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: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
Date: Sun, 05 Jul 98 09:54:18 PDT
Fwd Date: Sun, 05 Jul 1998 12:00:21 -0400
Subject: Re: Sturrock Panel


> Date: Sat, 4 Jul 1998 23:56:12 -0400
> From: James Easton <pulsar@compuserve.com>
> Subject: Sturrock Panel
> To: UFO UpDates <updates@globalserve.net>

> 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?

Depends on whom you want to listen to. The Robertson panel spent
a total of 12 hours deciding what it had already decided before
it walked in the door: that the subject was nonsense. The
decision the panel made influenced all of the subsequent course
of UFO history, down to today.

The Condon Committee spent about a year and a half investigating
reports and in the end could not explain something like 30% of
them -- a higher percentage, as Allen Hynek noted at the time,
than Blue Book conceded as unexplained.

The Sturrock panel got to listen to some of the best evidence
from some of the best UFO investigators and researchers alive
today. It came, it seems to me, to the only conclusion possible,
one that we ufologists have known for a long time: UFO reports
deserve to be investigated further, and attempts to explain them
away have failed.

> Would you disagree that hardly constitutes a thorough scientific
> study?

What do you mean by a "thorough scientific study"?  It seems to
me what we saw is scientific SOP. It looked at the evidence, as
other judging panels do in other areas, and decided that
thorough scientific study is desirable. The panel itself, of
course, was not set up to be a "thorough scientific study."  I
guess I don't understand your question. Were did the panel
represent itself to be a "thorough scientific study"?  Let's
hope, however, that it becomes as influential as the Robertson
panel. Well, we can dream, can't we?

> >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?

A thorough scientific study or, better, a whole bunch of 'em.
Aren't you?

Jerry Clark