UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2002 > Nov > Nov 28

Re: New At Roswell Proof: Citizen Poll Added

From: Steven Kaeser <steve.nul>
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 13:43:27 -0500
Archived: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 10:29:30 -0500
Subject: Re: New At Roswell Proof: Citizen Poll Added


>From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99.nul>
>To: ufoupdates.nul
>Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 16:58:49 +0000
>Subject: Re: New At Roswell Proof: Citizen Poll Added

>>From: David Rudiak <DRudiak.nul>
>>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>>Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 21:37:23 -0800
>>Subject: New At Roswell Proof: Citizen Poll Added

>>I have added a new citizen's poll to Roswell Proof to gauge people's
>>opinions on just how readable key phrases and words are in Ramey's
>>memo. You can take it or link other people to it at:

>>http://www.roswellproof.com/Critical_Phrases.html

>>I think the primary "qualification" anybody needs on this
>>matter is not scientific credentials but the ability to read.
>>If people see what I see, they can vote it up. Otherwise they
can vote it down.

>>I'm not claiming a Web poll is in any way representative of
>>the general population or controlled in how it is done. But
>>it is simple, requires no funding, and will give us a quick
>>(though imperfect) measure of the readability or lack thereof
>>of some critical sections of the Ramey memo from a large
>>number of people.

>David,

>I really don't understand where you are coming from on this.
>When I suggested the need for peer review you cried "foul" and
>insisted that different analysts work is not necessarily of
>equal validity (which of course is true, but entirely misses the
>point). You even went so far as to link peer review with the
>Condon Committee and NAS rubber stamp as pretty much being a
>Government conspiracy.

>By "peer review," of course, I mean exactly what I say: cross-
>checking by people with similar and/or appropriate analytical
>skills who are also working on the Ramey photo or who are at
>least qualified to have an opinion.

>Now you cheerfully suggest that a popular poll on the issue of
>readability is a worthy thing. Science is not conducted by a
>vote among non-scientists.

Richard, David, and List

I would again emphasize that commentary from those within the
field, no matter how qualified or correct, will never be
accepted as evidence by those who are not in the field.  If
we're hoping to interest political leaders and the press in re-
opening this can of worms, then we need to have independent
confirmation of any interpretation we come up with.  We recently
had a group of scientists sit on a panel in Washington to
discuss faster than light travel and the possibility of alien
visitation.   I think it's possible that we can find the
expertise needed to lend credibility to such an effort.

We can argue the specifics of this all day, but I hope we're
trying to broaden interest in this beyond that of the UFO lists.


Steve


[ 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