UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2001 > Apr > Apr 21

Re: High Silliness on UFO UpDates - Connors

From: Wendy Connors <projectsign@worldnet.att.net>
Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 09:15:55 -0600
Fwd Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 13:23:58 -0400
Subject: Re: High Silliness on UFO UpDates - Connors


 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 14:15:28 EDT
 >Fwd Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 10:25:13 -0400
 >Subject: Re: High Silliness on UFO UpDates

 >>From: Wendy Connors <projectsign@worldnet.att.net>
 >>Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 10:01:10 -0600
 >>Subject: Re: High Silliness on UFO UpDates
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>They do have a more honest right to an opinion on ufology in all
 >>its forms based solely on having done the research, rather than
 >>those who have not or failed to unbiasly read their contributions.
 >>My bookshelf contains many examples of their acumen and
 >>research...I don't see anything by you on the shelf. Therefore,
 >>your opinion comes from the List rather than from your
 >>contributions to research.

 >Wendy, Anyone who read that:

 >Thanks for giving us this wonderful example of "the UFO Elite".
 >I thought that we were on a discussion List, but maybe I was
 >mistaken. Does this mean that if one is losing an argument,
 >here, that an appeal to "authority" can be the only acceptable
 >way to proceed?

 >My, my. That is what ufology always seems to be accusing
 >"science" of doing. Why, with this rule old Doc Menzel and Uncle
 >Phil would have to retain advanced positions on your library
 >shelves.

 >Based upon this, I can propose,

 >Wendy Connors' Default Law of Honest UFOlogy

 >In determining whether someone has The Honest Right to determine
 >The Truth, the weight of their argument shall be directly
 >proportional to the weight of their published output; with
 >double weight being assigned to self-published books, monographs
 >and articles in little flying saucer magazines; with an
 >adjustment of a triple weight being added to those works which
 >have only been read by participants with a "biased attitude". In
 >case of a dispute, the default setting shall be that of the
 >author with the more heavily footnoted pro-ETH position.

 >All kidding aside, this seems to be the 50 year methodology
 >of the science of ufology.


Hi Bob,

That was funny! Thank you!

However, (as usual, huh?), I wonder which has more weight and
credibility in the world... does a person who went to school to
become a doctor of medicine have more to offer in the way of
medical advise than a person who went to school and became a
plumber? The doctor will certainly not know everything in
medicine and probably only enough to change a washer in the
kitchen faucet, but the plumber too does not know everything
involving plumbing and enough to know that they are sick and
usually what it might be. Seems to me that cryptoaeronautical
researchers who go beyond reading the literature and digs into
archives and brings forth new material might know a lot more
than the person interested in UFOs, even if they have read
books. I'll give you an example:

In 1999 I traveled to Dayton, OH, spent several days interacting
with National Air Intelligence personnel, base historians,
former employees (both military and civilian) who worked at ATIC
from before WWII till their retirements. I brought back the
declassified official histories of Air Technical Intelligence
and T-2 Intelligence, which had never been known to exist and
had never been seen by researchers in the exoaeronautical
gendre. Now, since I had these histories wouldn't it make sense
that I would have information that superceded any other
researchers take or opinion regarding ATIC matters as it relates
to "UFO" investigation by the Air Force as it related to ATIC
history? I honestly think so. To me that is a no-brainer!

Do people interested in the genre of 'Ufology' have a right to
an opinion based upon their reading and understanding of the
material they have read? Certainly. Does their opinion carry the
exact same weight as the researcher who brought the material to
light and shared some of that material in their writings? Of
course not. Again, that's a no-brainer.

Does the researcher(s) who provide the new documentation, etc.
to the interested masses in the genre have an edge over personal
opinion obtained by people who got their information from their
work and not by thier own investigations, research, etc.? You
betcha! Does a researcher who accomplishes bringing new material
and documentation to the field become an elitist because of it?
Nope. Just more knowledgable on the topic than the lay person.

If it was not for the researcher who goes beyond a reading
interest in the field of cryptoaeronautics and then shares it
with the masses interested in the phenomena, there wouldn't be
any opinion to have by anyone. But I'd rather dig for the
goodies than take an undocumented opinion from someone. So, even
though I might not agree with the conclusions reached by a
researcher, I certainly am obligated to respect their efforts
and thank them for giving me new documentation to digress over
as I make my way forward to better understanding of the
scenarios that went into the investigation and understanding of
the phenomenon.

Experience and informed opinion counts a lot more than personal
opinion no matter how you want to slice it.


Wendy Connors






[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |

UFO UpDates Main Index

UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp


Archive programming by Glenn Campbell at Glenn-Campbell.com