UFO UpDates Mailing List
From: Sean Jones <tedric@tedric.demon.co.uk>
Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 09:38:37 +0000
Fwd Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 12:58:01 -0500
Subject: Re: That Ol' Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis
>From: DevereuxP@aol.com [Paul Devereux]
>Date: Fri, 28 Nov 1997 09:15:19 -0500 (EST)
>To: updates@globalserve.net
>Subject: That Ol' Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis
Paul you are long-winded.....
>Having said that, yes, indeed, I did see a craft, in the early
>1950s. You'll recall that it appeared and disappeared
>anomalously, but when 'present' it could be seen by a friend and
>I as seemingly very physical in appearance. It was a
>dirigible-type airship of huge proportions. I could see the
>ribbing in the sunlight, the gondola and the steering tackle in
>detail. It was a several hundred feet up in the air, about half a
>mile away. But not only did it disappear oddly, there was also no
>such craft flying in Britain
>at that time.
Paul, who apart from you has researched this case?
>(Also, as an aside here, geophysical phenomena can look like
>metallic disks and even lumps in the daylight sky too - so these
>are another phenomena that might get mixed in with some genuine
>sightings of this even more exotic kind. There is also a pitch
>black aeroform, that I suspect is linked with earth lights
>phenomena.)
Is this your argument for why (in your opinion) earth lights are
the cause of most if not all of the "unexplained" ufo sightings?
>This is bad logic. The ETH doesn't have to be disproven. It has
>to be proven.
I disagree, logic has nothing to do with it. An argument has to be
proven or disproven to be proved valid. That is a logical answer.
>Phenomena like earth lights that can be as big as a house, that
>have been photographed dozens of times, that have caused
>radar-visual effects, that can last for over an hour, that have
>been seen emerging from the ground, that have yielded
>instrumental results, etc., etc., cannot be dismissed as not
>having much to do with ufology. Not by anyone remotely claiming
>to be a ufological researcher. (Different rules apply for
>believers.) It is as simple as that.
I doubt that anyone on this list would argue that it is not a
valid phenomenom but it does not explain the majority of
unexplained ufo cases like you seem to think that it does.
>But I am not aware I have ever said we should disregard
>high-strangeness cases. If I did, it was a slip.
We all make slips Paul.
>I entered a fully-3-Dimensional space, and I could touch objects
>in my environment, and feel their texture. I knew who I was, I
>had full memory of my life up to that point, and all my senses
>were working. In other words, the experience was as 'real' as any
>I have had in normal waking consciousness. I approached a
>humanoid entity from behind, to within about 20 feet. It was clad
>in a one-piece tunic. It was engaged in some activity. I did not
>want it to turn round and see me, because at that time I was
>uneasy about a confrontation, and so I quietly moved away.
This also could be discribed as an abduction, I am not saying it
is, only that it could be discribed as one.
>So where was I? I was in a mental state that had been
>deliberately induced by manipulation of my REMs. I was neither
>asleep nor hallucinating, but rather my entire sensorium was
>*replaced* by another as completely realistic as the one I call
>my waking consciousness.
How do you *know* this Paul?
>So -- the abduction phenomenon is being heavily worked on, but
>outside the ufological frame. Indeed, one of my projects is to
>abduct an alien!
I wish you the very best of luck with this endeavour Paul.
>Good for you. Excellent. First class.
Nice to see that you can give out compliments as well as insults
Paul.
>And do please try to
>understand that I am attempting to coax ufological thinking into
>some deeper areas, so we may yet get a grip on the "core" mystery
>as you perceive it.
I don't think that you come across like that Paul, perhaps you
might want to try a different approach.
>Ufology really does need a revamp, you know.
Perhaps the first step could be forming a "qualification" that
validates a person to call themselves a Ufologist/UFO researcher??
>Anyhow. Thank you, Geoff, for your thoughtful questions and views,
>and civil manner. This is the way to conduct debate.
You could do with taking a leaf out of your own book here Paul.
>Best wishes,
>Paul Devereux
the same to you.
--
Are you a man or a mouse, come on squeek up!
Sean Jones
reply to--sean@tedric.demon.co.uk
Homepage--http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Zone/1745/index.htm
Reasearch page --http://www.tedric.demon.co.uk/
UFO UpDates - Toronto -
updates@globalserve.net
Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp - ++ 416-696-0304
A Hand-Operated E-Mail Subscription Service for the Study of UFO Related
Phenomena.
To subscribe please send your first and last name to
updates@globalserve.net
Message submissions should be sent to the same address.
|
Link it to the appropriate Ufologist or UFO Topic page. |
Archived as a public service by Area 51 Research Center which is not
responsible for content.
Financial support for this web server is provided by the
Research Center Catalog.
Software by Glenn Campbell.
Technical contact:
webmaster@ufomind.com