UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2002 > Jun > Jun 5

Re: Death of Ufology - Maccabee

From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
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 <yellowrose129@attbi.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >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'.


 >Well, to make a long story short, I _thought_ I saw a UFO (or a

 >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

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

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

 >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 Main Index

UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp

Archive programming by Glenn Campbell at Glenn-Campbell.com