UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 1997 > Oct > Oct 30

Re: Questions for Abductees

From: Peregrine Mendoza <101653.2205@compuserve.com> [Peter Brookesmith]
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 1997 09:01:35 -0500
Fwd Date: Thu, 30 Oct 1997 08:14:13 -0500
Subject: Re: Questions for Abductees


The Duke of Mendoza presents his compliments.

>From: clark@canby.mn.frontiercomm.net [Jerome Clark}
>Date: Tue, 28 Oct 1997 11:35:07 PST
>To: updates@globalserve.net
>Subject: RE: UFO UpDate: Re: Questions for Abductees

I see Jerome, at least, has not lost his sense of humor on his
way down Canby Mountain with his latest tablet of stone. Dear me,
two immense occasions for guffaws in as many paragraphs.

>In fact, there is a great deal to support the ETH.  So far it is
>the most reasonable -- or, as Michael Swords has it, "natural" --
>provisional hypothesis which seeks to explain the hard-core
>evidence: i.e., the stuff that emerges from CE2s, independently
>and multiply witnessed cases, and so on.

"In fact". This enquiring mind would appreciate knowing of what
such facts may consist. "Reasonable" in what form of logic?
"Natural" in what sense?

>Vallee is simply wrong when he suggests that the UFO question
>is beyond science.  Here he betrays his occult -- even anti-
>rationalist -- sympathies.  In any event, how would he know?

I vaguely recall that the witch-doctor Jacques did his level
best to apply some scientific principles in "Challenge to Science"
and "Anatomy of a Phenomenon". Not much anti-rationalism there.
Can it be that Magic Jacques reached his conclusion through
frustrating experience?

>For one thing, science has barely addressed the question.  The
>best cases, however, are eminently investigatable by traditional
>scientific method;

And *why*, do you suppose, has science barely addressed the
question?

And perhaps Jerome could demonstrate just which parts of
the scientific method have been applied - scientifically - to
which cases? Or even one? I am especially looking forward to
reading about all those repeated and independently verified
experiments that burden the pages of the scientific or even
the ufological literature.

I'm not, however, looking forward to reading the whole of this
post over again when Jerome replies. Could you find out how to
highlight and cut the superfluous bits first, please, Jerry?
Nearly everyone else manages to abide by this simple requirement
in this List's posting rules. Thanks.

best wishes
Parsimonious D. Mandrake
Cheshire Cat


Search for other documents from or mentioning: 101653.2205 | clark

[ 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