UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 1997 > Oct > Oct 13

Re: The Decline and Fall of American Ufology

From: Mark Cashman <mcashman@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 13:36:17 -0700
Fwd Date: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 14:03:31 -0400
Subject: Re: The Decline and Fall of American Ufology


>  From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>, on 10/12/97 8:39 PM:
>  From: wlmss@peg.apc.org [Lawrie Williams]
>  Date: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 07:38:14 +1000 (GMT+1000)
>  To: updates@globalserve.net, weirdscience@integral.org
>  Subject: Telepathy and UFO Axioms.

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

The Mount Clemens photo hoax was not confessed for 9 years. The
Cottingly Fairy photo hoax was not confessed for much longer.

I agree that there is strong evidence in the Gulf Breeze case, but
as any scientifically minded person should, I am open to a new
approach which manages to invaidate the strongest (not the
weakest) evidence.


>  > 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.

Most UFO cases do not contain all of these elements. I can assure you of this
from my work with the catalogs for which I am responsible, and decades of
familiarity with the literature.

Those which do are suspect, like it or not. Witnesses do lie
occasionally (about 2% of the time for conventional UFO reports,
a greater percentage of the time in photo cases and an unknown
percentage of the time in "high-strangeness reports"). When they
lie, they often rely on the available literature, and if they are
going for sensationalism, they pile as many "high-strangeness
effects" together as possible.

>  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.

Please, I realize the assertion of inter- and intra- generational
abduction exists. I am still not convinced, but I remain
open-minded. However, recall that the first "repeaters" were
Admaski and his ilk. It cannot be surprising that repeaters must
be considered to be, at least initially, of lower credibility
than non-repeaters.

Again, looking at the body of case lore, repeaters are the
exception, not the rule. Magonia, I believe, has 2 or 3 repeaters
representing maybe ten cases out of nearly a thousand (.1%).

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

This isn't very illuminating. What do you mean that "anyone who
wants can go and see UFOs and photograph them"?

It seems clear to me that despite assertions to the contrary,
validated UFO cases remain scarce. One should read the recent
issue of IUR to find out more about competent investigators'
views on this.

>  > * 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.

I don't know what this means. Many occupant cases have been found
to be invalid.

>  > * 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.

There are red beams and green beams, blue beams, and white beams.
A variety of effects accompany the beams regardless of color.
Certainly some of this may be confusion resulting from
differences in human color perception.


Paralysis and force effects from white, blue and violet beams:

29  Oct. 20, 1954 night Renzo Pugina, 37, had just put his car in
the garage when he saw a strange being covered with a "scaly"
luminous suit, about 1. 3m tall, standing near a tree. The
creature aimed the beam from a sort of flashlight at him, and he
felt paralyzed, until a motion he made when clenching his fist on
the garage keys seemed to free him. He attacked the intruder, who
rose and fled with a soft whirring sound. An oily spot was found
at the site. 	Panavicino d'Erba (Italy).
(77;Magonia).

311 Oct. 26, 1954 evening Aime Boussard, 47, a farmer, was
suddenly confronted with an individual of normal height (1. 60 m)
wearing a sort of diving suit with a pale green light on either
side of the helmet. The individual aimed at the witness the beam
of two blue lights, and he was thrown backward. No craft was
observed. La Madiere (France). 	(92).

356 Dec. 19, 1954 300 Jose Parra, an 18 year old jockey, saw six
small creatures loading stones into a disk-shaped machine
hovering about 3 m above ground. He tried to run away but was
paralyzed by a violet beam aimed at him by one of the creatures.
All the creatures entered the craft, and it took off. Valencia
(Venezuela). (Lor. I 52).

Red beams cause stalling and burns:

341 Nov. 14, 1954 night A strange beam of red light, apparently
from some flying source, was reported sweeping the countryside.
As it illuminated two tractors, one oft hem stalled, but the
other, a diesel, continued. The beam was seen for about one hour
by a large number of persons. 	Forli (Italy). 	(M 211).

583 Oct. 12, 1963 0330 E. Douglas, while driving a truck through
a violent rainstorm, had to stop when he encountered a large,
blinding object, 35 m high, from which three giants, 3 m tall,
wearing luminous clothes and strange helmets, emerged. Douglas
fired at them, as a red beam burned him. He ran away and found
shelter in Monte Maiz. He suffered burns similar to ultraviolet
exposure. Footprints of large dimension were found at the site.
Monte Maiz (Argentina).
(COD-OVNI 1963; Austr; FSR 8; Magonia).

Red and white beams cause heat:

584 Oct. 21, 1963 2130 Six strange objects were observed for 40
min causing a local panic. One was hovering at ground level above
some railroad tracks, while another, showing a dome and
portholes, was near a house. When witnesses flashed a light, the
house was flooded with a strong beam. Temperature rose and a
sulphurous odor was noted. Figures were seen in the vicinity of
the first disks. All six objects had a white and a red light
beam, measured 8 m in diameter, and left a cloud of white smoke.
Trancas (Argentina). 	(145;LDLN 66).

White beam causes physical damage and unconsciousness:

641 Mar. 15, 1965 0100 In the Everglades, 30 km east of Big
Cypress, James Flynn, 45, who was hunting, saw a huge, lighted
object 1 m above the swamp surface. He watched it for 40 min,
observing that it was conical, twice as wide as it was high, and
seemed built from metal sections over one square m each. It
showed four rows of square windows, 70 cm wide. Estimated
diameter: 25 m. A yellow light shone through the windows, and the
object made a sound of a transformer and wind. Flynn got within 2
m of it and made a gesture. A beam of light from the underside of
the object struck him between the eyes and he lost consciousness
for 24 hours. He had lost vision in the right eye, saw poorly
with the left, went to a doctor in Fort Myers, and spent five
days in the hospital.  Fort Myers (Florida). (Fate Sep. , 65).

In short, specific effects from specific colors do not seem to be
fully established.

>  > * 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.

One can doubt whatever one likes, but the literature is clear on
this. It is not scientific to attempt to determine how many cases
contain this feature but have ommitted it for fear of ridicule
without evidence.

>  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.

None of this changes the percentage a significant amount.

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

So are a lot of other things which are not well-substantiated.

>  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.

You seem to be willing to accept witness testimony when it
supports your position, and discount it when it does not. I try
to avoid this, and prefer to rely on the available cases for
deriving conclusions.

>  > 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.

My statement is based on the fact that only a tiny percentage of
cases in the Magonia catalog reference "telepathy". The cases
which do, have elements which indicate that they are less
reliable.

So-called "high-strangeness cases" are typically witnessed by a
single witness. By Hynek's probability rating, such cases can
receive no more than a 3 out of 10. I believe this conservative
approach is appropriate. Others disagree and accept all cases at
face value. That's fine if one does not feel a responsibility to
researchers who will later come along and rely on one's
investigation.

>  > 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.

This isn't entirely clear to me, but at any rate, without being a
psychiatrist or psychologist, I am not sure that anyone can
properly assess the effects I mentioned, and I am certain that
one can arrive at a personal conclusion which is valid for them,
but for the sake of research, an independent assessment must be
made.

>  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.

To the best of my knowledge, there is no evidence that ghost rocket
cases included occupants or abductions.

>  The vast majority of
>  witnesses 1932 to 1997 WERE telling the truth.

The vast majority of initial reports, 1932-1997 are well known in the
research community to be misperceptions of otherwise normal
phenomena (I consider 70-90% to be a vast majority). While only 2%
or so of reporters were "lying", many were mistaken. We lose sight of
this at our peril.

The 10-30% of solidly investigated reports which passed muster by
experts and objective investigators are what we are interested in.

>  > 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.

Actually, my entire post represented a discussion of how
"axiomatic" ("fundamental" would be more appropriate, since the
technical meaning of axiomatic requires a need to use the
assertion to disprove it) these were. But I think the status of
agreement on your postulates is highly varied, and I have shown
reasons why it should reasonably be. If we had to poll this list
to determine axioms, we might find acceptance of:

1) Many initial reports can be identified.
2) Some percentage of initial reports remain unidentified.
3) Unidentified reports contain many credible accounts of strange structured
   objects, occupants, and effects.
4) Some (unknown) proportion of abduction accounts may represent an
   objective physical phenomenon.

But beyond that, the controversy begins.

------
Mark Cashman, creator of The Temporal Doorway at
http://www.geocities.com/~mcashman
- Original digital art, writing, and UFO research -
Author of SF novels available at...
http://www.infohaus.com/access/by-seller/The_Temporal_Doorway_Storefront
------



Search for other documents from or mentioning: mcashman | wlmss

[ 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