From: John Rimmer <jrimmer.nul>
Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2004 22:18:44 +0100
Fwd Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 07:41:05 -0400
Subject: Re: New Mexico Governor Rekindles Roswell - Rimmer


>From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99.nul>
>To: ufoupdates.nul
>Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2004 22:31:55 +0000
>Subject: Re: New Mexico Governor Rekindles Roswell

>>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark.nul>
>>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>>Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2004 16:14:04 -0500
>>Subject: Re: New Mexico Governor Rekindles Roswell

>>I will leave it to the rest of you to decide how much sense John
>>Rimmer is making. I have said all I intend to say on the
>>subject, and Listfolk are free to judge which of us has the more
>>measured and defensible view.

>>Just so that John doesn't whine again that I've clipped out his
>>pearls of wisdom, those who are interested - and who don't know
>>it already - can easily find them in the UpDates archive, where
>>they are preserved, in all their rhetorical glory, for
>>posterity.

>Jerry,

>I am totally convinced that we ET hypothesizers (a.k.a., UFO
>believers), when we try to communicate with Rimmer et al.
>skeptics, skeptibunkers, pelicans, scoffers (whatever label they
>prefer) are talking past each other. It is clear beyond a
>shadow of a doubt that they assume (conclude, believe) that
>there are no truly anomaloius UFO sightings; all can be
>attrubuted to mistaken observations.

I wonder whether Jerry would, in fact, define himself as an 'ET
hypothesizer' or a 'UFO believer', as whenever I have challenged
him on his - as I see it - perceived support for the ETH he has
vigorously denied any such belief, maintaining that unexplained
UFO reports are merely that - unexplained. No matter how often I
have tried to persuade him to admit that he does accept the ETH,
he has always indignantly rejected the allegation.

>In the past, I have labeled this the Deluded Observer Hypothesis
>(conveniently reduced to the acronym DOH, pronounced Duh or
>Doh!). Given their mindset, it apparently is impossible for them
>to get past the idea that anyone who disagrees with the DOH must
>be (a) crazy, (b) mercenary, (c) dishonest, (d)..... They
>inevitably focus on known cases of misidentification and project
>from that to zero real evidence of "truly anomalous" events. The
>very terminology sets their teeth on edge.

The "Deluded Observer Hypothesis" must also apply to people who
have misidentified conventional visual stilumli, but refuse to
accept this fact, no matter how clearly it is demonstrated to
them - but I doubt that this is what Mr Hall means.

Incidently, my suggestion for (d) - and in my view tho most
likely explantion - is "must prefer an intriguing mystery to any
mundane explanation, however convincing"

>We wonder why they are so cock-sure that everythng reported can
>honestly and convincingly be placed into conventional
>pigeonholes. They seem to be outraged by the very claim that
>unexplained things are being seen (patterned, consistent,
>well-documented observations). We are totally puzzled by their
>notion that there cannot be unexplained things; that apparently
>is unacceptable in their worldview.

I have in the past pointed out a number of UFO incidents which I
do not feel have been adequately explained. I think that in many
cases this is due to the fact that we do not have all the
relevant information about thse events, but that does not mean
that they are not, in themselves, puzzling. I do however find it
hard to accept that some iconic cases, which seem to have been
adequately explained, are not accepted as such by ufologists who
prefer mystery to explanation.

>We keep pointing out that the ET answer is purely hypothetical
>and readily admit that it does not have irrefutable proof. We
>don't claim to know the ultimate truth, instead arguing that
>there is a lot of suggestive evidence that is not being properly
>investigated, and the ET answer (broadly defined) is certainly
>an open possibility. They implicitly claim to know the ultimate
>truth: all UFO reports can be explained as mundane or prosaic
>phenomena misinterpreted by the witnesses.

>I would be very interested to hear from the DOH believers as to
>how I have misrepresented or unfairly presented their viewpoint.
>My conviction is that they are sincerely but sadly mistaken, but
>in their cock-suredness they seem unable to assume the same for
>us.

Perhaps one way of ensuring that sceptical ufologists (other
than John Harney and myself) would enter into such a debate
would be by refraining from using childish epithets such as
"DOH" (we see The Simpsons in the UK too, you know, so we
understand the implied insult), 'Pelicanist', 'scoffers' and, my
least favourite, 'skeptibunkers'.


John Rimmer
Magonia Magazine
www.magonia.demon.co.uk/arc/00/newmag.htm