UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 1998 > Jul > Jul 5

Re: Sturrock Panel

From: James Easton <pulsar@compuserve.com>
Date: Sat, 4 Jul 1998 23:56:12 -0400
Fwd Date: Sun, 05 Jul 1998 08:39:17 -0400
Subject: Re: Sturrock Panel

Regarding...

>Date: Sat, 4 Jul 1998 11:01:29 PDT
>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@FRONTIERNET.NET>
>Subject: Re: Re.  Sturrock Panel
>To: PROJECT-1947@LISTSERV.AOL.COM

[Taking the liberty of copying this to the UFO UpDates list}

Jerry wrote:

>The Sturrock panel report is the best thing that's happened in a long
>time, and the wide and respectful attention it has received is indeed
>gratifying.


Jerry,

Can a small group of scientists, in such a short period,
evaluate so few cases as an overall perspective of some 50 years
evidence for the possibility of any extraterrestrial contact?

Would you disagree that hardly constitutes a thorough scientific
study?

As an unmitigated PR coup, I personally have no objections to
that achievement. Many would agree with the 'Sturrock panel's'
conclusion that there is some related evidence which challenges
an obvious explanation. It is after all, the essence of the 'UFO
phenomenon' and its myriad facets.

However, didn't we know that already?

For the record, as a 'scientific panel', were they commissioned
to produce a report and paid as 'consultants'? If so, how much
and by whom?

>We don't know, of course, what effect this will have in the
>long term, but at least in the short, we have reason to hope.

What exactly are you hoping for?


Perhaps ideally, that influential, or at least significant,
scientists will campaign for a formalised, scientific
investigation of 'UFO' evidence?

What would that include, say...

'abductions by aliens and the ongoing hybrid program'
'crop circles'
'alien implants'
stigmatists
MJ-12
Ed's numerous, amazing, 'Gulf Breeze' photos
'men in black'
'black helicopters'
'men in black in black helicopters'
contactees
'cattle mutilations'
'Star Elders'
Whitley Streiber's 'experiences'
Reverse engineered, captured alien technology
Meier's numerous, amazing, 'flying saucer', photographs
Chupacabras
'Roswell'
The great NASA cover-up of [insert subject here]...

Etc..

No?

Then what of the above and similar material which has become a
mainstay of 'ufology'. Do we unequivocally distance ourselves
from it?

You _can't_ control it and once you start putting pressure on
anyone not to further the cause of patently dubious or bogus
evidence, that's a contentious and subjective issue.

So, how can we complain when scientists ridicule the entire
spectrum of 'ufology'?

It's not really their fault and if it's agreed we have
identified the villains, then what is 'ufology' doing about it?
What has it ever done about it? Kinda difficult when those same
villains are inherently promoted as integral?

Take any pending 'UFO' conference and illustrate why there is
'reason to hope' that the subject is approaching a 'scientific'
footing.

You have carte blanche.

The subject of the 'best 10 to 20 cases' is an ongoing
discussion and appreciating the dilemmas in citing a preferred
choice, or making any selections at all, if evidence is to be
investigated, there does come a point when, you know, the
absence of evidence poses some difficulties.

What evidence would you personally like to see presented to our
theoretical scientific committee - say 10 cases?


In the interests of science, would it strictly be necessary to
evaluate, by comparison, 10 cases which were once proclaimed as
'best evidence' of a possible ET contact, although later being
found to have a mundane explanation?

Might we see 'Roswell' offered as 'best evidence' under both
categories? !

What about a placebo?

Should we have a similar number of hoaxes, perhaps deliberately
created for this purpose, to examine whether our scientists are
easily deceived by false data? Wouldn't it be essential to prove
whether that was a factor science must account for?

>Congratulations are due all those -- ufologists and scientists
>-- who made this possible.

Whilst you may, understandably, consider the 'Sturrock panel's'
report as a 'red letter' day, we must note they concluded there
was absolutely no evidence for any ET contact during the past 50
years, plus.

Like, period...

Might we take a big step back and wonder if that isn't because
there actually isn't any. Yet.

Or, looked at this way, if, ten years ago, it was suggested that
ten years hence, the next ostensibly scientific investigation of
the 'best' evidence, would conclude there was nothing to suggest
any ET contact, would you have thought, BRILLIANT!!!

Or perhaps have hoped for something more tangible.


I know it's a pessimistic overview, however, I do believe it's
also, alas, evidently realistic.

However, it only requires one case, whether historical or
tomorrow's, to be proven evidence.

Historically, as of today, what's the one case you would like to
see scientists focus on?


James.
E-mail: pulsar@compuserve.com