October 20, 2013 Jerome Clark

[smcder]

OK, but I think the relevance to the discussion here is that 1) I think experience and event are useful categories until we understand if and how they relate to one another and that we don't have to give up on understanding and classifying UFO experience reports even if we can't understand them from the outside; mystical experience is subjective but has been analyzed by Huxley and Evelyn Underhill (notably among many others) so maybe there are some useful tools there as well as in apophatic theology because it shows how you can talk about something in terms of what it is not and 2) maybe Plantinga's ideas offer something useful to an experiencer in terms of supporting the beliefs they may form following an experience -

 

[smcder]

so i will try to put some of this over on the thread you created but I also hope to see if there is anything in the above ideas that's useful here . . . or if I'm just imagining things . . . ! and to be clear, the point is not to take this discussion in a religious direction - but to see if we can borrow tools from another area or field -

 

[smcder]

i think if you are an older man, and you have spent real time with women, have daughers, sisters, mothers, grandmothers etc. then you are always working through this social ill.

the more men talk openly about those facts and their feelings about sexual assault and violence, the more chance we have on working through that culturally frontloaded tragedy. Be well, brother.

thank you Burnt State and agreed - i have such people in my life and also some experience working with homeless and mentally ill women and the abuse they deal with and also as a self-defense instructor (actually, i was the guy who wore the suit and took the beating - what i have learned is that once women give themselves permission in a given situation, they have an equal if not superior willingness and capacity to inflict physical damage as men and i have the marks to prove this!) . . . yes we need men to step up and speak openly about all aspects of this, thanks again

 

[Burnt State]

Certainly many of the reports of individuals can dance right out onto the mystical disco floor of wild lights, beams and odd figures in the night. I see them on a sliding scale in the phenomenon with hard core verifiable cases on the other end. Inbetween are reasonable reports from rational folk that appear to reinforce the idea of an advanced technology interacting in our atmosphere. It's when we start interacting with creatures, or the nature of the anomalous experience feels more like voices from a bunrning bush.

I'm not too sure what belief in those voices has gotten us beyond the contactee, environmental mystical denominations of UFO experiences, channelers and believers. Some of the contactee literature is fascinating and surreal, and I wonder how much of it has to do with mania, schizophrenia and other delusional human biological experiences.

When you do look at say the Catholic mystics, you see some simple parallels between their prolific writings about their beliefs, experiences of contact and messages of light and love and transformation. There is also the notion that they were the ones chosen specifically to spread the good news etc..

 

[smcder]

i think you might like both Huxley "Perennial Philosophy" and Underhill "Mysticism" - both pretty meticulous in their work on mysticism - also examine your definition of "imagination" - can anyone actually make anything out of whole cloth? and if so, isn't that a pretty extraordinary capacity? would that be predicted from strictly biological requirements?

I wonder how much of it has to do with mania, schizophrenia and other delusional human biological experiences
I direct you to a podcast called "Madness Radio" that looks at such experiences from another perspective . . . and no, I don't fully agree with the overall tone of the podcast, nor am I anti-psychiatry - I do think things go wrong with the brain from a biological standpoint, but that is going to be extremely complicated, right? b/c the part that is functioning is going to go ahead and try to make sense of it all - i have been diagnosed with bi-polar disorder and had some interesting experiences myself and i think biology plays a role - i've had some benefit from medication - but it's impossible to tell how much of a role - that fluctuates moment by moment and i've had some pretty strange thoughts that i feel like come from a "clean" biological slate - so are a reflection of a well ordered nervous state - and not every anamolous state is a "disorder" . . . DSM V not withstanding (talk about "cultural front-loading"; rolls eyes . . . )

 

[Randall]

"The core UFO phenomenon is alien visitation, plain and simple. It's as proven as it needs to be."

Right. But first my apologies for the lateness of my reply. I was just scrolling back and looking for something else when I noticed your post and wondered why it had not caught my attention sooner. If you don't mind a tip, this probably happened because you didn't use the "Reply" button which automatically puts a notification to the person quoted in the list on the "Alert" segment of the link bar at the top of the page. So that's where I look first for responses, and the link takes me right to the post. If you don't want to quote an entire post, you can always delete the parts that aren't relevant in the editor. Then whomever you're quoting will still get the notification that you replied to their post.

When I read or hear such a definitive statement from someone, it's fascinating to me and I like to try and understand the thought process that led to that person's conclusion. So, if you don't mind, ufology, I have a few questions. Now, before I ask anything, I know that I am inviting potential castigation for not being a researcher and field investigator. I understand that that is the currency in many UFO cliques, so please forgive me for being a layman. Also, I would ask that you understand the skepticism that is prompting me to ask these questions. I am surely not trying to offend you and I am not saying you are wrong. I am just trying to understand.

Hey no worries. and I wouldn't call you a layman, if for no other reason than I just don't like the word. For starters I don't like the way it sounds ( lame man ), and it also seems to imply some elitist and undeserved status on the so-called experts. This isn't to say that I don't recognize that some people are smarter than others and have more specialized knowledge, but I've also seen plenty of laypeople make perfectly valid points that are unfairly sloughed off in the name of status or credentials. I say to Hell with that. There will be no unfair castigating going on here.

So, if I may ask a few questions:

How do you define the "core UFO phenomenon"?

See this article: http://ufopages.com/Content/Reference/UFO-01a.htm

Are there certain types of cases you would consider as part of the core phenomenon and others you consider as lying outside of it?

Yes. Although the prime concern of ufology is alien visitation as manifested primarily in the observation and/or detection of alien craft, there are a series of other types of cases that move us further and further away from the core subject matter, but are still part of ufology. For example ufology began as the study of UFOs, or more specifically, UFO sighting reports. Then came the encounter cases, followed by the contactee cases, and the abduction cases. Each of these are related to the core subject matter, but also move more and more toward what we'd call fringe ufology. Then we get into the stories of MIB, government collusion with aliens, ancient aliens, and so on. After that we move into the possible relationships between alien visitation and supernatural phenomena ( ghosts, hauntings, teleportation, etc. ). All these things fall at some distance from the center of our radar where the craft themselves sit.

Within these core phenomenon cases, what sorts of accounts or evidence contribute to your conclusion that the issue falls squarely within ETH parameters?

I don't conclude that UFOs fall squarely within ETH parameters. I conclude that UFO fall squarely within alien parameters. By alien, I mean from beyond the boundaries and constructs of known civilization, including any secret projects attached to it. I think the ETH is the most likely explanation, but we still don't have sufficient evidence ( at least in the public domain ), to be totally certain. If I were to offer an answer as to why I think the ETH is the most reasonable hypothesis, it's because the ETH can be arrived at through a process of deductive reasoning.

In your view, what role does the observer or experiencer play in the encounter? Is that person simply bearing witness or being acted upon?

The answer depends on how you view those terms. If the witness is simply someone who happens to observe a UFO at some distance as it goes about its business, then that person is simply bearing witness, and the only thing acting upon them are the photons reflecting or being emitted by the UFO that makes it visible to the observer. In other reports, it seems that there is an intent by the objects to make their presence known, while they still remain elusive enough to avoid capture. Then there are reports where UFOs seem to have had physical effects on both equipment and witnesses. Lastly we get into claims of abductions and telepathic contact. So there is a full range of experience from the objective to the subjective.

Thank you for giving me an opportunity to answer your questions !

 

[TS1]

I was born in the early 70's. As a child in school I was taught that without scientific question our climate was cooling and we were headed for an ice age and that years of industrial pollution were leading us to that point. Now today, as Jerome said, there is undeniable, empirical scientific evidence of global warming...

I'll admit I'm very doubtful of global warming/change, as it's presented. That said, I believe quite firmly in science, but I also believe science is a learning process and we're far from done. Why do other fields of science make mistakes and change over time, yet global change science is done, the answer is forever solved? Why are people branded so harshly for disagreeing with this one particular arm of science? If someone stood up and said they believed the human genome was mapped incorrectly would they risk being called mentally ill?

I love the fact that The Paracast is about hard research and continually questioning, but I just don't understand why someone like me can't question this particular area without being being branded "anti-science." (I've never heard a "climate denier" invoke God or something superstitious, they just question the validity of the data, it's completeness and human motivations.) I would think those not necessarily following the popular view of the day would receive a more sympathetic hand on a show about the paranormal. I realize that probably sounds sarcastic, but it's not meant that way at all. I have the utmost respect for the show, Gene and Chris.

 

[Randall]

I love the fact that The Paracast is about hard research and continually questioning, but I just don't understand why someone like me can't question this particular area without being being branded "anti-science."

Can you link us to a specific example?

 

[Wade]

Towards the latter part of the program the guys touched on the ole "prime directive" clause which is of course...afaik...a made up tv scenario. But if there were an extraterrestrial civilization that did follow this protocol and was mucking about, I could see where an abduction phenomenon would be considered an experience phenomenon as opposed to an event phenomenon because an abduction would most certainly be a case where we were being interfered with. Having said that if one takes certain biblical events in account and those events mentioned in the Mahabharata, it would seem that ET...or whoever it was involved....wasn't terribly concerned about interfered with other civilizations.

 

[Burnt State]

Towards the latter part of the program the guys touched on the ole "prime directive" clause which is of course...afaik...a made up tv scenario.

When you look through UFO history you do seem to run up against some type of prime directive. I don't subscribe to any of the ancient alien paradigms where new school technology is being dished out to the early heathens or worshippers of Osiris. Humans are a pretty inventive lot and things like, gears, calendars, computers, electricity, rock carving and good math seem to come naturally no matter the century.

I don't see any evidence in history that the UFO phenomenon has been helping or hindering us. They seem to be only in observation mode along wth the occasional evasive, indifferent and visible intrusion into our our space.

So while the prime directive is an invention of sci-fi authorship, it appears to be in effect when it comes to the planet earth. Besides, all the really good ideas come from imaginative authors and then reality follows suit by emulating fiction.

All those religious tales serve to demonstrate just how low human self-esteem really is, in that we insist on claiming/needing guidance from the chariots of the gods. The truth of the matter is that we invent stuff, just like the UFO occupants, and maybe those super advanced Type III civilizations see a little of us in their own ancient pasts, making us a quaint and romantic connection to previous versions of themselves. Like any good visitor to the zoo they choose not to feed the animals.

 

[Randall]

When you look through UFO history you do seem to run up against some type of prime directive. I don't subscribe to any of the ancient alien paradigms where new school technology is being dished out to the early heathens or worshippers of Osiris. Humans are a pretty inventive lot and things like, gears, calendars, computers, electricity, rock carving and good math seem to come naturally no matter the century.

I don't see any evidence in history that the UFO phenomenon has been helping or hindering us. They seem to be only in observation mode along wth the occasional evasive, indifferent and visible intrusion into our our space.

So while the prime directive is an invention of sci-fi authorship, it appears to be in effect when it comes to the planet earth. Besides, all the really good ideas come from imaginative authors and then reality follows suit by emulating fiction.

All those religious tales serve to demonstrate just how low human self-esteem really is, in that we insist on claiming/needing guidance from the chariots of the gods. The truth of the matter is that we invent stuff, just like the UFO occupants, and maybe those super advanced Type III civilizations see a little of us in their own ancient pasts, making us a quaint and romantic connection to previous versions of themselves. Like any good visitor to the zoo they choose not to feed the animals.

But can we really be 100% certain that ancient aliens in the various mythologies are 100% fictional? I'm not so sure we can, and that opens the door to a whole range of possibilities. If as you allude to, the aliens know better than to feed the animals in the zoo ( us ), how much more of the zoo analogy may be applicable? Like who are the zookeepers? We do everything from capturing to feeding to breeding to genetic experimentation. What about them?

 

[Burnt State]

But can we really be 100% certain that ancient aliens in the various mythologies are 100% fictional? I'm not so sure we can, and that opens the door to a whole range of possibilities. If as you allude to, the aliens know better than to feed the animals in the zoo ( us ), how much more of the zoo analogy may be applicable? Like who are the zookeepers? We do everything from capturing to feeding to breeding to genetic experimentation. What about them?

Ok, now this thread is starting to really get under my skin in a good way.

What I don't like about the field of UFO theory is "the whole range of possibilities" that constantly offers up a potpourri of trajectories in place of any real direction. I'm much more comfortable dropping the entire ancient alien discussion off the table in favour of discussing what we do actually know about the phenomenon.

There are a few lines and ideas from the Paracast archives that repeat for me and resonate:

• We are someone else's property.
• Ufo's are here to make us think.
• & Jerome Clark's discussion on experience and event anomalies.

There are others but these are the ones that stick. James E. MacDonald, and some of Vallee, also sticks for me. I haven't read Keel's Trojan Horse, yet so I can't comment except to say that I firmly believe the whole Mothman thing is a total concoction, a unique set of events arranged into a surprising tapestry. That would be writer as trickster.

The zoo keeper analogy works really well for me, but then, as you say, capturing, feeding, breeding, and genetic experimentation do seem to get implied in the abduction literature and then, even the ancient aliens' narrative starts to fit as a corner piece for this puzzle.

Thankfully, because I do not have any reasonable proof for either of these two scenarios, I can dismiss them both and continue to think about whether or not there are any other clues that need to be considered, such as why humans start to go all loopy most of the time whenever they describe actual contact with lifeforms? And why, when the life forms appear more human, do things start to calm down? Travis Walton appears to combine both these experiences into one narrative - go figure.

I also spend a lot of time thinking about all those documented occurrences of fish, frog, blood, flesh, fungal spores and small alligators falling from the sky. These inexplicable moments in time also appear to be here, as strange visitations from the sky, to also make us think.

 

[Randall]

Ok, now this thread is starting to really get under my skin in a good way.

What I don't like about the field of UFO theory is "the whole range of possibilities" that constantly offers up a potpourri of trajectories in place of any real direction. I'm much more comfortable dropping the entire ancient alien discussion off the table in favour of discussing what we do actually know about the phenomenon.

I tend to agree. When we talk about ancient aliens, IMO we're getting out into fringe ufology. Core ufology is about alien visitation as indicated by their craft ( UFOs ) and the best evidence for that so far has been gathered during the Modern Era ( in ufology ). This is what gives ufology both a foundation and a direction.

There are a few lines and ideas from the Paracast archives that repeat for me and resonate:

• We are someone else's property.
• Ufo's are here to make us think.
• & Jerome Clark's discussion on experience and event anomalies.

Those are interesting points to ponder, but they can coax us off course as much or more than ancient aliens. So why do they resonate more with you? Is it the personalities associated with the statements or the statements themselves?

There are others but these are the ones that stick. James E. MacDonald, and some of Vallee, also sticks for me. I haven't read Keel's Trojan Horse, yet so I can't comment except to say that I firmly believe the whole Mothman thing is a total concoction, a unique set of events arranged into a surprising tapestry. That would be writer as trickster.

The zoo keeper analogy works really well for me, but then, as you say, capturing, feeding, breeding, and genetic experimentation do seem to get implied in the abduction literature and then, even the ancient aliens' narrative starts to fit as a corner piece for this puzzle.

Thankfully, because I do not have any reasonable proof for either of these two scenarios, I can dismiss them both and continue to think about whether or not there are any other clues that need to be considered, such as why humans start to go all loopy most of the time whenever they describe actual contact with lifeforms? And why, when the life forms appear more human, do things start to calm down? Travis Walton appears to combine both these experiences into one narrative - go figure.

I also spend a lot of time thinking about all those documented occurrences of fish, frog, blood, flesh, fungal spores and small alligators falling from the sky. These inexplicable moments in time also appear to be here, as strange visitations from the sky, to also make us think.

Seems to me that it's not beyond possibility that a tornado going through swampland could pick up all that stuff, send it way up into the sky where it's caught in some wind current and deposits it all miles away. I'd catalog those as unusual natural occurrences. UFOs, not no much.

 

[Burnt State]

Those are interesting points to ponder, but they can coax us off course as much or more than ancient aliens. So why do they resonate more with you? Is it the personalities associated with the statements or the statements themselves?

Who knows why one person's truth moves them? What I do know is that the first time I heard each of these points, just like the time the hidden biological trickster planet thing made me stand up and take notice, I felt something click inside. It said to me, "That makes sense."

The idea of being property is a vey interesting thought experiment that answers the impossibility of us being here on earth by chance, and it suggests that we ourselves are nothing but an experiment, and as property we seem to have a lot of freedom to explore. Perhaps we can escape our shackles, transcend our human limitations and invent AI, and one day send peopled space flights out of the solar system and beyond. As property we do ok.

Ufo's do make us think, hence the forum. What other major effect have they had on us besides making us rethink our position in the grand scheme of things, including our own limitations. If they can do that cool stuff up in the sky, why can't we?

As for Clark, as seen up above, it is not the personality I ever care about, though the personalities can be quite entertaining. I'm much more fascinated by the idea chains, and anything that can categorize the phenomenon in a way that allows us to talk about it more concretely and specifically.

Seems to me that it's not beyond possibility that a tornado going through swampland could pick up all that stuff, send it way up into the sky where it's caught in some wind current and deposits it all miles away. I'd catalog those as unusual natural occurrences. UFOs, not no much.

Nope, some of these stories really do go beyond the whole swept up in a wind current thing. How do you get just a collection of red spores? Human flesh, sinew and blood? Frogs from a continent away? My favourite descriptions is before the deluge, an Amercan mid-century couple watches a dark cloud move across the sky, it unloads its rain of frogs relentlessly, and then the cloud is white again, and suddenly disperses. Reminds me of some of those UFO's inside the cloud stories. I think there's something going on there that's pretty bizarre.

 

[Randall]

Nope, some of these stories really do go beyond the whole swept up in a wind current thing. How do you get just a collection of red spores? Human flesh, sinew and blood? Frogs from a continent away? My favourite descriptions is before the deluge, an Amercan mid-century couple watches a dark cloud move across the sky, it unloads its rain of frogs relentlessly, and then the cloud is white again, and suddenly disperses. Reminds me of some of those UFO's inside the cloud stories. I think there's something going on there that's pretty bizarre.

Well, I'm the first to agree that strange things can and do happen. Perhaps water spouts and jet streams aren't the answer in every case. But I'm still just more inclined to think of these types of events as unexplained natural events rather than the type of thing that we have with UFOs. To me UFOs are a different class of unexplained phenomena altogether. You might find this link to Wikipedia interesting if you haven't already checked it out.: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_rain

 

[smcder]

Regarding Wikipedia as a source . . . I heard this on the Skeptiko podcast recently, I haven't had time to follow the links - but I wanted to post this and then come back to it this evening after I've read everything . . . maybe someone else has gone in depth into this?

Back in March of 2013, Robert McLuhan published an article on the organized effort of Skeptics/Atheists to rig Wikipedia (Guerrilla Skeptics). By organizing themselves into a tight-knit team and dedicating themselves to making literally thousands rule-bending Wikipedia changes, these self-described Guerrilla Skeptics have had remarkable success. For example, Parapsychology is a lost cause on Wikipedia. It’s absolutely impossible to get anything close to a “neutral point of view” from Wikipedia on any parapsychology topic. If you don’t know what I mean, and you have a strong stomach, go to Wikipedia see for yourself. If you’re a listener to Skeptiko, and you have a really strong stomach, search “psychic detective.” Now, if you are appropriately outraged, and have a strong masochistic streak, enter Wikipedia as an editor and try and straighten out one of those pages. I mean, you’re supposed to be able to do that, right? Wikipedia is an open-source encyclopedia. Anyone with knowledge of the subject is supposed to be able to edit, right? But before you try and fix things over at Wikipedia read this blog post from Craig Weiler titled, The Wikipedia Battle for Rupert Sheldrake’s Biography. And then take a look at Dr. Rupert Sheldrake’s article on the same topic (Wikipedia Under Attack).

 

[Burnt State]

Well, I'm the first to agree that strange things can and do happen. Perhaps water spouts and jet streams aren't the answer in every case. But I'm still just more inclined to think of these types of events as unexplained natural events rather than the type of thing that we have with UFOs. To me UFOs are a different class of unexplained phenomena altogether. You might find this link to Wikipedia interesting if you haven't already checked it out.: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_rain

I don't know ufology, I think it's within the realm of many possibilities that the occupants of those interplanetary craft throw weird stuff out the cargo hold just to fatten up our brains and bodies.

Of course the core phenomenon of craft in the sky, radar confirmation, multiple witnesses and trace evidence is all that can be studied and theorized. All the other stories, like things falling fom the sky, Bigfoot being controlled by alien lifeforms, AP and poltergeist activity following UFO witnessed phenomenon are simply experiences that distract us. They colour the narrative with too many possibilities. I think those left turns take us to the twilight zone of unconfirmation, and as we've discussed previously, is about our own sense perception being distorted for reasons unknown.

Maybe we need better measuring and observational instruments to learn more about these craft. Perhaps those tools have yet to be invented? And while we are waiting on advanced tech should we be training ourselves to see things differently?

 

[Randall]

I don't know ufology, I think it's within the realm of many possibilities that the occupants of those interplanetary craft throw weird stuff out the cargo hold just to fatten up our brains and bodies.

Hilarious man . Great way to start the day with that insert ( a bona fide classic ! ).

Of course the core phenomenon of craft in the sky, radar confirmation, multiple witnesses and trace evidence is all that can be studied and theorized. All the other stories, like things falling fom the sky, Bigfoot being controlled by alien lifeforms, AP and poltergeist activity following UFO witnessed phenomenon are simply experiences that distract us. They colour the narrative with too many possibilities. I think those left turns take us to the twilight zone of unconfirmation, and as we've discussed previously, is about our own sense perception being distorted for reasons unknown.

Maybe we need better measuring and observational instruments to learn more about these craft. Perhaps those tools have yet to be invented? And while we are waiting on advanced tech should we be training ourselves to see things differently?

Should we be training ourselves to see things differently? I guess that depends on who you mean by "we". You seem to have a pretty solid grip on things. I tend to think I do as well ( though I'm sure some would argue that point ). In general I think that training ourselves to be better at critical thinking is very important. Skepticism ( merely doubting ) is too shallow and leads to denial of the experiences. Debunking is technically better than skepticism, but it has taken on a hostile connotation that also leads to denial. Science is an excellent tool, but too specialized. However critical thinking allows us to examine the evidence in a rational manner using whatever tools and methods are available ( including science when applicable ). It gets us much further than any other approach, while avoiding the pitfalls of denial.

 

[Jeff Davis]

Just an observation: Jerry REALLY disappointed me in this show which I listened to for the first time last night. Holy bias fests! He blasts Vallee as being well outside the confines of factual reasoning via his culturally relevant control mechanism model, without ANYTHING of substance to relegate to his own hypothetical positioning apart from a event/experience scenario?

Seems that Jerry is afraid to venture a guess if that guess threatens his uncertainty.

Using this same reasoning, there is NOTHING missing in terms of our vocabulary to describe sentient experience involving a foreign external intelligence agent. It's just that people like Jerry are afraid to use such a vocabulary outside the realm of certainty. That's what fear does to the confused. It forces them to halt in an effort to better access that threat. The only problem with this flawed instinctual response is that quite often, those doing the contemplating, are devoured in the process.

In this sense, empirical scientific (what a CONTRADICTION!!!) ufology (there is NO such thing!!) better get a move on if it hopes to survive Jerry's feigned science deficiency.

The ONLY REAL motivator when it comes to public distrust of the scientific community is how precisely science has been relegated to just another commercial enterprise. That wasn't even mentioned in the conversation. TOTAL BIAS.

Jerry spent a whole lot of time justifying something he could have gotten out of the way with three easy words. Namely: I don't know.

 

[smcder]

"The ONLY REAL motivator when it comes to public distrust of the scientific community is how precisely science has been relegated to just another commercial enterprise. That wasn't even mentioned in the conversation. TOTAL BIAS."
I'm not sure it's the only motivator but I was thinking about what is portrayed as science to the general public is much more often applied science/ development of technology instead of basic research and what we see of that really is corporate/commercial enterprise

Research and Development: Essential Foundation for U.S. Competitiveness in a Global Economy

The discussion also generally reminded me of what seems to be a tremendous dis-satisfaction with mainstream medical treatment and growing interest in alternative medical treatments - a very complicated thing but one aspect of which I think may be a greater feeling of control and understanding by the user of alternative treatments - you can purchase them freely and apply them at home without dealing with the time/cost and complexity of accessing the mainstream medical system. (I am not saying there is no scientific support for alternative medicine) And there is also a tie in here with I believe Chris' idea that an understanding of science isn't available even to working researchers in an adjacent field, much less the layperson.

As a personal example - I was very sick a few years back and was eventually referred to a psychiatrist b/c of what appeared to be severe depression. I was referred to a specialist for ECT (electro-convulsive therapy) - I did my research before going in and then asked the doctor for an explanation of how ECT worked (I'd found at least a dozen "possible theories" online but no consensus of why or even clear indications of for whom ECT would work - it seemed to be a spin of the roulette wheel) - the doctor, whose specialty practice consisted almost entirely of giving ECT treatment as the preferred treatment for depression (even for non-treatment resistant depression) gave me the "rebooting your computer analogy" as the best he could offer. I was shown a video on the advances in ECT technology (a muscle block is applied so there are no convulsions) and the side-effects (memory loss, short and possibly long term) and the need for continuing treatments (in blocks of six over two weeks and then less frequently for an indefinite period of time) but I went away with little confidence in the technology and less in the doctor; rejecting the ECT treatments offered. Later, my GP tested me for Rocky Mountain Spotted Tick Fever and treated me with doxycycline (approved in 1967) and I began to feel better within three days and made a full recovery . . . but as a result of basic diagnostic work - the process of specialization and referral failed me and it was only my own sense that what the experts were telling me might not be true.