UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 1997 > Nov > Nov 12

Re: ETH [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] &c

From: Jakes Louw <LOUWJE@telkom.co.za>
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 08:48:10 +0200
Fwd Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 08:13:55 -0500
Subject: Re: ETH [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] &c

>Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 11:08:44 -0800
>From: Ed Stewart <egs@netcom.com>
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>Subject:Re:UFO UpDate:ETH [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] &c

>After fifty years, we haven't made any progress whatsoever
>with this hypothesis. Each day that slips by, the ETH
>falls deeper and deeper into the realm of an unsupportable
>belief system based solely on the faith of its believers.
>At the rate it is going, it is pre-destined to be the
>fodder of future cults and religions and not of science.

>Nobody from the outside of ufology will lift a hand in
>trying to reverse that trend. Ufology will have to do it
>all on its own.
>That means learning the basics of critical thinking,
>discernment, logic and what constitutes proof and then

Well said!
I don't really want to say this, but at least dead-horse
flogging isn't a punishable offence <G!>:

Ed has it right: ufology is destined to wallow in a
pool (mud-hole?) of its own making.
With all due respect to people who have been involved
in the field for many years, I would like to posit
that ufology (ie: the study of the UFO phenomenon and
RELATED subjects) has descended to the point where
scientific study has become a secondary issue, and
where more time is spent with verbal/mail sparring
between people who seem to think that they HAVE to
defend a stance or point of view.

Apart from that, there seems to be a disproportionate
number of people concentrating on benefitting
financially from the whole issue.

Now that's not to say it's WRONG, but where's the
focus? Where are the white papers, the public-
domain reports?
What real scientific value is being left for the
next generation of ufologists?

What each non-scientific publication is doing
is relegating ufology further into the realms of
tabloid sensationalism. I don't care how valid
the case study is: if a lay person picks up
such a book, and reads about an alleged
incident which has no scientific proof or
evidence, then the immediate question asked
is either "What substance was this guy abusing",
or else "Another one for the nut house".

Now there are going to be arguments that
dressing up a case study to make it more
palatable for the general public is necessary
so that publishers will bite.
Again I ask: is the focus on money or on
a necessary paper that will be used by the
more serious researcher?
Do we need high-volume print runs, or a small
limited-budget report that ADDS VALUE?

Now, I don't want to blow his horn, but an old
friend of mine, Jan Lamprecht, is busy with a
Earth Hypothesis: he intends only to have
a small print run, and couldn't give a damn
about volume sales. He wants to provide
something OF VALUE, with the hope that
somebody can take the ball and run with it,
whether it is "serious" scientists or some
rich explorer type with money to burn.

And that's something ufology can try:
publish something that gets the right
people interested. Maybe then the right
equipment and resources will be made
available to people who are interested in
nailing this phenomenon!

Nuff said.
Back into lurk mode.


Charl Naude
Tel. +27 12 311-2311
Fax +27 12 311-2311
Cell. +27 83 447 7980
eMail naudec@intekom.co.za

Search for other documents from or mentioning: louwje | egs | naudec

[ 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