From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 99 10:56:21 PST
Fwd Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 01:25:50 -0500
Subject: Re: Pope On A Rope


>Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1999 12:54:09 -0500
>From: Andy Roberts <Brigantia@compuserve.com>
>Subject: Re: Pope On A Rope
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>

>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
>>Subject: Re: Pope On A Rope
>>Date: Mon, 15 Feb 99 11:41:26 PST


>Jerry Clarke wrote:

First off, Andy, the last name is Clark, not Clarke.

>>I'm afraid our friend shows his hand here. We are informed,
>>with precisely no evidence bearing one way or another on the
>>question, that Nick Pope's (er, excuse me, "Popey's") experience
>>was "imaginary." How do we know? Why, Andy told us so! That
>>being the case, how could we doubt? And who would believe
>>somebody called "Popey" anyway?

>I never believed my hand was hidden Jerry! You were informed
>'with precisely no evidence' for the simple reason that Pope has
>never provided any evidence his alleged experience was anything
>_other_ than imaginary. The point which you missed - again - is
>a significant one. Let's break it down:

That Pope has not provided evidence tells us only that he has
not provided evidence. Got that? It tells us nothing about
whether the experience was imaginary or not. To make that
determination, we need to know more than your highly biased
opinion.

>- Pope claims he had no knowledge in or interest of UFOs prior
>to working on the UFO desk at the MOD

>- Pope claims the information he gleaned vis a vis UFOs whilst
>_at_ the MOD is the truth, he even hints at things he knows
>which he can't reveal to us mere mortals

I very much doubt that Pope has used the phrase "mere mortals".
Let's see some specific quotes here to determine context and
accuracy of paraphrase. Or are you simply employing cheap
sarcasm in place of a rational argument?

>- Then in the first draft of 'Open Skies....' he writes about an
>alleged abduction experience which happend _to_him_.

>- Pope _denies_ this was the case, despite it being seen by Jenny
>Randles when she was sent the draft copy

>- The experience then surfaces pseudonymously in Pope's second
>book

>- He _still_ denies it had anything to do with him - even on
>live TV

In full anticipation, of course, of the torrent of ridicule that
would wash over him should it be revealed that this was his own
personal abduction experience. And that, of course, is precisely
what happened.

>- Then, lawdy, lawdy. He comes out and says it was him after all.

>Now in my book that makes disingenuous, at the very least, for
>not coming clean.

So?

>It also begs the *serious- question of how are
>we supposed to believe *anything- he writes or lectures about.

Oh, my. I guess I live in the larger world, where persons not
ordinarily thought of as pathological liars are disingenous all
the time when it comes to things they'd rather other people did
not want to know about, such as matters that could embarrass
them or open them to ridicule or worse. (Why, I'll bet that if
you did enough research, you could even find Presidents of the
United States who have conducted themselves in precisely that
fashion.) I guess St. Andy adheres to higher standards of divine
conduct than we mere mortals can manage.

>Jerry also wrote:

>>It seems to me that the Pope matter is worth noting as a matter
>>of some small passing interest, then relegating to obscurity.

>Simply because either a) you miss the point again or b) because
>you find a famous ufologists' problems with a straight narrative
>somewhat unsettling for what it may say about others.

The more I read of your remarks, my friend, the more certain I
am that I have scored a bull's eye on the point. For what "a
famous ufologists' [sic] problems with a straight narrative"
have in common with comparable problems by non-ufologists (aka
normal human beings), see above.

>>We may anticipate,
>>with dreary certainty, that the significance of Pope's
>>reluctance to broadcast his perceived experience will be
>>inflated and flogged like a dead horse.

>There's a hell of a lot of 'dreary certainty' in ufology,
>usually when people are getting near the nub of a case or a
>person's attitude.

So Andy's remarks suggest.

>Thanks to Dennis for chipping (it's about time ufologists on
>this list began being a little less apathetic!) in with his
>point of view, echoing my own:

>>Meanwhile, Roberts must be one of them there psychosociologists
>>against which you are so opposed.

>Git them waggons in a circle Martha, the psychosocioligists is a
>comin'.

Huh? What are the psychosociologists doing here? I certainly
never mentioned them. Hell, I didn't even _think_ of 'em. And
what are those wagons doing in the picture? Who's Martha? Are we
suddenly in a Western movie? Dennis, what were you smoking when
you wrote the above? Please pay better attention in the future,
okay?

Or to put it another way:

Why the paranoia here, or -- more to the point -- the frantic
desire by Andy and Dennis to change the subject? Or is the
answer all too obvious?

>Sorry if all this goes over old ground again. We British are
>like that with _facts_ we like to grip them and worry them until
>something comes out.

I sure hope you don't break your arm congratulating yourself and
a whole islandful of countrymen there. And thanks, too, for
alerting all of us foreigners to our indifference to facts. All
I can say is, we do our best.

Jerry Clark