Misrepresentation?

I was sightly bemused by Matt Colborn’s reference to Charles Fort’s “misrepresenting the mundane as mysterious” [ FT415:58]. As I read Fort, he neither presents, represents, nor misrepresents anything. He simply shares the information and leaves us to make up our own minds about it, or ignore it.

Fictional FBI Agent Mulder’s problem was always that he wanted to believe. I am sure Fort would have been the first to ask “Why?” Personally, I have found being a fortean thoroughly liberating as I watch people latch onto pet beliefs to the extent of violently defending complete and utter claptrap. And generally when the truth reveals itself to me (like a UFO slowly morphing into a police helicopter through a misty temperature inversion) I am childishly delighted at finding the true solution, which is generally far more interesting than all the made-up stuff.

On the other hand, that metallic grey object that descended through thick cloud a couple of years ago remains unexplained. By the time I had found a place to park up and get out of the car it was gone but I am stumped for an explanation. If anyone suggests, with no supporting evidence, the activity of extraterrestrials, then (as a fortean) I am going to resort to Mr Fort’s ‘SuperSargasso Sea’ as my explanation. It is, after all, as plausible as any other old pet explanation, and I’m sure that was Fort’s point. Robert Johnston

By email