UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 1998 > Jul > Jul 8

Re: Sturrock Report

From: Greg Sandow <gsandow@prodigy.net>
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 1998 19:12:34 -0400
Fwd Date: Wed, 08 Jul 1998 07:48:26 -0400
Subject: Re: Sturrock Report


> Date: Tue, 07 Jul 1998 13:33:05 +0100
> To: updates@globalserve.net
> From: John Rimmer <j_rimmer@library.croydon.gov.uk>
> Subject: Sturrock Report

> The P.L.A.Driftwood International Conspiracy in Exile is
> operating on a borrowed computer at the moment, so I am unable
> to quote extracts from previous postings. My apologies.

> I am puzzled and not a little irritated by the increasingly
> triumphalist attitudes of the ETH proponents to the muted and
> entirely reasonable conclusions of the Sturrock Panel. As far as
> I can see the only difference between their conclusions and the
> Condon Report is that, unlike Condon, Sturrock feels that
> science *would* be advanced by further study of the UFO
> phenomenon. So do I.

> Why Jerry, Bruce Maccabee and the others feel that this is any
> sort of endorsement of the ETH is baffling. They say they found
> NO EVIDENCE of any extraterrestrial involvement in the cases
> they found puzzling. You really cannot be much clearer than
> this. Perhaps the real acheivemnt of Sturrock is to come up with
> a statement that both Jerry Clark, CSICOP and Magonia can agree
> with!

Stop me before I kill again, but....did Jerry, Bruce, or for
that matter anyone at all think the Sturrock crowd endorsed the
ETH?

Not that I noticed.

This debate is growing truly bizarre.

As for the difference between Condon and this, the reaction of
the world at large tells the whole story. The reaction to Condon
was "Scientists say UFOs are nonsense." The reaction to Sturrock
was "Scientists say UFOs aren't nonsense." You can split hairs
all you want about similarities in details, but the overall
impact -- and the tone of voice -- was dramatically different.

Greg Sandow