From: Dave Haith <visions1.nul> Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2011 14:36:24 -0000 Archived: Fri, 14 Jan 2011 05:47:38 -0500 Subject: Re: Psychic Rendlesham >From: Jerome Clark <jkclark.nul> >To: <post.nul> >Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2011 16:43:35 -0600 >Subject: Re: Psychic Rendlesham >>From: Dave Haith <visions1.nul> >>To: UFO UpDates <post.nul> >>Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2011 16:39:21 -0000 >>Subject: Re: Psychic Rendlesham >>>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark.nul> >>>To: <post.nul> >>>Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2011 16:51:41 -0600 >>>Subject: Re: Psychic Rendlesham <snip> >... those (happily) few UFO investigators who resort to psychics >in their field work are only trying, in common with police who >turn to psychic detectives, to take a short cut (however misguided) >to desired information they deem difficult or impossible to get >otherwise. Again an assumption that it's a 'short cut' rather than additional information. How do you know the motivation of all UFO investigators (and police) who use psychics? Unless you're psychic... Are you suggesting then that no psychic has ever helped in a police investigation? >It is a considerable stretch to deduce that they are seeking >validation of religious belief of some sort or other. I think you must mean 'not a considerable stretch'? But what anyway is this constant link with religion? Being psychic is not being religious although religious people may be psychic and religion might have opinions - sometimes negative about psychics. >As with any field as amorphous as ufology, one can speak only >generally, of course. I'm sure there are, here and there, >exceptions to the rule, notably some individuals who see UFO >phenomena as manifestations of the occult or as the work of >demons. >I can even think of one, who shall remain nameless here. >(I might add, incidentally, that John Keel considered himself >both a demonologist _and_ an atheist.) Proving perhaps that you don't have to be religious to conjecture a psychic faculty or realm - even if you do use a religious term like 'demon'. >I refer here to the ufological mainstream, whose outlook is >resolutely, in some ways defensively, secular. Again you are using the word secular as an opposite of religious. Parapsychologists who study information retrieval outside of the five senses wouldn't refer to secular or religious any more than if they were studying gravity. >Contactees and their followers, whose very reason for being is a >quasi-religious response to flying saucers, are another matter >with a very different history rooted in 19th C. occultism, >especially Theosophy, and spiritualist mediumship. >>Psychics could merely be used, as I alluded in my previous >>post, as a possibly useful additional tool. >Frankly, I can't imagine a circumstance in which psychics might >be "a possibly useful additional tool." Every use I've seen in >that regard - even outside the contactee subculture - only has >contributed to the already abundant nonsense that has >accumulated like so much garbage (or, more kindly, popular >mythology) over the history of the UFO controversy. <snip> I don't dispute Jerry that in the history of the subject there has been a fair share of whackos but if remote viewers can correctly describe a secret Soviet base or for instance the hiding place of Saddam Hussein, then I will not close my mind off to one being able to fathom what went on at Rendlesham. I think your pessimism about the psychic faculty lies in your experience of past history which has spoiled you for future possibilities. Dave Haith Listen to 'Strange Days... Indeed' - The PodCast At: http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/sdi/program/ These contents above are copyright of the author and UFO UpDates - Toronto. They may not be reproduced without the express permission of both parties and are intended for educational use only.
[ Next Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp