UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 1998 > Jul > Jul 17

Re: The 'Society For Scientific Exploration' On

From: Don Ecker <decker@ufomag.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 1998 08:30:21 -0700
Fwd Date: Fri, 17 Jul 1998 12:42:52 -0400
Subject: Re: The 'Society For Scientific Exploration' On


>From: Stig_Agermose@online.pol.dk
>To: updates@globalserve.net
>Date: Fri, 17 Jul 1998 03:31:43 +0200
>Subject: The 'Society For Scientific Exploration' On Skeptics

>BE SKEPTICAL OF THE "SKEPTICS"

>(A commentary by Bernhard Haisch, Editor-in-Chief, Journal of
>Scientific Exploration)
>
>If seeking publicity for the Society had been the purpose of
>publishing the Sturrock-Rockefeller UFO Report, one could take
>comfort in the observation of Oscar Wilde: "The only thing worse
>than being talked about... is not being talked about." Let the
>critics and self-proclaimed skeptics scoff and ridicule... just
>so long as they manage to get the SSE website straight. But
>publicity was never the purpose. The real purposes were
>advancing science and serving a public eager for credible
>information.

>The Sturrock-Rockefeller UFO Report is marked by restraint and
>conservatism. It makes no claims other than that science owes it
>to itself and the public to not simply dismiss UFO reports out
>of hand. It concludes without pretense by stating: "The UFO
>problem is very complex and it is quite impossible to predict
>what might emerge from research into this area." It states
>explicitly that the scientists on the panel found no evidence
>for the involvement of extraterrestrial intelligence in the
>reports presented to them. It urges further scientific
>investigation.

>On the other hand the self-proclaimed skeptics attempting to
>discredit the Report and the Society are not skeptics by this
>dictionary definition. Their critiques virtually all consist of
>scoffing, ridicule, ad hominem attacks, and the amazing claim
>that their dogmatic beliefs that certain things are impossible
>necessarily constitute laws of nature. It is a modern replay of
>the cardinals refusing to look through Galileo's telescope
>because truth has already been revealed to them. Interestingly
>many of the vocal skeptics are not themselves practicing
>scientists.


This should surprise no one. Any serious inquiry into the UFO
subject, going back to day one, when it was first recognized as
some type of unusual phenomenon, UFOs have been ridiculed. The
debate has moved well past whether there really are lights that
are seen in the sky. There are and they have been observed on
the ground, in the air and on radar screens in a number of cases
all at the same time.

The only thing that has ever made sense, and I have been saying
it for years is that some of these cases impact national
security. The very item that the U.S. Military has said for
years, that they don't do. And when national security is
impacted, all the stops are then pulled out. It should be
obvious to anyone that has studied this for any length of time,
that the last thing that anyone buried deep in government that
has a handle on the secrets will want to happen, is to have a
panel of "open minded scientists" to honestly study UFOs and
what they "might be". And now the "open minded scientists" are
getting a taste of the ridicule factor that we have all
experienced, that have been chasing this subject. I was not
surprised at all by the above events. Were you?

Don Ecker
UFO Magazine
http://www.ufomagazine.com

--
Logic is a systematic method of coming to the wrong conclusion with
confidence.