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 - Hamilton

From: Bill Hamilton <skywatcher22@space.com>
Date: Wed, 05 Jun 2002 07:17:11 -0700 (PDT)
Fwd Date: Wed, 05 Jun 2002 22:54:55 -0400
Subject: Re: Death of Ufology - Hamilton


 >From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2002 19:35:20 -0400
 >Subject: Re: Death of Ufology

 >>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'.

Please name a subject that is objective. I really can't think
of one. About the closest is physics, yet from the physicists
I have interacted with I see large subjective factors and hell
of a lot of controversy, especially about theory.

 ><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).

If so-called 'ufology' were developed into a science with
graduates specializing in various disciplines such as "soil
sampling" what would call this subject? Crypto-aeronautics?
Unexplained aerial phenomena? Unexplained aerial phenomena that
sometimes sets down on the ground or is seen diving into bodies
of water? And how do we move the subject into the domain we
recognize as science?

 >>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.

Ahhh, a missing piece of this is that such UFOs might also be
described as "Unconventional Flying Objects" in that the
observed and reported behavior of the UFO does not conform to
expected conventional aeronautical behavior of known flying
objects. In particular when a structured craft is seen that
behaves as if it defies inertial and gravitational forces. This
is a key part of determining an unidentified classification in
my opinion and a most interesting facet of the phenomena
especially when engineers and inventors start to consider new
modes of propulsion.

 >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)

Now I know how I determined it was OI, but please explain,
Bruce, how you reached this interesting conclusion.

 >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.

We may not have access to all information on conventional
aircraft. I may have more access than some since I have a large
pool of aerospace engineers living in this valley and see many
test flights. However, if it is unconventional, that probably
will qualify it for unidentified in that all modes of
conventional propulsion have been identified so if some
unconventional mode is in use, it is either one of our best kept
secrets (possible) or it is directed by those mysterious OIs.

-Bill Hamilton




[ 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