UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2007 > Mar > Mar 11

Re: UFO Photos The Future - Good

From: Mike Good <boneheadart.nul>
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2007 11:48:10 -0700 (PDT)
Fwd Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2007 19:37:41 -0400
Subject: Re: UFO Photos The Future - Good


>From: Dave Haith <visions.nul>
>To: UFO UpDates <UFOupdates.nul>
>Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2007 19:16:08 -0000
>Subject: UFO Photos The Future

>I have heard stories of UFO witnesses with cameras who
>'forget' to take a picture or others where the pictures
>unaccountably turn out blank or fogged.

>So I guess there's a possibility that 'they' don't want us to
>photograph them.....

The nature of ALL UFO evidence seems to suggest that the
phenomenon is playing cat and mouse with us. What real,
iron-clad evidence do we have?

Well......, a bunch of photos. In our time of digital
manipulation and Hollywood propelled phtographic trickery, just
about anything can be created with photographic images. That
does not invalidate the photos, but it makes them all suspect as
hard-core material evidence.

Beyond photos, the evidence is pretty much all subjective and
open to interpretation. Witness reports are not acceptable to
scientific types as empirical evidence. This is paradoxical, of
course, because the nature of scientific proofs are, by
definition, subjective as well!

When a scientist submits a proof to a scientific journal, it is
taken for granted that the scientist has done his homework and
actually performed all of the experiments he says he has. Well
we just accept that it is so. Maybe he did it, maybe he didn't.
So the empirical evidence, most often, is subjective too.

Then there are the blind experiments that I have read about
which suggest that the experiment itself is influenced by the
prejudicesof the scientist! This kind of outcome is also
suggested by the well known (and documented) placebo effect.
This is where an ill subject is given an inert substance while
being told that he is taking actual medicine. The subject is
magically cured, >photos of the O'Hare disc for instance, would
that case have >proved to be Ufology's 'smoking gun'.

>I know Ray Stanford told us on SDI radio that he has remarkable
>photographic evidence which he promises to release at some
>stage.

>But what really will it take for the dam to burst?

It would take a major change in the consciousness of those
making the rules! The problem here is not one of empirical
proofs, but of subjective prejudices. I imagine that if a UFO
landed on "the Amazing Randi's" lawn and the little guys sat
down to dinner with him, he would still swear up and down that
it was a big hoax promulagated to trick him!

In other words, there is no amount of physical evidence that
will change the minds of those who refuse to be convinced. At
the end of the day, science itself is just another belief
system, no different than religion or the tooth fairy.

People will believe what they want to believe and disbelieve
what they want as well. This is the nature of UFOlogy. You
accept the paradox that this suggests, or you spend your life
tilting at phantom windmills.

Me, I just like the idea that there might be other beings in the
cosmos, flitting around in our heavens. It is a fascinating
notion! I have given up trying to convince or please people who
do not want their preconcieved notions rattled.

We are a lot more fun than those people anyway!

Cheers!!

Mike Good

boneheadart.nul




[ 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