From: Kathy Kasten <catraja.nul> Date: Sat, 11 Jun 2011 18:15:47 +0000 Archived: Sat, 11 Jun 2011 14:56:24 -0400 Subject: Re: Alien Museum On Alien Abduction Case >From: Jerome Clark <jkclark.nul> >To: <post.nul> >Date: Sat, 11 Jun 2011 10:32:48 -0500 >Subject: Re: Alien Museum On Alien Abduction Case >>From: Kathy Kasten <catraja.nul> >>To: <post.nul> >>Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2011 18:15:45 +0000 >>Subject: Re: Alien Museum On Alien Abduction Case >>>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark.nul> >>>To: <post.nul> >>>Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2011 08:12:36 -0500 >>>Subject: Re: Alien Museum On Alien Abduction Case ><snip> >>>Writing about puzzling first-person testimony to one variety of >>>experience anomaly (worldwide fairy encounters), the folklorists >>>Lizanne Henderson and Edward J. Cowan remark, "It should be >>>possible to believe one's informants without believing their >>>explanations" - by which they mean, it needs to be stressed, >>>nothing reductive. Such experiences of the ostensibly >>>supernatural (or, if you prefer, extraordinarily anomalous) can >>>be sustained, complex, and extremely hard to explain, either >>>literally or prosaically. They occur in what has been called >>>liminal space, partly objective, partly subjective, a kind of >>>Third Kingdom that mocks our lazy notion that either things are >>>or they aren't. By their nature we can neither prove nor >>>disprove them. They exist - often vividly - in experience, >>>and experience alone. ><snip> >>In a sense, experience anomalies are dreams transplanted into >>the world - and by that I mean nothing reductive. I mean a >>crude analogy, not a psychological (non)explanation. I mean a >>class of common human experiences we don't understand at all, >>next to which visiting ETs seem barely extraordinary at all. >>It would appear we agree on a possible definition of the >>phenomena. However, I have decided, after years of thinking >>about it, so-called ET craft is another aspect of highly bizarre >>events. Without the hard evidence of an actual nuts and bolts >>craft, I lean toward a more psychological explanation. Or, some >>not understood phenomena affecting the neurological environment >>of human perception. >In common with so many who look (even when not very carefully) >at UFO data, you're making a fundamental category error. You >insist in the face of solid reason to the contrary that >ostensible UFOs are either one thing (in your case, along with >the usual debunking suspects, unfortunately, some nebulous >"psychological" phenomenon which has repeatedly been found >wanting even for experience anomalies) or all visitors from >elsewhere in the physical universe. >The "hard evidence" of which you're unaware exists, of course, >in abundance, which is why I mentioned the RB-47 case as one >good example. Brad Sparks, among the leading researchers of this >complex and crucial incident and author of the primary >investigative reconstruction and analysis, has characterized it >on its own as settling the case for a physical, anomalous, >technological UFO phenomenon. Nobody has come close to mounting >any argument to the contrary. <snip> Jerry: I read parts of a previous post of a report from NICAP. As I read the transcript, looking for the evidence, all I found was testimony. Testimony is very different from evidence. It looks like early in the search from answers, some very smart people who knew the difference but wanted their case to carry weight, used the term evidence when in fact they were cataloging testimonies. Nowhere, I mean exactly nowhere, has there ever been evidence. By that, I mean - if one is using the terms to present a court case - the question of "where is the body?" and "where is the murder weapon?" is never answered. All that is presented is someone saying they saw a person murdered with a baseball bat. If you ask the witness providing the testimony, "well, where is the body? Where is the baseball bat?" They have to say they don't know, or 'maybe, the government knows'. That doesn't meet the standard of proof. For example, radar returns is not proof of anything accept the signal bounced off something in the sky. I think the authors of the NICAP report wanted to make sure their case was heard in the court of public opinion, but in hind sight they took the research into the phenomena in the wrong direction. Various people over the years have tried to re-adjust the direction, but there are many people already invested in the direction set by NICAP. I keep hoping guys like you are able to persuade the community of interested parties in re-adjusting their approach to the subject. What do you think? Can you do it? KK 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 | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp