UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2011 > May > May 30

Re: Review Of Jacobsen's Area 51 Book

From: Jerome Clark <jkclark.nul>
Date: Sun, 29 May 2011 17:35:26 -0500
Archived: Mon, 30 May 2011 04:55:31 -0400
Subject: Re: Review Of Jacobsen's Area 51 Book


>From: Kathy Kasten <catraja.nul>
>To: <post.nul>
>Date: Sun, 29 May 2011 18:36:09 +0000
>Subject: Re: Review Of Jacobsen's Area 51 Book

>>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark.nul>
>>To: <post.nul>
>>Date: Sun, 29 May 2011 05:56:31 -0500
>>Subject: Re: Review Of Jacobsen's Area 51 Book

>>>From: Kathy Kasten <catraja.nul>
>>>To: <post.nul>
>>>Date: Fri, 27 May 2011 18:57:10 +0000
>>>Subject: Re: Review Of Jacobsen's Area 51 Book

>>>>From: Terry W. Colvin <fortean1.nul>
>>>>To: post.nul
>>>>Date: Mon, 23 May 2011 20:17:54 -0500 (GMT-05:00)
>>>>Subject: Review Of Jacobsen's Area 51 Book

>>This must be the most wildly simplistic statement I've read on
>>Roswell in quite a while. All it tells me, Kathy, is that you
>>gave up thinking about it sometime ago.

>>I mean to be real clear about that.

>Well, Jerry, what I gave up on was the simplistic approach to
>Roswell taken by all the known Roswell researchers.

>On the contrary, I have an unpublished manuscript which cites
>many documents not cited by Roswell researchers.

And it led you to those strange, borderline-cartoonish remarks
you made lately on this List? Frankly, that doesn't give me a
lot of hope for what you may have. In any event, unless you
produce it so that knowledgeable researchers can see, analyze,
and judge it, it's meaningless as evidence of anything.

>I think I can
>relate to Annie Jacobsen and the heat she is taking from ufo
>investigators. It is like: "What? You didn't quote from my book,
>so you don't know anything!"

Considering how much effort and expense have gone into the
Roswell investigation, responsible investigators have every
right to complain about somebody who seems to know nothing but
who in her ignorance - and, of course, desire to sell books, for
which I don't really blame her; writing is hard work, the
rewards mostly meager - promotes what even outside observers
(i.e., non-ufologists) view as a deeply suspect story. Is it
your view that people who know what they're talking about, such
as those who've devoted many years to the study of the Roswell
event (whatever it was), should just shut up? Or are they
obligated to have you vet their remarks before they air them?

Incidentally, lest I be misunderstood and to forestall the
inevitable, I am a Roswell agnostic of long standing. I am
willing to listen to and consider any point of view that, if it
is based in arguable evidence and discernible logic, does not
insult my intelligence. (Not wishing to stir anybody up, I will
not here detail which views insult my intelligence.) It is my
observation that reasonable people have arrived at different,
even conflicting conclusions. Eventually, when all is at last
sorted out, some will be proven wrong, which doesn't make them
bad people, stupid people, or crazy people. Until every piece is
put into place, disagreement about what the assembled puzzle
will look like is only to be expected.

It helps me in my own thinking about this that as a lifelong
student of history, I have some grasp of how historical
investigations of poorly understood, inadequately documented
events in the past are conducted. If you remove the toxic
initials "UFO" - which seem to drive you nuts, or at least to
rhetorical excess - from the equation, you'll find that whatever
the ultimate answer is to this particular question (prosaic or
extraordinary), Roswell is for now just one more historical
mystery among many.

>Please, Roswell orthodoxy is alive and well with 'the
>community' ready to defend their anointed spokespersons. They
>just plain bore me.

Which explains, perhaps, why you're paying no attention to
what's actually going on all around you. It would behoove you to
follow what ufologists say about the case. In fact, the issue is
so controversial and contentious that an important UFO List -
not this one, obviously - bans any discussion of it because
ufologists have such radically conflicting assessments that they
tend to end up in flame wars. Since there is no ufological
consensus on Roswell, there is no orthodoxy, just a range of
strongly held opinions. Or perhaps you define orthodoxy as any
opinion you disagree with.

>Jacobsen presents a totally new approach.

A "totally new approach"? An anonymous informant tells her a
fantastic story, with self-contradicting details which ought to
raise a red flag to anybody who's paying attention, and that's a
"totally new approach". I don't think so. It looks rather like
an all-too-familiar, ordinarily dubious one to me. Just, in
fact, still more noise around an already faint and receding
signal.


Jerry Clark



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 Main Index

UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp


Archive programming by Glenn Campbell at Glenn-Campbell.com