From: Gerald O'Connell <goc.nul>
Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2011 11:59:35 +0100
Archived: Mon, 03 Oct 2011 07:37:09 -0400
Subject: Non-Ordinary Nuts & Bolts [was: Shirley



>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark.nul>
>To: <post.nul>
>Date: Sun, 2 Oct 2011 13:40:15 -0500
>Subject: Re: Shirley MacLaine

<snip>

>I've been thinking today of two much-missed, departed
>colleagues, Isabel Davis and Coral Lorenzen, who must be rolling
>in their graves at the moment.

>Davis - whom a prominent ufologist once characterized to me as
>the most intelligent person he'd ever met in this field - and
>Lorenzen helped create and shape American ufology in its early
>days (and in Lorenzen's well into its middle age). Both argued
>for nuts-and-bolts UFOs and spurned "non-ordinary realities"
>(i.e., paranormal/occult) advocates and approaches.

Jerry, I wonder if we could just tap into your encyclopedic
knowledge from a 'History of Ideas' perspective here? How was it
that this particular bifurcation arose and then became
entrenched in the subject? To be more specific, it seems to me
that there should have been plenty of room for a 'non-ordinary
nuts and bolts' interpretation that left the jury out on the
ultimate nature of the phenomena while further and better
evidence was being gathered.

Is it simply a question of the nuts and bolts advocates having
read too much science fiction while the paranormal/occult
advocates had read too many ghost stories? Were they drawing on
different sets of evidence in order to focus on the data that
best supported their respective interpretations?


--

Gerald O'Connell
http://www.saatchionline.com/gacoc



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.