UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 1998 > Jul > Jul 2

Re: Scientists: UFOs Warrant Study

From: Melanie Mecca <natural.state@erols.com>
Date: Wed, 01 Jul 1998 23:12:32 -0500
Fwd Date: Thu, 02 Jul 1998 10:56:22 -0400
Subject: Re: Scientists: UFOs Warrant Study

> Date: Wed, 1 Jul 1998 07:54:03 -0400
> From: bruce maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
> Subject: UFO UpDate: Re: Scientists: UFOs Warrant Study
> To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>

> <snip>

> 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).

Right, my first impression as well - here we go again!  Now, finding out
that Rockefeller funded it seems to lean towards the green zone of
possiblity again - he's been interested for ages, no, and perhaps could
supply enough of the green to encourage the heavy hitters to think
objectively without biasing the results for $$$$ or fear of being
blackballed by the black project community?


>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!)

You'll have lots of company in UFO hell - those of us who think
that if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and waddles
like a duck, it most likely is a duck (ok, a souped-up-model duck
with advanced yogic powers that can walk through walls - so
what????)   But you are forgetting that fairies and demons can
assume shapes like shiny metal craft at will, and for fun they
mimic various bright lights, chase cars (a la latest BC case),
pretend to be ultra-flying machines showing off gravity-defying
feats, simulate landings as if they were solid physical objects,
and of course, abduct people to breed more fairies (because you
can never have too many).  Any physical evidence, therefore, may
appear to have some manner of ontological status but is really
just - fairy dust.  The Sturrock Panel may be in the know

Melanie Mecca