UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 1997 > Oct > Oct 14

Re: Solved Abduction cases?

From: clark@canby.mn.frontiercomm.net [Jerome Clark]
Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 11:06:18 PDT
Fwd Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 18:52:25 -0400
Subject: Re: Solved Abduction cases?


> Date: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 15:29:51 -0500 (CDT)
> To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
> From: Dennis <dstacy@texas.net> [Dennis Stacy]
> Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: Solved Abduction cases?

> >From: clark@canby.mn.frontiercomm.net [Jerome Clark]
> >Date: Sun, 12 Oct 1997 21:01:19 PDT
> >To: updates@globalserve.net
> >Subject: RE: UFO UpDate: Re: Solved Abduction cases?

> >Dennis,

> >Appelle writes, entirely reasonably, that the alternative explanation
> >-- that abductions are event-level interactions with ETs -- requires
> >far more and better evidence than we have seen to date.  It
> >logically follows, I should think, that objective inquiry is a more
> >logical next step than inflated rhetoric -- on either side -- and so is
> >a modest acknowledgement that the abduction question is still wide
> >open, not closed shut in a cell guarded day and night by psycho-
> >socially inclined ufologists and debunkers.  Only one thing seems
> >obvious at this moment: abductions are a phenomenon in search
> >of an explanation. In the meantime, agnosticism, anyone?

> >Jerry Clark


> Agnosticism is fine with me, as long as it leads to the
> investigation of all possibilities. If hoax, however, to cite but
> one example, isn't in a particular investigator's lexicon, then
> how agnostic (as opposed, say, to forgiving) is that
> investigator?

> Appelle also lists ten research areas that need to be pursued in
> depth, with which I wholly agree. The question here is how long
> do we keep referring to abductionology as nascent, and using that
> as a rationale to argue in ET's favor? As I said before in an
> earlier post, implants and missing fetuses should be the "easy
> parts" to document (compared, say, to passing through solid
> matter and emerging unscathed on the other side), but it's been
> 32 years since the Hill case was made public and 16 going on 17
> since "Missing Time" was published, and there is no compelling
> documentation for either.

You make half-sense here, Dennis. In every pronouncement
with which I'm familiar, private or public, you have used the
tentativeness of our knowledge of the abduction phenomenon
as an argument against the ET possibility.  You've gone on to
diss everybody who refuses to close that door, arguing in the
meantime for one of the most implausible explanations I've heard
yet -- "abortion guilt" -- as one solution to the problem.

One doesn't even have to believe ETs are here to accept as a
general  hypothetical proposition that an advanced alien race,
capable of constructing interstellar spacecraft, could also be
adept at hiding its tracks, especially when dealing with a
society in which all elite opinion is hostile to the very idea of
visitation and in which what may be evidence is swiftly
rationalized away (as in elite opinion's handling of the UFO
phenomenon generally). At this stage it is wise to be modest. Few
professional resources have been brought into the investigation
so far.  Until they are and we have a firmer grasp of what
evidence exists potentially (or does not exist), let's rein in
the sweeping pronouncements and/ or dismissals.  The evidence
that does exist already is intriguing enough to keep the question
open, and a few cases (e.g., Hill, Allagash, Walton) are puzzling
by any standard.

> As someone once said of nocturnal lights, how many more abduction
> cases do we need to collect (and publish)? It's not enough to
> applaud Appelle as an example of the good UFO literature while at
> the same time some of the leading lights in the field appear not
> to have read (let alone heeded) him, and continue turning out
> abduction potboilers. Simultaneously criticizing science for not
> getting involved.

When was the last time, incidentally, you criticized scientists
(who really ought to be all over the question) for not getting
involved? My impression is that you save your criticisms solely
for those poor souls who do get involved.  For all their faults,
at least they've had the courage to ask the questions, to
investigate the cases, and to confront the unsettling
possibilities.  My guess is that history will be kinder to them
than to the scientists who scoffed, in ignorance, from the
sidelines.

> It's the application of agnosticism that troubles me. Is there
> really anyone out there who seriously thinks the medical
> profession wouldn't be intrigued by obvious cases of missing
> fetuses? And that cases of same would routinely surface _without
> regard to the UFO abduction literature at all_? Sonograms are as
> routine nowadays as tongue depressors. If nothing else, a missing
> fetus from one sonogram to another would prompt those involved to
> contact social or law enforcement officials if not other medical
> personnel at the very least. Even alleged female abductees making
> this claim should have unambiguous medical documentation of their
> status. Yet we routinely accept such stories -- "Oh, those
> aliens! You haven't seen the half of it, doc." Or maybe the
> doctor lost her records or moved away and couldn't be located by
> the dedicated investigator intent on gathering evidence that
> would document alien intervention. Or maybe ET stole 'em. But be
> agnostic about such cases -- hey, it coulda happened -- and
> pretty soon you can be agnostic about anything, including claims
> made by leading UFO lights that something like 4 million
> Americans alone have been abducted. That's a LOT of potential
> missing fetuses (and/or implants) in my book. (And even a very
> small percentage would still be a very large lot.) Could we see
> some documentation for just one?

What you mean "we"?  What you mean "routinely"? You act as if
ufologists spoke in one voice on this subject, when in fact --
unlike, say, debunkers -- they speak in many voices on the
abduction question, and just about any UFO- related question.  As
they should. No reasonable person disputes the problems with the
evidence, or the existence of exaggerated claims for which no --
or at best only uncertain -- evidence can be demonstrated. Even
so -- however much you seem to wish it, Dennis -- that is not the
end of the discussion. Far, in fact, from it.

Jerry Clark







Search for other documents from or mentioning: clark | dstacy

[ 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