UFO UpDates Mailing List
For other Cohen/Devereux discussions
Click here From: DevereuxP@aol.com Date: Wed, 19 Mar 1997 16:56:23 -0500 (EST) Fwd Date: Wed, 19 Mar 1997 17:49:16 -0500 Subject: Re: EL/TST >Date: Sun, 9 Mar 1997 19:48:59 -0500 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <email@example.com> >From: "Jerry Cohen" <firstname.lastname@example.org> >Web Site: CohenUFO.org >Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: Devereux - Rutkowski EL/TST Jerry wrote: >I believe your theory has tended to neglect the fact that many >ufologists already mentally put these "nocturnal light" cases >in a lesser category, in view of the fact that out of the multitude >of cases in existence, they are _lesser detailed cases_, and >by definition, concern amorphous, rather than, "visibly-structured" >objects. Therefore, although your work is highly interesting >and will probably help us become aware of certain natural phenomena >that exist on and within our planet, its applications to UFO >sightings per se are necessarily limited. Yes, well, I don't see it quite this way. The fact remains that LITS are the most common type of sighting. We have to ask ourselves what the real status of the 'structured craft' is - that's the point. I *know* that's what ETH ufologists are most interested in, and that's why they demote LITS, but that is a psychological preference, nothing to do with objectivity. It is in effect a cultural factor with these people. As to the status of structured craft, let's look at it this way. A few centuries back 'structured' things seen in the sky would have been dragons or galleons sailing through the air. Now (at least not since the Great Airship thingy), people don't see dragons or galleons. They see spaceships (since 1947 - it was ghost planes or rockets prior to then). Could the 'structured craft' be *our* dragons and galleons? If not, where did the dragons and galleons go to? Cultural expectation and conditioning affects perception. It does. It does. It does. More than we care to think. But I don't want to pretend there is no mystery. There certainly is (earth lights are fabulous mysteries just by themselves - they will take us to the very heart of quantum thinking before they are done with us, mark my words.) I also think *other* things can be seen in the sky that are UFOs in a literal sense, but not in the ufological sense. For instance, back when I was about 9 years old, so that makes it around 1954, I was coming home from school at lunchtime with a school friend. We were walking up a hill in Leicestershire, central England. I suddenly noticed a *huge* airship, a dirigible, hovering near the crest of the hill. It was as long as three of the houses on the hilltop. It was black, it had a gondola, the sun revealed its ribbing, and there was steering tackle at the rear end. I stopped in my tracks, as did my friend, her jaw agape. "Do you see that?" I said as I turned to her. She didn't answer, but just stared ahead. I looked back - the airship was gone. We ran to the top of the hill, from where one can see half the county, and there was no sign of any airship anywhere. Needless to say, there were no airships flying in Britain at this time. I swear to you that this is a true account. Many years later, when Andy York and I researched UFO reports in the county, we found that over a 20-year period there had been three reports of a "cigar shaped" object over that very area of the county. In addition to my airship. I don't know what to make of the airship, or whether it was connected with the later "cigar-shaped" object sightings. I don't think it was an earth light, and I don't think it was an alien spaceship. It was literally a phantom in the sky. >Oh, by the way, do you feel that "norm" is actually established >[with regard to EL/BOL]? If so, could you possibly point me to >this information? The best thing would be for you to read *Earth Lights Revelation*, if you can get hold of a copy nowadays. If you read that through, you'll have a pretty good grasp of the range of the EL phenomenon. There is no one, standard form of EL, of course. Typically it is a roundish basketball-sized glowing object, but there are an infinite number of varieties on this. They can be as small as a few inches, or many metres across; they can be ovoid/discoid, square,rectangular, rod-shaped and simply slow flares of light. They can appear in daylight and artificial light as metallic - shiny or dull. They can last from seconds to an hour or more. They tend to haunt certain areas for days, weeks, months and - quite often - for generations (we are on geological time). >What I find myself objecting to most concerning the presentations >I have seen concerning Persinger's work is that it has been touted, >by the media, as being the total "solution" to the UFO enigma. If >Persinger feels any differently, he most certainly has a major >scientific obligation to correct this. Until he does, all >protestations to the contrary, no serious UFO researcher can >consider what he is doing as "scientifically ethical"... No one can be held responsible for how the media present them. If Persinger or anyone wanted to complain, and did so, what do you think the media would do - re-run a programme, make an apology? Come on now! As it happens, I am sure Persinger *does* feel his approach is the right one to a large segment of the UFO phenomenon - you may think his 'style' is too imperious and annoying, you may disagree with details of his approach, as does Chris Rutowski, but you will find (as will Chris when he gets round to it) *whatever* one does comes under criticism by people who think they know better. It is easier to criticise than to do. What gets up my nose (and it isn't an implant)is this self-righteous attitude towards Persinger by people who swallow whole (or at least keep quiet about)what the characters feeding government conspiracies, abduction investigations, and crashed saucers dole out. It is a question of getting priorities right, it seems to me. At the end of the day, we *know* that the attitude towards Persinger is predicated on a desire for his approach to be *wrong*. People want the fantasy of ETs. They want a crack at another species - humanity has got them down. Let us all look deep into our hearts, shall we? Look for agendas that are hidden even from ourselves. And on that thought, goodnight.. Paul PS - as to your request to me to consider this and that specific case - I really cannot get into that: I am not paid to spend my life on this list, alas, any more than you are. I refer you to my earlier response to Steve (John?) Powell, and to read UFOs & UFOLOGY when it comes out, and to keeping your wits about you when dealing with cases, and not falling blindly into the cultural norm of perception about these things. If you find an alien craft, continue looking until you find galleons... For other Cohen/Devereux discussions
Click here Page from the website of: CohenUFO.org
UFO UpDates - Toronto - email@example.com
Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp - ++ 416-696-0304
A Hand-Operated E-Mail Subscription Service for the Study of UFO Related
To subscribe please send your first and last name to firstname.lastname@example.org
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: email@example.com
Financial support for this web server is provided by the Research Center Catalog.