UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 1998 > Jul > Jul 4

Re: MAGONIA ETH Bulletin #4

From: Greg Sandow <gsandow@prodigy.net>
Date: Sat, 4 Jul 1998 13:16:45 -0400
Fwd Date: Sat, 04 Jul 1998 16:02:25 -0400
Subject: Re: MAGONIA ETH Bulletin #4


> Date: Fri, 3 Jul 1998 19:19:55 -0500 (CDT)
> To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
> From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
> Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: MAGONIA ETH Bulletin #4

> From the papers I read, it's clear to me that new discoveries
> are being made about the universe almost on a daily basis. Old
> theories and best guesses are being overturned regularly. The old
> girl is refusing to sit still for her full physical, which makes
> it extremely difficult for any of us -- Davis, Swords, you, or me
> -- to fully know, or describe, the creature we're talking about.
> And, by extension, the role of the UFO within.

Good point, Dennis. And a perfect segue into something I've been
wanting to say -- that these writings by Swords and Davis put forth
theories. The theories have yet to be proved right or wrong. Therefore
they can't tell us what's true and what isn't.

The Swords theories are helpful when somebody says "Hey, how can these
reported aliens be humanoid? That's hardly likely." Swords can provide
theoretical reasons for saying, "Well, maybe they WOULD be humanoid."
Likewise, Davis is helpful when people see aliens in every
not-immediately-explained light. "You know, we can't be sure there are
aliens out there at all."

But these theories can't properly be used to give more or less weight
to (a) any purported UFO sighting, or (b) any UFO hypothesis. None of
us has any business saying "I don't think Aunt Matilda saw an alien
craft because Davis has a theory." That's putting theories above data.

Remember the old days when the Big Bang theory competed with Fred
Hoyle's idea of a steady-state universe? Hoyle didn't go around saying
"I reject the Big Bang evidence that astronomers at Adaliade
University say they've observed, because my theory says there wasn't
any Big Bang." (Hypothetical example.) I agree that UFO evidence can
seem a lot more tenuous than astronomical observations, but still it's
not proper to use theories -- no matter how many scientific footnotes
they have -- as reasons for accepting or rejecting it.

And, Dennis, I'm worried when you say:

> My doubts about ET visitation (apparently unlike you, I have
> some), when I have them, are driven more by the sorts of larger
> issues raised by Davis (and others -- yes, there is a so-called
> "New Astronomy"), rather than the number of (potential)
> civilizations in the galaxy or the immense distances between
> stars.

There's a danger here that you're using unproved theories to bias your
thinking. And Jerry Clark is in the same danger, if he cites Swords'
work in defense of the ETH. In the last analysis, ET visitation is a
factual matter -- either they're here, or they aren't. Theories can't
settle that. Only hard data can.

Greg Sandow