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: Trevor Seguin <dragko.nul>
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 10:59:53 -0800
Archived: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 10:30:57 -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:


>>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

>>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


>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.

>- Dick

"Peer review" should not be looked at an attempt to discredit.

Review is always neccessary regardless of skills/beliefs of the
reviewers. Every theory/opinion should be examianed and pondered
by several minds.  "Two heads are better than one"  A person may
find most reviewer will agree with them.  This prooves to
strengthen their argument.  If a reviewer disagrees, in my
opinion, it does not discredit the first.

Open review is looked at _too_ often viewed as a negative thing.
All this is my opinion.

Trevor Seguin

[ 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