UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 1998 > Jul > Jul 1

Re: Scientists: UFOs Warrant Study

From: bruce maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 1998 07:54:03 -0400
Fwd Date: Wed, 01 Jul 1998 17:00:16 -0400
Subject: Re: Scientists: UFOs Warrant Study


>Date: Mon, 29 Jun 1998 17:58:59 -0700 (PDT)
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@proaxis.com>
>Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Scientists: UFOs Warrant Study


>>Stanford, CA, June 29, 1998 --- In the first independent review
>>of UFO phenomena since 1970, a panel of scientists has concluded
>>that some sightings are accompanied by physical evidence that
>>deserves scientific study. But the panel was not convinced that
>>any of this evidence points to a violation of known natural laws
>>or the involvement of an extraterrestrial intelligence.

>[...]

>The conclusions of this panel are cause for a small celebration,
>I think. Although they are couched in very cautious words, and
>they failed to recommend taking any witnesses' reports into
>consideration, and they went out of their way to downplay the
>likelihood that UFOs are piloted or controlled by intelligent
>creatures not from Earth, it's still an advance towards opening
>scientists' minds. The discovery in recent years of extra-solar
>(large) planets probably played a role in giving the panel the >
>courage to go as far as it did. It should cause the "giggle
>factor" to be used just a bit less frequent and to be less
>threatening. But of course members of CSICOP and other
>debunker-types will attack the panel and its conclusions
>strenuously, as usual.

Jim Deardorff

As I read the full report in the Journal of Scientific
Exploration my emotions ranged from surpise/shock to anger to
disappointment. Have we learned nothing in 30 years since the
Condum report? (intentional) This looked to me like deja vue
all over again... especially in comparison to the 1953 Robertson
Panel where several scientists - a Nobel guy included - decided
that all sightings could be explained and then recommended
debunking... (CIA sponsored, by the way).

At the Robertson panel we actually had the Air Force (Project
Blue Book) presenting the best cases to a presumably
dispassionate panel. At that time no physical evidence was
presented....except highly analyzed film (Tremonton/Newhouse and
Great Falls/Marianna), and perhaps some pictures (not sure about
everything that was presented) And now 46 years later we have
the Sturrock Panel (fortunately not CIA sponsored) which comes
up with nearly the same thing., BUT AT LEAST...they said it was
worthy of study.

However, I would argue that there is "physical evidence." I
presume that the presenters were not aware of the Project
Twinkle movies of May 1950 when cinetheodolite cameras at the
White Sands proving Range obtained film and triangulation of
objects flying over the area. Triangulation and film analysis
showed 30 ft diameter, flying rapidly at about 150,000 ft. Look,
skeptics, we didn't have anything that flew that high in 1950
(and precious little now). Film was analyzed by experts. Film
was lost by "experts". We know of its existence through the
records of Project Blue Book. So... the tilm was lost....no
physical evidence? Also, physical scientists are going to have
to come to grips with the FACT that you can't take the easy way
out and reject sightings simply because they consist only of
witness testimony. In some cases teh witness testimony is
EXTREMELY compelling and furthermore involves descriptions of
phenomena that remain unexplainable after analysis.... and some
of these cases point toward Other Intelligences. (Uh oh,
banishment to UFO Hell again!)