Aliens On Earth.com Resources for those who are stranded here Our Bookstore is OPEN Over 5000 new & used titles, competitively priced! Topics: UFOs - Paranormal - Area 51 - Ghosts - Forteana - Conspiracy - History - Biography - Psychology - Religion - Crime - Health - Geography - Maps - Science - Money - Language - Recreation - Technology - Fiction - Other - New Search... for keyword(s)   in Page Titles in Book Title/Author in Contents of Pages ---other searches--- Metacrawler Yahoo FAST Search Google Altavista Dogpile Inference Find Northern Light IWon.com MSN Search Las Vegas Sun Location: Mothership -> UFO -> Updates -> 1997 -> Dec -> Re: Solved Abduction Cases?

UFO UpDates Mailing List

From: Mark Cashman <mcashman@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 22:43:07 -0800
Fwd Date: Fri, 05 Dec 1997 10:13:32 -0500
Subject: Re: Solved Abduction Cases?

>  From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>, on 12/4/97 2:06 AM:
>  From: DevereuxP@aol.com [Paul Devereux]
>  Date: Wed, 3 Dec 1997 23:00:43 -0500 (EST)
>  To: updates@globalserve.net
>  Subject: Solved Abduction Cases?

>  I don't think anyone is suggesting ufology is alone in this
>  respect - the difficulty is getting ufologists to realise that
>  they are dealing with folkloric processes at all! Mention
>  folklore, and there is this huge outcry. It is as if ufology is
>  to be thought as being above folklore.

I think that what generates the objection are contentions that
the UFO phenomenon itself should be considered folklore.

The point I was trying to make was that the presence of a
folklore does not in any way reduce the objective existence or
importance of the underlying phenomenon.

And we could get into classifying the different kinds of folklore
that are generated around the objectively existent UFO
phenomenon, but that probably is a discussion for another day or
possibly another list.

>  >However, the odd thing about good UFO cases when we try to view
>  >them as folklore... <snip>

>  >There is, nonetheless, a "UFO culture". Actually, there are
>  >several UFO cultures...<snip>

>  Yup. Agreed. It's called ufology.

Here's where we part ways. Ufology is not the UFO culture. It's
important to be clear about definitions. Ufology is not UFO
culture any more than astronomy is the culture of astronomers or
climbing is the culture of climbers.

Ufology is the study of UFOs. UFOlogists participate in UFO
culture. That to me is the difference and the essential
distinction.

>  At least consider the possibility, Mark, that there may only be
>  chaff in many instances (I assume you are thinking of folklore as
>  "chaff").

This would be incorrect. Folklore is not the subject of Ufology.
The experience of the witness as related by the witness, plus any
objective scientific measurements, are the subject of UFOlogy.
The "chaff", such as it is, are the misperceptions of aircraft,
birds, balloons, etc. as UFOs.

I think that the generation of folklore around a case does tend
to reduce the value of the case to the extent it embellishes the
original account. This is the reason historical research going to
original sources is so essential. For instance, on the
neighboring Kenneth Arnold thread, we can see that it is easy to
neglect the core facts posed by the original reports and drawings
produced by the witness, at which point all sorts of absurd
theories become easy to support.

>  And it is a matter of opinion as to whether the likes
>  of Kottemeyer are "distorting their data". For all I know, some
>  of the "researchers" you refer to whom you might consider as
>  paragons of truth may be those I would consider as distorting
>  their data to fit their own pet theories and beliefs. It is all
>  such a shaky business, y'know.

Actually, it's not. That's why we have the original account. Any
theory posed by anyone, pro or con UFO, must use all of the
reported features with the same emphasis provided by the witness
unless specific counter-evidence exists. An assertion that the
witness is a liar or can't distinguish between a near flock of
birds and a far flashing metallic object that shines on a plane
from the direction of a snowfield, or an assertion that a witness
can't tell the difference between a grounded hot air balloon and
a large egg shaped object which indents the soil and burns
bushes, or an assertion that a hoax kite with flashing lights
present in the early hours of the morning in a rural location is
the cause of a UFO report without the demonstrated presence of
such a kite - none of these are sufficient. In short, we can tell
if someone is distorting the data by looking at the data as
presented by the witness and the data as presented by the
theorist, and if any of the data from the witness is omitted,
changed, or devalued by the theorist, then, unless the theorist
can present a specific and valid reason to support such a change,
the data is being distorted.

>  I think it should be pointed out that the presence of folklore as
>  a binding element within ufology is not in itself necessarily a
>  negative factor. I wasn't thinking of folklore as somehow being
>  negative or as explaining anything away when I gave this present
>  round on the subject its spin. What *is* important, however, and
>  this is the point I was initially trying to make, is to recognise
>  that it is there, and the role it plays. And not to be in denial
>  about it.

Yes folklore exists in UFOlogy, it's no big deal except when we
confuse it with the recorded facts of real UFO events.

------
Mark Cashman, creator of The Temporal Doorway at
http://www.geocities.com/~mcashman
- Original digital art, writing, and UFO research -
Author of SF novels available at...
http://www.infohaus.com/access/by-seller/The_Temporal_Doorway_Storefront
------