Aliens On Earth.com Resources for those who are stranded here UFOs | Paranormal | Area 51 People | Places | Random Top 100 | What's New Catalog | New Books 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 Our Bookstore is OPEN Mothership -> UFO -> Updates -> 1999 -> Jul -> Here

From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 21:18:38 +0100
Fwd Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 18:16:31 -0400
Subject: Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?


>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@GlobalServe.net>
>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
>Subject: Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?
>Date: Tue, 20 Jul 99 09:58:15 PDT

>Hi, Jenny,

>>I think the probability of other life in the universe is high.
>>I think the probability it has visited our solar system at some
>>time in the history of this neck of the space-time continuum
>>maybe 50/50. I think the probability it has done so during the
>>few millenia we have been here maybe 1 in 100.

>On what do you base those odds, besides sheer guesswork?

>>But that's not what you asked. In fact what you asked is a very

>>different question. Have any UFO sightings anywhere ever been
>>the result of an alien craft?

>>Its possible. Of course it is. But look at the facts. The vast
>>majority of cases (I mean 99% of them) absolutely do not offer
>>any indication of that origin at all. They are, in fact, other
>>things such as IFO and UAP. The disturbing prevalence of this
>>data has to make you wary of assuming too much about the 1%
>>because too often we have seen promising cases crumble even
>>years down the track.

>Curious.  In a lecture you gave in Sydney in 1991, at a
>conference we both attended, you said you considered the ETH a
>likely explanation for the most puzzling UFO reports.  I recall
>your saying that your view of the UFO phenomenon was now much
>like my own.  I have enormous respect for you, Jenny, but it
>seems to me, as one who's been reading your work for years, that
>your views are all over the map and are consistent in only one
>thing: their constant changeability.  There certainly are worse
>sins, of course, but I can't help wondering, given past
>experience, how long you'll be holding to your current
>neoskeptical course.

>In your response you might inform list members exactly what a
>"UAP" is supposed to be.

>I would also be interested in knowing which "promising cases"
>allegedly have crumbled.  The classic UFO cases, in my reading,
>have stood up pretty well to years of sustained attack by
>would-be debunkers, including -- mostly recently -- your friend
>James Easton's failed attempt to identify Arnold's UFOs as
>pelicans. Now the neoskeptics are hinting darkly that Arnold's
>case has _finally_ been explained (is this explanation #243 or
>#244? I'm afraid I've lost count at this point), but they can't
>tell us about it.  And the relentlessly self-promoting Kal Korff
>promises an "expose" (his word) of the Hill case in the near
>future.  Will someone wake me when it's over?

>>As we do not have anything approaching scientific evidence -
>>that is alien DNA, non earthly technology conclusively in our
>>possession, photos of landed craft or aliens that are close to
>>probative rather than a joke, etc. The sort of things any police
>>officer would need to accept, for instance, to seek to prove
>>that a crime has been committed, then the only proper answer to
>>give to this question is not yes or no but maybe. The evidence,
>>quite simply, is not nil but is certainly inconclusive.

>In your opinion.  In a statement he made to the UFO history
>conference in Chicago this past May, historian of astronomy
>Steven Dick said something to the effect that science has no one
>definition of, or universal agreement to, what constitutes
>"evidence."  He cited the UFO controversy as one area where this
>issue is being played out.

>In this context it may well be that scientists in the future,
>and maybe the not-so-distant future, will say that visitation by
>ET intelligence should have been evident as early as (say) the
>Nash-Fortenberry sighting of 1952.  Or maybe the RB-47 case of
>1957.  Pick your solid, unexplained report.  It is entirely
>possible that science will eventually decide that the "leap of
>faith" you mention was not taken by advocates of UFO reality but
>by those who maintained the stubborn belief, in the face of
>serious contrary evidence, that _no matter what_ all UFO
>sightings would all resolve into comfortingly prosaic causes.
>They haven't, but hey, who's going to let a little reality
>intrude on somebody's dreams?


Hi,

I thought you'd bring up Sydney. Not that I blame you. If the
positions were reversed I'd have done the same and I was not
seeking to igbore it. You could have, but didn't, so I will,
refer to the letter I sent you written on the plane to Cairns
after we parted in Sydney in which I said I was writing to you
to express my thoughts on the ETH before I chickened out.
Remember? I followed it up with my book 'Star Children' to put
in more tangible form this side of my thinking.  So I'm not
denying anything here, Jerry.

Regarding the ETH I have said, and still believe, that there is
some evidence (some quite persuasive but not probative) that
supports it. I do indeed consider it a plausible explanation for
some of the remaining cases. If you want me to say I regard the
theory as likely then I will. Although my real view is more
fairly somewhere between plausible and likely.

But we still lack anything akin to definitive proof because we
seek this in terms that may not be applicable to the phenomenon
we face. I don't think anything I said in yesterdays posting
contradicts that response. Yes, I have the opinion that this is
a reasonable way to explain the baffling cases. It would not
surprise me much at all if it proves correct. But I was asked to
state conclusively if an alien spacecraft had visited earth post
l947 and I don't think anyone can honestly state that. I
certainly could not.

So this was not a cop out or a change of approach (other than
slight emphasis maybe). It was a proper answer to the question
posed.

You are correct that my stats on the likelihood of alien contact were
'guesses'. But then even cosmologists are doing that.

There really isnt any other way to answer such questions because
its all a matter of making value judgements on how many planets
are out there, how many have life, how many races might visit
other star systems, etc etc. So guessing is all anyone can do. I
was merely trying to give a realistic answer to the question I
was asked. Nothing sinister.

If these things above translate to the 'sin' of changing my
mind, fair enough. I own up. But I really don't perceive it that
way.

Read my first book (UFOs: A British Viewpoint) written l976-8
and published in l979. Here I argue that there are two essential
branches of UFO phenomena. One was physical and involved
tangible energy. The term UAP (Unidentified Atmospheric
Phenomena derived from this) - a series of probably natural,
scientifically novel and as yet unidentified atmospheric
processes. The other branch of ufology was less tangible and
occurred during an altered state of consciousness. At that time,
seeing in my early cases the overlap with psychic experiences
that (as you know) I still perceive as a key part of the close
encounter, I argued for some sort of quasi real but subjectively
originating experience.

Now I don't think my views are 'all over the map' as you put it.
My books since then show a gradation of ideas about the second
branch of ufology. But I have stood resolutely in every book I
have written behind the belief that most UFO sightings not IFOs
are in fact UAP. I  thought that then. I think it now. No change
there.

My ideas about close encounters have progressed to the
suggestion that an alien race was communing with our
consciousness (rather than via physical visits) (see my l988
book 'Abduction') and fairly similar, though ,more developed,
ideas that appear in 'Star Children' in l994 where I suggest the
contact is a lucid dream like experience that occurs because we
have an inability to grasp the ineffability of the alien nature
of the contact.  As such we need to probe behind the imagery
that we too often treat as the 'real alien contact' to the more
subtle, subjective, inner truth that they reflect. This is a
difference not in basic theory from l979 just in degree of
interpretation of the same key ideas.

So - in essence - I am still (and pretty consistently) saying
that 95% of cases are IFOs, most others are UAP and around 1%
appear to occur during an altered state where it may well be
that an alien contact impinges on our consciousness manifesting
in a way that is not completely tangible. Anyone who was at my
DC lecture would probably say this was more or less just what I
argued then.

So, my views have adapted but they have not - in my opinion -
fundamentally changed enough to be termed 'all over the map'.
Yes, I have toyed with other ideas as experiments (eg time
travel) (such mind stretching thinking around the subject is
useful in my experience as it prevents stagnation). But in
essence my principle philosophy on UFOs is much as it was 20
years ago.

Of course, I have learnt a huge amount in that time and this has
inevitably effected my views. I would be worried if it had not
and I now argued precisely what I did 20 years ago. You don't do
that, Jerry, do you? You virtually disown what you wrote in the
l970's, which is fair enough. Your views have progressed via
experience and evidence. Is it so odd that mine have too?

I do go where the data leads and sometimes thats a little
further from the mean than others. I also spend time delving
into certain phenomena at the expense of others (eg my l998 book
on UAP that were involved in mid-air encounters). But just
because I research and write such a book does not mean this is
all that I believe is happening. It just means I am at that
point in time focusing on that area of study. I don't see this
as a failing, but as an advantage.

It is worth noting that I am not - absolutely not - saying there
are no alien spacecraft. I am not - absolutely not - saying
there is only slim possibility that ufology has an alien
component.

In truth I am far less convinced there are alien spacecraft
coming here in some space armada than I am that an alien
intelligence is in communication with us at a more subtle level.
I see these as separate issues that require different degrees of
evidence to support. Which is why I am cautious, because I see
evidence backing one option but not the other quite so much.  I
don't think many sceptics would go that far.

I also noted in yesterday's posting that I am more persuaded of
the alien possibility now than I was a few years ago, due to the
accumulation of circumstancial evidence. Again I don't see how
this contradicts my basic stance.

Yes, of course, I am warmer towards the prospect some days than
others. I doubt anyone short of being a 100% certain alien
contact witness could feel any other way about the changing face
of this confusing subject. If you know the truth and are
unswayed by circumstance, then good on you. But I cannot behave
like that. Sorry. A modicum of indecision is something I
treasure, because it allows me to go with the flow of evidence
and not sit there waiting for a case to come along that proves I
was right all along.

Committment to one scenario is all very well but it isnt how I
am built to think and I fear that it has the risk of evidential
myopia - to which we are all prone, but the committed (be they
outright sceptics or fervent ETH supporters) more so than most.

I have always been a rationalist (I am not a sceptic or a
neo-sceptic as you term it). Thats surely obvious from the fact I
solve more cases than I think are left unsolved. But the
difference is also evident. A sceptic does not believe in UFOs
and seeks to prove there are no such things, all be it hopefully
objectively. (A debunker is a blinkered, biased sceptic). A
rationalist, as  I trust I am, accepts the realities of ufology
and lives by these sometimes sobering facts of life and rules of
evidence. Most UFOs are explainable. Some cases that seem
inexplicable can ultimately be resolved. It is possible (but not
in my view at all likely) that every case could crumble. So you
work on that basis and look for the cases that do stand the test
and challenge any reasonable prospect of being solved. Yes,
there are some. I have never suggested otherwise.

I don't agree with James Easton's interesting theory on Ken
Arnold, by the way. But I also don't think the Arnold case is a
good UFO. Its at best a currently unsolved  case that has always
been likely to have a solution. Its importance for ufology is
social and never has had much to do with its status as a
solved/unsolved sighting.

Although you imply I am James' friend, as if this is a crime of
sorts, the truth is I don't think we have ever met. Correct me
if I'm wrong James? I like his approach to the field quite often
and support some of his arguments (but by no means all). ufology
needs this sort of hard headed realism as much as it needs
committed, objective supporters of the ETH. I have always
regarded you - Jerry - as an excellent researcher with one of
the most perceptive defences of the alien nature of UFOs that I
have known. As such I have enormous respect for your work and
regard you as one of the most significant ufologists we have.
But surely we don't need to agree on everything, even every
major thing, to share a similar approach to this subject?
ufology, in fact, would be the poorer if we did.

You ask which cases have 'crumbled' to cause some recent
disquiet on my part? I personally believe Roswell to be one. The
Williamette Pass photo (that I regarded favourably pre Irwin
Weider) is another. My investigations into Lakenheath/Bentwaters
l956 (one of the UKs best cases in many peoples opinions - until
recently) seem to be casting at least some doubts about that
diagnosis; although it is not a solved case, as such. Rendlesham
Forest, whilst again in my view not solved, is without doubt
beset with some problems. There are others from my first hand
involvement (eg a movie film case that was solved conclusively
after more than 20 years). These add up and have to effect your
thinking.

None of this persuades me that there is no ufology and that all
cases will fall or makes me want to saddle up to the sceptics
for the ride. I still believe there are unsolved and unsolvable
cases - at least via our present perspective on science. I
remain (whilst not convinced) pretty amenable to the prospect
that in a few cases alien contact may be occurring - but
certainly it is not the cause of the vast majority of sightings.
The facts state that pretty unequivocally in my opinion.

This is my honest view of what I think ufology reflects. But its
my opinion, just as you have yours. I am well aware I could be
wrong and I do pay heed to seemingly significant new cases that
challenge my ideas (like the Kelly Cahill or Peter Khourey
stories  - that impress me a good deal). I think I would have a
problem if when faced with such an incident I shrugged and said,
so what, or I fell back on the last defence of the moribund
thinker - it is clearly just a hoax. The day ufology stops
causing me to ponder that big question - have I got this
completely and utterly wrong? - is probably a good day to
retire.

Best wishes,

Jenny Randles