From: Bruce Maccabee <firstname.lastname@example.org> Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2002 19:35:20 -0400 Fwd Date: Wed, 05 Jun 2002 09:04:23 -0400 Subject: Re: Death of Ufology - Maccabee >From: Amy Hebert <email@example.com> >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <firstname.lastname@example.org> >Subject: Re: Death of Ufology - Hebert >Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2002 19:17:08 -0500 >>From: Wendy Connors <FadedDiscs@comcast.net> >>To: UFO Updates <UFOUpdates@virtuallystrange.net> >>Subject: Death of Ufology >>Date: Sun, 02 Jun 2002 00:21:21 -0600 >>Ufology is in a state of self denial. For most intents and >>purposes it appears to be a dead issue. Why is this? Because it >>is practiced by few and infiltrated by the many, who fail to >>realize the importance of the phenomena as a scientific endeavor >>worthy of respect and appreciation for its unique nomenclature >>of a mystery needing clear explanation. >Excellent review, Wendy! If I may, I'd like to add a few comments. >Ufology _is_ dead. It could never be called a science simply >because the lack of objectivity was always clearly stated right >there in the name of this field of study - 'UFO-logy'. <snip> >Well, to make a long story short, I _thought_ I saw a UFO (or a >puddy-tat?). >But after I hung up the phone, I realized anything using >camouflage- as this thing was doing - is also perpetrating a >deception. From that moment on I began questioning everything >and believing... nothing. Amusing. The last chapter in my abduction book - Abduction In My Life - has the title... Question Everything! >This is where Ufology ends and science >begins. Interesting discussion, Amy. Of course "ufology" is not a "science" but is rather and collection of related information to which scientific methods can be applied. Unfortunately, generally only partial science has been applied (propose an explanation and then go away without carrying through the scientific method by proving the explanation is satisfactory). >I have no need to prove UFOs or aliens exist. Since 'UFO' means >'unidentified flying object', of course they exist. Anything >that flies and is unidentified to even one person is, >theoretically, a UFO. Since 'alien' means a being that is not >human (or from over the border) and/or from another planet, it >is likely that 'aliens' exist somewhere in such a vast universe. Research must first be oriented to discovering the nature of a >phenomenon and defining what it is or is not before it can be >proven to exist or not exist. Well, from the skeptical point of view "UFO" means something unidentified as far as the witness is concerned, but that doesn't necessarily mean unidentifiable. Most UFO sightings are reports of identifiable phenomena (misidentifications, hoaxes or delusions). The rub comes when someone has the fortitude (some might say gonads) to say that such and such a sighting is completely unidentifiable, i.e., after investigation by experts the report is determine to contain information about a phenomenon that absolutely cannot be identified as being a presently known (s cientifically accepted) phenomenon. A phenomenon that remains unidentified after investigation is what I call a TRue UFO or TRUFO. This could be some previously known natural (read that, unintelligent) phenomenon or it might appear to be an intelligent phenomenon (or evidence of intelligence, but not human intelligence... Other Intelligence) A skeptic/debunker would simply proclaim there are no reports of TRUFOs. I, on the other hand, having agonized over sighting analyses for years, and after having Questioned Everything....,. I claim there are reports of TRUFOs. Of even more interest, there are TRUFO reports which provide evidence of the presence of Other Intelligences. >I not only base my research on a study of objects sighted either >on land, in the air, in space or in water that lack immediate i>dentification and/or explanation but also on possible >correlations between these objects and identified objects. >Before I can study an unknown, I must first find one. >Just because a flying object cannot be identified according to >current standards of what constitutes "conventional aircraft" >does not mean it cannot be man-made or attributed to other >variables. Repeatedly I have come across declarations that an >object "cannot" be man-made and is, therefore, a genuine (or >"true") UFO in dozens of cases I have reviewed (often in reports >by prominent researchers and investigators). How can one know it >is not man-made if we do not have access to all the information >about man-made or "conventional" aircraft? To rule out any >possibility is to automatically bias a study and limit analyses. Yes, but in some cases it is possible to rule out things. For example, in the hallowed Arnold case, the report indicated objects traveling at twice the speed of sound. Initially people considered the POSSIBILITY that these objects were new developments of the Air Force. But when the military searched itself for any such developments it found nothing and said so publicly (and also to J. Edgar Hoover... who had a need to know :) ). Hence, man-made craft were ruled out. As many of you know, it has taken about 50 years to finally find the solution: supersonic pelicans.
[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp