Pelicans AGAIN?

Copyright 2019, InterAmerica, Inc.

“The definition of pelicanism, which I elucidated in a recentpost, 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. Everythoughtful ufologist, including one inclined to suspicion orconviction that puzzling sighting reports may be attributable toan unknown, presumably nonearthly intelligence (ET orotherwise), is skeptical of many things claimed about UFOs; ifactive in research and investigation, he or she has surely donea fair amount of debunking him- or herself. There is, after all,much to be skeptical about, and much that is eminentlydebunkable. “Pelicanism,” on the other hand, addresses a psychosocialphenomenon heretofore not reducible to a single phrase. Itdefines the practice of ascribing _any_ explanation, howeverscientifically unsustainable, illogical, or fantastic, to a UFOevent or experience, in a desperate effort to deny that anythingseriously anomalous may be going on. That is why I havesuggested that pelicanists are advancing extraordinary claimsmasquerading as prosaic explanations. Ideally, if what were at issue disinterested truth-seeking, eventhose who identify themselves as skeptics (or “sceptics”) woulddisdain this practice just as sober proponents blast careless,loose-thinking UFO advocates in their midst. Unfortunately, as we have seen, what passes for “skepticism” asan active (as opposed to the outsiders’ casual) position in theUFO controversy is often in practice an ideological stance, tobe defended, as ideological turf always is, at all costs. Thus,the complaints we hear are addressed not to the practice ofpelicanism, but to the phrase itself – as well, inevitably, tothe one who initially drew attention to the emperor’s featherydress. Finally, of course, the phrase was meant to be amusing, takingoff from a fairly recent, rather egregious case of the sort ofexcess described above. Those who whine that it’s “no longerfunny” 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 handin a file if you ever want to see how UFO sightings and/or events should be evaluated: 

http://ufocon.blogspot.com – The UFO Iconoclast(s)