From: Frank Warren <frank-warren.nul>
Date: Thu, 09 Dec 2004 08:58:22 -0800
Fwd Date: Thu, 09 Dec 2004 10:06:07 -0500
Subject: Re: Astronomy Evidence/Data Methodologies - Warren


>From: Christopher Allan <cda.nul>
>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2004 23:13:24 -0000
>Subject: Re: Astronomy Evidence/Data Methodologies

>>From: Brad Sparks <RB47x.nul>
>>To: ufoupdates.nul
>>Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2004 17:06:21 EST
>>Subject: Re: Astronomy Evidence/Data Methodologies

>>>From: Frank Warren <frank-warren.nul>
>>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates.nul>
>>>Date: Mon, 06 Dec 2004 09:16:25 -0800
>>>Subject: Astronomy Evidence/Data Methodologies

><snip>

>You mentioned meteors and meteorites.

>I do believe that the lack of actual UFO hardware is the biggest
>obstacle to scientific acceptance.

>Meteorites were in a similar position for many decades. It took
>several large falls, culminating in the L'Aigle fall in 1803, to
>finally convince the scientific academy (in France) that
>Chladni's ideas were correct and that meteorites actually fell
>from the sky, and came from outer space.

>I feel UFOs (assuming they are nuts & bolts spacecraft) will
>never be accepted until & unless real hardware is found and
>produced. If this proves very elusive, too bad: we shall have to
>wait until such hardware, preferably in abundance, turns up.
>Then, and only then, will there be a chance of finally proving
>UFO reality to the scientific establishment. There is no clear
>alternative.

>It is useless to give the oft-repeated response that the
>authorities already possess this hardware but are keeping it top
>secret. This standard ufological rejoinder will cut no ice with
>the scientific establishment (or the media), and you cannot
>really blame them for poking derision at it. Ufology is too
>world-wide for this 'buck passing' to be valid.

>Hardware is needed, and sooner rather than later.


Christopher,

It appears you've missed the crux of the thread; if hardware,
i.e., 'physical evidence' is needed for acceptance with the
scientific establishment with regard to Ufology, does that same
rule apply to Astronomy; if not why?


Frank Warren