UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2002 > Jun > Jun 15

Re: Request For Investigative & Remedial

From: John Velez <johnvelez.aic@verizon.net>
Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2002 14:11:09 -0400
Fwd Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2002 17:42:43 -0400
Subject: Re: Request For Investigative & Remedial


 >From: Bruce Hutchinson <bhutch@grassyhill.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 23:04:49 -500
 >Subject: Re: Request For Investigative & Remedial Intervention

 >>From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.com>
 >>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 09:51:29 EDT
 >>Subject: Re: Request For Investigative & Remedial Intervention

 >Kevin, List and Readers

 ><snip>

 >>This, I believe illustrates one of the points I have been trying
 >>to make about peer review. Here is a case that is solved and yet
 >>we are discussing it again.

 ><snip>

 >Now that everyone can be a 'publisher' on the 'net, I predict
 >that this case will still be hotly debated, and figure
 >prominently in many an 'Authoritive UFO Casebook', 50 years from
 >now - despite all efforts to  debunk the story.

 >The fact that "The Cookie Recipe" urban myth is still
 >circulating, and many will vouch for it's authenticity, speaks
 >volumes for the refusal of a good story to go away.

 >I have mentioned this before, but professional UFO investigators
 >have to distance themselves. There are thousands of barrack-room
 >lawyers out there, and they will always attract a certain
 >segment of the population. Yet the legal profession has
 >established a *certain* amount of credibility (...well, OK! So
 >maybe this was a bad example!:) ) through a professional
 >certification board.

 >Some sort of Professional Association or Committee to establish
 >professional guidelines and credentials is urgently needed.

 >Kevin's notion of a "peer review"... that I think will be
 >difficult. There is an awful lot of noise, and the signals just
 >get lost. Look at all the other Case Review boards that have
 >analyzed UFO reports over the years. Each has managed to use a
 >different signal/noise filter, and ended up being castigated by
 >large segments of the UFO Community for their choices, and their
 >conclusions.

Hi Bruce,

First... Dick Hall has posted _several_ excellent proposals for
a ufological 'oversight' board or panel that have all been
uniformly ignored. A good place to start might be to go back in
the UpDates archives, dig up Dick Halls' proposals, and maybe
try to 'fine tune' and hopefully implement one of them. No need
to reinvent the wheel. Dick Halls' proposals are a great head
start on an already difficult task.

You wrote:

 >It would be interesting though, if all published reports - books,
 >articles, magazines, and even (...gasp!) TV 'documentaries'

Oh don't be such a snob, Bruce. Where else can the average
person get to see and hear the Mantell family? (For instance)
When hunting for information, _any_ source is a good one. TV
_can_ be every bit as useful and valuable for gleaning
information as print or any other media.

I'm not Stan Friedman or Kevin Randle or Wendy Conners etc. I
don't have the same access to the 'live' witnesses that they do.
Paltry few on the List do. When something like the Mantell piece
shows up (where the whole family is assembled and interviewed)
it is more than mere mind-numbing TV made for couch potatoes.
Something like the Mantell interviews can become a bona fide
historical document. With as much weight and importance as any
other record of history.

And please don't tell me that you've never enjoyed a belly laugh
at one of the gags in a Simpson's cartoon! If not, you have my
deepest sympathy. :)

 >would submit to a peer review before publication. But given the
 >present climate of funding and egos, I doubt that will ever
 >happen.

When I was working with Budd Hopkins, both Greg Sandow and
myself hoped to get Hopkins, Mack, and Jacobs to participate in
various joint-research projects. Mostly to no avail because of
the walls that we consistently ran into along the way.

We realized pretty early on what a mission-impossible it would
be to get these men (_any_ group of ufological researchers for
that matter) to share/combine their research materials so that
it could all (at least) be cataloged as a body of work that
spans a quarter century - and includes the reports of Lord knows
how many people.

Your point is well taken and I do not envy anybody who takes on
the task of trying to 'unite' these rabidly independent
individuals. I will support, in any way I can, any effort to
create a true peer review panel/board for ufology.

Check out the fine proposals for such an entity that was put
forward by Dick Hall in some of his most recent posts. After you
read them I'm certain you'll ask yourself how you manged to miss
them the first go-round.  :)


Regards,

John Velez




[ 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