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 -> Jul -> Re: an alien face in Jung's UFO book

UFO UpDates Mailing List

From: John Koopmans <john.koopmans@sympatico.ca>
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 1997 01:06:20 -0700
Fwd Date: Thu, 31 Jul 1997 09:51:19 -0400
Subject: Re: an alien face in Jung's UFO book

> From: clark@canby.mn.frontiercomm.net [Jerome Clark]
> Date: Wed, 30 Jul 1997 07:57:50 PDT
> To: updates@globalserve.net
> Subject: RE: UFO UpDate: Re: an alien face in Jung's UFO book

> >Date: Tue, 29 Jul 1997 22:24:09 -0700
> >From: John Koopmans <john.koopmans@sympatico.ca>
> >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
> >Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: an alien face in Jung's UFO book

> > I sure hope you're wrong! Most of the people I know who are trying to
> > get to the root of the UFO phenomenon, and all other unusual phenomena
> > would consider books like these almost required reading. There are, of
> > course, many others, including Manly P. Hall, Annie Besant, Alice
> > Bailey, and modern writers such as Elisabeth Haich, D. Scott Rogo, J.H.
> > Brennan, William R. Corliss, Joel Whitton, Ostrander and Schroeder,
> > Lyall Watson, Jess Stearn, Stan Grof, Michael Talbot, etc. etc. etc.

> > We've all realized that the answers to UFO's can't be found by just
> > focusing on UFO books. The phenomena appears to be very related to
> > phenomena in many other fields of study.

> > Then again, we don't really consider ourselves as "ufologists" either!
> > These types of labels only help to restrict the focus.

> Folks,

> I'm all for restricting the focus.  Having spent a whole
> lot of time studying the question -- and even, long ago,
> shared sentiments generally like those expressed with such
> enthusiasm above -- I see no evidence that  the "phenomena
> appears [sic] to be very related [not just related, note,
> but "very" related] to phenomena" of the sorts our
> correspondents are discussing here.

> I see a lot of people making these sorts of sweeping
> statements.  I don't see anybody actually documenting them.
> In separate studies Eddie Bullard and I have shown why UFOs
> do not seem to be related to other anomalous or folkloric
> phenomena.  No one has attempted a serious refutation.
> Ufology, people, is not a branch of occultism.  If it were,
> the CSICOP people would be right, and we'd all be wasting our
> time.  I don't believe we're wasting our time, but I do believe
> speculations like the above consume attention more productively
> spent in actual study of UFO reports.

> Jerry Clark


Jerry:

I'm very disappointed with your response. First of all, nowhere did I
mention, or even imply that Ufology was a "branch of occultism". I
notice that you conveniently excluded all mention of the scientific
pursuits which I had included in my message, nor did you even have the
courtesy to mention that you had "snipped" that part out. The missed
sentence read:

"There is also required reading in quantum physics, astronomy,
conspiracy, psychiatry, philosophy, sociology, cosmology, ancient
history, archeology, geology, chemistry, mathematics, sacred geometry,
theology, secret doctrine, etc.,etc., etc."

This selective choosing of those parts of the data that fit preconceived
beliefs is a bad habit that too many pseudo researchers seem to have,
and may be partly a result of too limited a focus. This limited focus
causes the researcher to deliberately exclude data that does not fit his
theories. (A perfect example is the ridiculous 3-tomb theory of
Egyptolologists).

The points I was trying to make are;

1) many people studying the UFO phenomena are not as "unread" and
literature deficient as Bob Shell seems to imply;

2) it would help to have knowledge of various disciplinary areas of
study to come to try to come to some area of understanding of the UFO
phenomena.

You mention that UFOs are not related to other anomalous or folkloric
phenomena. These are the type of sweeping statements to watch out for.
How can you possibly compare something that is not yet understood with
something else that is not yet understood? Comparisons such as this can
be superficial at best. Who knows what unknown forces may be behind
each?

We've had 50 years of scientific study of UFOs. As far as I can see, we
are not much further in coming to any conclusions than what was
expressed in some of the older books. Most current books simply
regurgitate what has been said many times before. Maybe we're so lost in
the forest of ufological study that we can no longer see the fields of
other disciplines that surround the forest. It may prove worthwhile to
look at other sources for clues to the mystery, as well as other ways of
thinking about our environment.

I'm not talking about New Age channelling, Tarot card reading,
occultism, or other nonsensical pursuits. I'm talking about borderline
science where the possibility of new ideas may be obtained. Examples of
authors include: Brian Swimme, Ken Wilber, Michael Talbot, Lyall Watson,
John Gribbin, Martin Rees, J.E. Lovelock, Russell Targ, Harold Puthoff,
Gary Zukav, Paul Davies, Roger Penrose, Fred Allan Wolf and Rupert
Sheldrake.

This doesn't mean that we should abandon traditional approaches, but
that we should enhance them with new ideas. The world hasn't stood still
for the last 50 years. There are phenomenal new ideas being developed
every day in many fields of study, that most people don't even seem to
be aware of. Physics and chemistry do not follow theories that were laid
out many years ago. Physicists are beginning to prove that some form of
communication exists between particles that are separated in space.
Elements are being shown to have behavioural characteristics that defy
identification (i.e. metals such as rhodium in high spin states are
transparent to identification devices and are being identified by the
trace impurities contained within it - i.e. they are being identified as
silica - could this possibly explain the Roswell debris object that was
currently tested and found to be silica with unusual ionization
patterns?). Einstein's theory of Relativity is being seriously
challenged. Animals are able to communicate with humans and show
creative thinking processes similar to those of humans. Humans have been
found to emit magnetic fields from the solar plexis while experiencing
pain. I could go on and on, but the books above document my points.

Oh, one other point. Some people have had UFO experiences and feel very
comfortable researching the subject. Others have had very real
paranormal experiences and feel very comfortable researching that
subject. But others have had both UFO and paranormal experiences and
feel very comfortable with the possibility that there may be some
connection between the two phenomena.Since I happen to feel comfortable
with the latter, I have chosen to explore th fields around the forest.

Unfortunately, many of those in the paranormal field of study do not
welcome those who have an interest in UFOs, and many of those in the UFO
field do not welcome those who have an interest in the paranormal field.
This is to say nothing of the many "camps" within those fields itself.

What was that famous saying? "Divide and conquer"?

John Koopmans