Earth Aliens On Earth.com
Resources for those who are stranded here
Earth
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)  

Location: Mothership -> UFO -> Updates -> 1997 -> Nov -> Re: ETH [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] &c

UFO UpDates Mailing List

Re: ETH [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] &c

From: Dennis <dstacy@texas.net> [Dennis Stacy]
Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 13:52:09 -0600 (CST)
Fwd Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 15:21:06 -0500
Subject: Re: ETH [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] &c

>From: clark@mn.frontiercomm.net [Jerome Clark]
>Date: Wed, 26 Nov 1997 13:14:02 PST
>To: updates@globalserve.net
>Subject: RE: UFO UpDate: Re: ETH [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] &c


>> >Bob,

>> >If you're not endorsing John Keel's half-baked ideas,
>> >you ought not to be using his vocabulary.  Keel explicitly
>> >endorses occult and demonological notions which no
>> >post-Enlightenment thinker would find of any utility
>> >whatever in trying to make sense of what the UFO
>> >phenomenon is about.  As I said, nobody endorses
>> >the use of theory-driven words (whether ET or ultra-
>> >terrestrial) in anything other than hypothesis-driven
>> >discourse.  In any case, I would not equate scientific
>> >speculation about the possible nature of ET life with
>> >medieval speculation about demons, unless one
>> >believes late 20th century science is in no significant
>> >manner different from 12th century theology.

>> >Jerry Clark

<Comments by Mike snipped>

>Mike,

>You make a good point.  In fact, fundamentalist
>Christian writers on UFOs often cite Keel's work,
>and he gets quoted not infrequently in such
>literature.  Of course such writers ignore Keel's
>further assertion that God is just another ultra-
>terrestrial.

>I have no quarrel with anybody's religious beliefs
>so long as I'm not being compelled to agree with
>them.  Of course Keel is not propounding religious
>doctrine but offering what is supposed to be a
>serious hypothesis about the nature of anomalous
>and paranormal phenomena.  In that secular
>context his ideas are profoundly irrational and
>deeply paranoid.

>Jerry Clark


Keel's medieval keep is no doubt without a computer and modem
(for all I know it may not even have running water and
electricity), so permit be a brief response in the old man's
"behalf."

As illogical as it might appear at first glance, the "problem"
with Keel's theory is not that it is the product of an irrational
and paranoid mind, but that it takes UFO accounts literally and
tries to find an overarching theory to explain every aspect of
the phenomenon.

The search for underlying factors, or commonalities, is known as
phenomenology, and it's the same approach Vallee ultimately
applied to the phenomenon, thus mystifying his critics after the
appearance of his first two "classic" scientific treatments of
the subject. Vallee, too, took eyewitness accounts literally,
even when they began to include a growing variety of seemingly
physical impossibilities -- such as the ability to change shapes,
beam people through solid objects, appear larger on the inside
than exterior dimensions would indicate, associated paranormal
effects (psychokinesis, telepathy, etc.), and so on.

When the infamous Dr. X told investigators that he saw two UFOs
float down the valley in front of his house, shooting out sparks
and beams of light (one of which healed an old war injury), merge
together and disappear in a fireworks display, one's options are
relatively limited. One can assume that the witness is making
most (or all of it) up, merely misperceived mundane phenomena, or
is literally telling the truth as best he could.

Once you adopt the (in my opinion incautious) latter approach,
even the ETH is going to have a terrifically difficult time
making sense of the good doctor's alleged experiences (of which
the above are only the half of same).

My point is that the "conservative ETH" is largely a hypothesis
in name only; when the ETH is actually excercised in practice,
it's used to gloss over a whole host of grievous scientific
"sins." In other words, the aliens are endowed with every god-
(or demon)like ability in the book. At the same time, while
possessed of all these miraculous technological advances (FTL
travel, transporters, invisibility, etc.), the picture that
emerges from mainstream abduction research is of a frail species
on the verge of decline, if not extinction, needful of human
genetic material -- as if their scientists, each of whom is to
Einstein as Einstein is to a Neanderthal, couldn't create or
manufacture genetic material on their own. Philosophically and/or
logically, in other words, at least two "givens" of the
hell-on-wheels ETH are diametrically opposed to one another. Put
another way: the gods of the air (who abduct humans at will and
with impunity) have been revealed to have feet of clay.

If I didn't know better, I'd almost be inclined to believe that
such a hypothesis was the product of profoundly irrational and
deeply paranoid minds.

Don't take that personally, Jerry, unless you're feeling
particularly paranoid at the time you read this. I'm not
referring to your expression of the ETH, of course, just to that
of mainstream ufology, you know, the sort of ufology that issues
major titles like "The Threat" -- nothing paranoid there!

In fact, as far as any self-respecting phenomenologist is
concerned, Jacobs wouldn't necessarily be any "righter" or
"wronger" than Keel. True, he might have identified the mechanism
a little more accurately, but the reality of the situation, in
either case, would be that we're presently under invasion by
gods/demons/aliens, the planet's inhabitants are being routinely
kidnapped and abused, and there is absolutely nothing either you
or I (or the Air Force) can do about it.

If ET actually turns out to be the culprit, then Keel simply
fingered the wrong suspect. Other than that -- phenomenologically
speaking, of course -- he and Jacobs occupy the same world.
Phenomenologically, the "message" is the same, and so are any
implied consequences.

The difference is that if a Jacobs alien abducts you some night
and slaps on the old Mindscan, you'll be able to say: "See, I
told you that Keel guy was a nutter!" Under the circumstances,
that may be the only (small) consolation you'll have.

Dennis



Search for other documents to/from: dstacy | clark

[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
[ This Month's Index | UFO UpDates Main Index | MUFON Ontario ]

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.


[ UFO Topics | People | Ufomind What's New | Ufomind Top Level ]

To find this message again in the future...
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.
Software by Glenn Campbell. Technical contact: webmaster@ufomind.com

Financial support for this web server is provided by the Research Center Catalog.