Pelicans AGAIN?
Copyright 2019, InterAmerica, Inc.
“The definition of pelicanism, which I elucidated in a recent post, is quite simple, and … its meaning is hardly obscure or arcane. I coined the neologism "pelicanist" in the awareness that"skeptic" and "debunker" finally don't mean all that much. Every thoughtful ufologist, including one inclined to suspicion or conviction that puzzling sighting reports may be attributable to an unknown, presumably nonearthly intelligence (ET or otherwise), is skeptical of many things claimed about UFOs; if active in research and investigation, he or she has surely done a fair amount of debunking him- or herself.
There is, after all, much to be skeptical about, and much that is eminently debunkable. "Pelicanism," on the other hand, addresses a psychosocial phenomenon heretofore not reducible to a single phrase. It defines the practice of ascribing _any_ explanation, however scientifically unsustainable, illogical, or fantastic, to a UFOevent or experience, in a desperate effort to deny that anything seriously anomalous may be going on. That is why I have suggested that pelicanists are advancing extraordinary claims masquerading as prosaic explanations.
Ideally, if what were at issue disinterested truth-seeking, even those who identify themselves as skeptics (or "sceptics") would disdain this practice just as sober proponents blast careless,loose-thinking UFO advocates in their midst. Unfortunately, as we have seen, what passes for "skepticism" as an active (as opposed to the outsiders' casual) position in theUFO controversy is often in practice an ideological stance, to be defended, as ideological turf always is, at all costs. Thus, the complaints we hear are addressed not to the practice of pelicanism, but to the phrase itself - as well, inevitably, to the one who initially drew attention to the emperor's feathery dress. Finally, of course, the phrase was meant to be amusing, taking off from a fairly recent, rather egregious case of the sort of excess described above. Those who whine that it's "no longer funny" were - here's a shock - not amused in the first place.”
Jerry Clark
An “exegetical” take on the Arnold sighting is available online and I suggest those who think Ken Arnold’s sighting – lately subliminal in UFO circles – read Martin Shough’s piece or keep it at hand in a file if you ever want to see how UFO sightings and/or events should be evaluated:
PBS had a program about the Mississippi River Wednesday
[July 3, 2019] which contained a segment about the ornithological White
Pelican.
Since we just passed the anniversary of the iconic Ken
Arnold UFO sighting on June 24, 1947 (and Bruce Maccabee was re-presenting his
book about the sighting on Facebook), I was reminded of the spirited brouhaha
at UFO UpDates about James Easton’s “theory” that Mr. Arnold actually saw white
pelicans in flight and mistook them for aircraft.
The idea was a hoot as far as most UFO Updaters saw it, and
Jerry Clark coined the term “pelicanist” for those accepting the “theory” as
plausible, ultimately extending the coined term to anyone who accepted “crazy
UFO scenarios” as authentic.
Jerry Clark on UFO Updates [February 21, 2005]:
There is, after all, much to be skeptical about, and much that is eminently debunkable. "Pelicanism," on the other hand, addresses a psychosocial phenomenon heretofore not reducible to a single phrase. It defines the practice of ascribing _any_ explanation, however scientifically unsustainable, illogical, or fantastic, to a UFOevent or experience, in a desperate effort to deny that anything seriously anomalous may be going on. That is why I have suggested that pelicanists are advancing extraordinary claims masquerading as prosaic explanations.
Ideally, if what were at issue disinterested truth-seeking, even those who identify themselves as skeptics (or "sceptics") would disdain this practice just as sober proponents blast careless,loose-thinking UFO advocates in their midst. Unfortunately, as we have seen, what passes for "skepticism" as an active (as opposed to the outsiders' casual) position in theUFO controversy is often in practice an ideological stance, to be defended, as ideological turf always is, at all costs. Thus, the complaints we hear are addressed not to the practice of pelicanism, but to the phrase itself - as well, inevitably, to the one who initially drew attention to the emperor's feathery dress. Finally, of course, the phrase was meant to be amusing, taking off from a fairly recent, rather egregious case of the sort of excess described above. Those who whine that it's "no longer funny" were - here's a shock - not amused in the first place.”
Jerry Clark
An “exegetical” take on the Arnold sighting is available online and I suggest those who think Ken Arnold’s sighting – lately subliminal in UFO circles – read Martin Shough’s piece or keep it at hand in a file if you ever want to see how UFO sightings and/or events should be evaluated:
I’ve always thought that Jim Easton’s explanation was not as
far-fetched as Jerry Clark and most UFO enthusiasts see it, even as Martin
Shough’s eminent appraisal makes it hard to believe that Ken Arnold could have
been so mistaken in his observation.
But seeing, in the PBS program, how pelicans fly, often in
formation, and considering their wingspan – up to nine feet – I’m not inclined
to readily throw out the pelican explanation, especially after getting the
feeling that Ken Arnold was a little shaky in his aftermath re-iteration of his
astounding observation.
So, I’m a designated “pelicanist” apparently.
But knowing how UFO witnesses often mistake mundane, common
“things” for UFOs – some less like UFO-pelicans – I think the laughter heaped
on Mr. Easton and the rest of us gullible UFO buffs is more about ufological
anxiety than our willingness to accept goofy but plausible explanations for the
UFO phenomenon.
After all, no one has come up with an acceptable explanation
for Ken Arnold’s UFOs, the extraterrestrial explanation even goofier than the
Pelican Theory.
RR
posted by RRRGroup at
Wednesday, July 03, 2019
|
19 comments
