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

New goals/directions for Ufology

From: Jerry Cohen <rjcohen@li.net>
Date: Thu, 2 Jul 1998 07:28:05 -0400
Fwd Date: Thu, 02 Jul 1998 19:53:20 -0400
Subject: New goals/directions for Ufology

>From: "Jerry Cohen" <rjcohen@li.net>
>Date: Wed, 1 Jan 1997 22:37:06 -0500
>Fwd Date: Thu, 02 Jan 1997 07:33:57 -0500
>Subject: Re: UFOs and Mainstream Science

>>Date: Thu, 26 Dec 1996 20:40:49 -0500
>>From: "Steven J. Powell" <sjpowell@access.digex.net>
>>To: updates@globalserve.net
>>Subject: UFOs and Mainstream Science

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

EBK and List,

Since the publishing of the erroneous conclusions of the Condon
Study in 1969, it has been "out of fashion" or "out of
mainstream" for scientists, in general, to openly proclaim any
serious interest in UFOs. It has taken monumental effort by
_all_ serious UFO researchers, data accumulated, etc. and the
proper conclusions of the Sturrock Committee to overcome the air
of illegitimacy which has tainted ufological research in some
people's minds for approximately the past 28 years.

Click below for the Sturrock workshop
Location: Journal for Scientific Exploration web site:

John Powell had posted a letter from Bernard Haisch, Ph. D.
(Journal of Scientific Exploration) back in December 1996 to
which I had responded.

Dr. Haisch's original letter located at:

My response, below, was intended as a combination "thank you,"
from all serious researchers, for his and the JSE's important
contributions and a simplified review of some of the things he
brought to our attention in his original essay.

I believe it is probably important at this time to once again
review some of the items which were addressed by Dr. Haisch and
the JSE as a partial step in redirecting our primary goals to
hopefully keep us flowing in an ongoing positive and productive

Although one may feel that some of what he discusses may be
almost impossible to achieve in ufology as it exists today,
other things most certainly have great merit. (Successes of the
combined efforts of FUFOR, CUFOS, MUFON, etc. as an example.)

It is also important to note that even with the recent Sturrock
success, our debates will certainly continue until we hopefully,
eventually cut closer to the core of the enigma we are
attempting to examine. We should also remember that success in
this one area, although certainly a time to rejoice (yes, we all
earned it), does not mean it is time to relax.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

>Dr. Haisch .. you wrote:

>>UF0's and Mainstream Science

>>by Bernhard Haisch, Ph. D.

>>[Bernhard Haisch is the Managing Editor of the Journal of
>>Scientific Exploration, P.O. Box 5848, Stanford, CA 94309.
>>E-mail: <haischGjse.com>]

>>(Mutual UFO Network UFO Journal, Number 335, March 1996,
>>Copyright 1996 by the Mutual UFO Network, 103 Oldtowne Rd.,
>>Sequin, Texas 78155, published monthly with a
>>membership/subscription rate of $25/yr.)


>JC:   Your thoughtful letter certainly deserves a reply. First,
it is a pleasure to hear someone of your credentials and
background saying that you have "been exposed to enough data and
met enough serious investigators to become supportive of the need
to carefully study whatever this phenomenon (phenomena,) may be."
The points you have brought to our attention are excellent.

>>  From someone who is "an insider in the scientific mainstream:
    author of research papers, principle investigator on NASA
    projects, associate editor of a leading journal in
    astrophysics," this statement alone and your "Journal of
    Scientific Exploration' (JSE)" is another "breath of fresh
    air" that Ufologists having been working towards and
    literally praying for, for a number of years. I believe this
    is very significant as your letter is proof that the diligent
    efforts of Ufologists, although certainly divergent in
    nature, have been able to amass enough data or evidence to
    convince more scientists of your caliber that there is at
    least "some" substance to "some" of the things UFO
    researchers have been saying for years. As you have found,
    some of that evidence is indeed persuasive and that as you
    said; "It seems from my unique vantage point as both
    scientist and editor of JSE, that substantial evidence exists
    of "something going on."

>Your remarks concerning comments made by Daniel Goldin, the head
of NASA, at "the American Astronomical Society in San Antonio,"
as to how Ufology might some day earn enough respectability to
procure at least a portion of the "billions" which government
spends on research, hopefully will be thoughtfully received.

>As you have said "Goldin's lesson for NASA" apply to us as well.
It is important for us to remember that "If the American people
truly want the UFO problem officially investigated, the
government will do that by and by", and that "As Goldin urged us
to do on behalf of NASA's research: write, call, visit your
representatives and senators. Constituencies count. No doubt
about it." Some of these are being attempted in Ufology today.

>But, you also said Goldin made a second point that there is...

>>  "a second key ingredient that really needs to come first,
     is that somehow, the community of Ufologists must reach
     consensus on prioritizing projects," and that "those of us
     whose projects may not make the cutoff, owing to fiscal
     limitations, should still obligated as members of the
     research community to support those that are selected."

>JC:   Basically what is said here is that in collective unity,
there is strength. This is the incredibly difficult part for us,
unifying and agreeing as to who should lead this "crusade" and
what specific direction we should take as a whole.
>You have said;
     "Evidence needs to be properly analyzed and then properly
      presented using techniques and venues as close as possible
      to those of mainstream science. The disparity of the
      evidence appears to be confusing enough without layers of
      unproven theory and conspiracy."

>JC:   This is why researchers are attempting present the facts
as we see them and to inform more "scientists" of the data that
does presently exist so we can enlist their aid in achieving the
above. More of us need to realize it is only people with the
proper credentials and properly trained skills that can do this
for us the most successfully.

>The Internet has become a valuable aide in this endeavor. It is
helping us communicate with one another. This mail list is one
such forum which has been dedicated to bringing these facts to
anyone curious enough to find out more about this important
topic. Many thanks are owed its overseer, Errol Bruce-Knapp, and
the many people who are and have been contributing their time and
research to making this list a place where one can analyze and
collect other people's serious thinking on the subject. (J.C.
7/1/98  Certainly not to omit Glenn Campbell, who's magnificent,
important data base/storage facility makes handling the massive
volume of correspondence at least bearable.)

>Additionally, scholarly journals such as your own, material
published by the Center for UFO Studies (CUFOS), etc. are
gradually leading us in the direction you mention. Hopefully,
other newly interested "mainstream" Scientists, etc. may
gradually be able to glean enough information from these sources
to get them started on a path that will eventually achieve some
of the goals you have mentioned.

>You also make another very important point that should be
remembered by all:

>>  "To be fair to the principles of objectivity and
     comprehensiveness one must also acknowledge the possibility
     that the disarray of Ufology may be partially driven by
     official or semi-official disinformation, or even, taking
     the view of the respected researcher Jacques Vallee, by the
     UFO phenomenon itself."

>>  "Even if the UFO phenomenon should turn out to be deeper than
     we imagine, even should it prove to transcend science as we
     know it, the scientific approach is the only feasible way in
     the real, political, economic, technological world we live
     in to give us some chance to control our dealings with this
     phenomenon, rather than letting the phenomenon entirely
     control us... if such it is."

>JC:   This is all the more reason why researchers need to
continue their efforts in presenting the facts as they see them
and doing their best to draw other mainstream Scientists into the

>Thank you, once again for sharing your thoughtful insights with
all of us. This researcher certainly appreciates the valuable
time you have taken to do so. I am sure many others do as well.

>Respectfully, Jerry Cohen

>E-mail:  rjcohen@li.net


Dr. Haisch's original essay can be found at:

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
JC:   Well done gentlemen. Onward!

UFO UpDates - Toronto - updates@globalserve.net
Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp - ++ 416-691-0716

Archived as a public service by Area 51 Research Center which is
not responsible for content.

Software by Glenn Campbell. Technical contact: