From: Kathy Kasten <catraja.nul> Date: Mon, 30 May 2011 18:13:54 +0000 Archived: Tue, 31 May 2011 09:04:56 -0400 Subject: Re: Review Of Jacobsen's Area 51 Book >From: Jerome Clark <jkclark.nul> >To: <post.nul> >Date: Sun, 29 May 2011 17:35:26 -0500 >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On the contrary, I have an unpublished manuscript which cites 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: Bottomline? Another new approach to Roswell vents tonight on Coast to Coast AM. I will be listening. Love it. My heart leaps with joy. After 30 years "the community" has been collecting cases and testimonies. The analysis: the alien's did it. Absolving "the community" of any responsibility to analyze. I heard a guy last night - Richard Lang - project leader for MUFON. His job, as he saw it, was to collect cases, make sure the info was accurate, and pass a monthly report on to BASS(?sp) for $56,000 a month. After 4 months, MUFON was spending only $26,000/mo and putting the rest of the money in a savings account. This project manager couldn't design a project that would have included analyzing the cases using - oh I don't know - various types of equipment to collect samples? No, as long as the answer was "the aliens did it" the analyzing stopped. So, yes, "the community" response bores me because it is simplistic. Real world possibilities only intrude on "the community's" constructed orthodoxy. Give it up fellas. Call it Mission Failure, step back and design a new approach. One that moves things closer to a resolution. Is that so hard? Well, I guess it might be. It is so much easier to say "well, it's the way we have done it for the last 30 years." And, please don't get me started on just how many people read Dr. Dolan's Roswell Dig Report. Why no one did? The dig didn't turn up pieces of a craft. However, there were real artifacts that never got to the laboratory to be analyzed. I think I was one of five people who read the report and thought about the items listed in the report. "The community's" response? Well, it wasn't what we wanted and, therefore, we are not interested. Really, a truly boring response. My response to that response? Yawn. Logic informs me that Mission Failure is the reason to skim over the "documentation" of collected cases and testimonies. There is evidence of nothing tangible except lights in the sky. Alien Abductions? Well "the community" response is: "we all just don't want to deal with how the mind works, psychic impulses, neuropsychological possibilities. "The community's" response is: "oh, for gawd's sake, don't bother me." As example, please read the responses to my post. I support Annie Jacobsen's new twist on the tale. Can't wait to hear what the Japanese-American ex-librarian has to say tonight. Oh my gosh, I can't be accusing "the community" of being down on any one who isn't white and male. Good grief, I hope I haven't gone that far. 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 | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp