepathy" does
> not necessarily substantiate the existence of telepathy. I think we
> still have relatively little knowledge of the psychological effects
> resulting from what is in many cases a traumatic event, and
> certainly confabulations, or illusory voices, etc, cannot be ruled
> out a priori.

I give you my word I rigorously considered all of these before making
my claim. Nothing a priori about it. And Ed Walters' account shows us
that he did the same. Lets face it, no matter how exhaustively we
eliminate all the options, some debunkers will always claim the
reported phenomena are not for real because they are reported.

> Or, we may be seeing the presence of a technology which simply emits
> sounds translated from non-vocal utterances by the occupants, which
> the witness interprets as telepathy.

Not a chance. Even while I was hearing the pounding sound and the
voice I tried the radio (static) and wound the window up and down
(road noise) but the sound within my head did not vary one iota.

I get the impression that some ufologists have a profoundly dim view
of their fellow humans. Yet the ghost rockets turned out to be real,
they have turned out to be craft, they did have occupants, they are
contacting people, they are operating on people. The vast majority of
witnesses 1932 to 1997 WERE telling the truth. This resistence to honest
testimony is not realistic skepticism, it is bloody-minded obstruction
of scientific progress. After a span of 65 years it is time that all
the doubters remove the encrusted egg from their faces and offered
some positive help for a change. (Not you, Mark, I know you are
on the right wavelength.)

> In short, one can accept or reject "telepathy" without necessarily
> accepting or rejecting the Walters case or any of its elements.

I suppose you can. The initial point I have made is that my case
and the Ed Walters case and many others combined together amount to
enough data for a few elementary things to be accepted as axiomatic.
I have also emphasized that if people wish to be irrational and
unscientific they can reject good data and cling to total disbelief.
Its a free world. But some of us are prepared to move ahead!

lw>>  For the skeptical side, the debate might concern itself with the
>>  question of elaborate psychopathologies and the identification of
>>  earth lights. That these phenomena occur can be accepted as axiomatic
>>  and a useful framework of knowledge can be built up from this position.

>>  For the believer side, the debate needs to concern itself with the
>>  nature of telepathy, the description of UFO crew, the mission of
>>  their craft and the technologies these entities deploy.

>>  If ufology fails to recognize this great divide, it will be forever
>>  at cross-purposes, as we have seen with the Great 1997 UpDates
>>  Debate about the 1987 Ed Walters Photos.

> I'm afraid I cannot accept that this is the right way to deal with the data.
> While no one desires conflict, it needs to be recognized that science is,
> much like the legal process, an adversarial system.

As I have pointed out, the legal process would long since have accepted
the axioms I have proposed based on their own time-honoured procedures.
In ufology it seems to demand more than that. It seems the propaganda
has created a fanatical refusal to accept witness evidence. We have seen
that on the UpDates List, where out of sour grapes the loser in the debate
over the Walters photos has turned to legal threats. We are also seeing
personal attacks on Linda Cortile, who in my opinion has strived to be
objective and patient. So here are two witnesses right here on this list!
You have your evidence.

BTW If some lawyer wanted to litigate over copyright material posted to
the internet, I'd love to know how they could prove this person or
that person did it!  There is just no case, it is a form of cheap

> Hypotheses will be advanced, challenged, accepted, defeated, etc.

Great stuff. But impossible without axioms. And useless if the debunkers
and skeptics keep moving the goalposts.

> But the choice is not between skepticism and belief. It is between
> science and belief (and that means belief adamantly opposed to an
> objectively existent UFO phenomenon, belief in ETs, or any other
> kind of unsupported "faith").

Holy hell, you have changed the meaning of "belief" as used in
the ufological sub-culture!  That is a recipe for confusion. Maybe
the next step, now we have axioms and are moving forward, is to
develop a reliable common glossary of words and terms.

> The adversarial part of the process is never over.

Agreed. Any credible researcher must do this all the time, and he
must be subject to questioning by others who must make sure he
has dotted the "t's" and crossed the "i's" (if a skeptic) or
vice versa if he is a believer.  : )

> People still carry out experiments which may invalidate parts of
> general relativity, and still challenge other well-accepted theories
> with new hypotheses, data, and experiments. That is why a debate on
> Gulf Breeze ten years after the case occurred is still relevant.

Yes, and what a wonderful result. We have been able to prove that
UFO's did visit Gulf Breeze and that humanoid crew did employ
telepathy and blue beams. The adversarial system has triumphed
with all due credit to Bruce Mc and Barbara B.

Thanks for you input and general support, Mark.

Lawrie Williams________________

Search for other documents from or mentioning: wlmss | mcashman

[ 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