From: bruce maccabee <email@example.com> Date: Sat, 13 Jun 1998 01:08:54 -0400 Fwd Date: Sat, 13 Jun 1998 20:54:47 -0400 Subject: Re: Occam's Razor and UFOs >Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1998 11:38:10 -0300 >From: Stanton T. Friedman <firstname.lastname@example.org> >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <email@example.com> >Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: Occam's Razor and UFOs >> From: RobIrving@aol.com >> Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1998 08:09:47 EDT >> To: firstname.lastname@example.org >> Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: Occam's Razor and UFOs >> >Date: Tue, 09 Jun 1998 20:28:06 -0300 >> >From: "Stanton T. Friedman" <email@example.com> >> >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <firstname.lastname@example.org> >> >Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: Occam's Razor and UFOs >> Stanton, >> >I think Rob's comments are so much horse manure. >> You appear to be referring to the following comments, but your >> reply didn't really address why, nor answer the question I > >posed... > >>With sufficient and clearly presented evidence I can't see much > >>of a problem. What exactly is the problem, in your opinion? I > >>personally don't accept the line that scientists are too worried > >>about reputation to involve themselves in ufology - that argument > >>doesn't hold water. > I maintain that if the ETH were ever presented in a manner that > didn't rely on anecdotal and bogus documentary evidence, it > wouldn't face the stonewalling from the scientific community > that many imagine. <snip> >> So, Stanton, what exactly is the problem in your opinion? Why >> can't we read your paper 'Flying Saucers ARE Real' in a science >> journal? > Rob >The problem is that you and Peter constantly ask the wrong >question (What are UFOs.. as opposed to "Are any UFOs ET >Spacecraft"). You often make pronouncements not based on >evidence, you constantly ignore the fairly obvious national >security aspects of UFOs, you presume on other people's >motivation (Did I say my goal was to publish "Flying Saucers ARE >Real" in a science journal?.. though I gather you haven't read >my items in Physics Today and Aeronautics and Astronautics or my >congressional testimony. >I mention my lectures to professional groups because the >responses clearly indicate that they will pay attention to facts >and data. >You are wasting people's time with theoretical >claptrap. >The simplest explanation for the best observations(by competent >observers, investigated by competent investigators like Jim >McDonald, Bruce Maccabee, John Schuessler etc) whose appearance, >texture, protuberances clearly indicate they were manufactured, >and whose behavior-- high speed and no speed, sharp turns, lack >of noise, exhaust, visible external engines indicates they were >not made on earth, because if they had been in the 1940s, 1950s, >we Earthlings would be using them as military craft. They would >make wonderful weapons delivery and defense systems, able to fly >circles around anything we have been flying. >Since we are still building F-16,17,18, MIG 29, Mirage 5 etc, >what was built back then wasn't built by us, therefore it was >built at some Extraterrestrial location. Of course that doesn't >answer all the questions. It just says "not made here". Occam's >razor applies. ET vehiciles. Have any of you splendid writers >done field investigations, visited archives, had a security >clearance? Talk is cheap. >Stan Friedman Talk is cheap, Truth is expensive. Truth requires effort - investigation - and less talk until there really is something to talk about. Instead of endless theorizing about the ETH or some other hyptothesis about "them", we should intensely discuss some sighting. A real advance would be made if through the use of the internet a worldwide group of people could discuss ONE \ SIGHTING AT A TIME until (a) everyone gave up because each sighting can be reasonably explained or (b) at least one sighting is found that EVERYONE can agree is unexplainable in conventional terms. This is where the rubber meets the road, guys and gals..... are there any TRuely Unexplainable Flying Objects... TRUFOs... sightings that remain unexplained after extensive investigation. Of course, this would require a considerable effort on the part of each researcher to "get up to speed" on any particular sighting. In this regard, some of the "ancient" sightings are convenient to study because the pertinent data/information already exists and is not continuing to be generated (as with recent sightings, for example). If you want to know HOW to do an investigation, go with a recent case under investigation (e.g., Mexico City Video). If you want a case worthy of discussion for which all information that ever will exist is already available, then go with an old one. In a previous post I mentioned case 10 of Special Report #14. This is a 5 witness sighting with observation of a reasonably close object, viewed through binoculars, for which the description is quite explicit. The witnesses are credible. The shape is clearly unconventional, as are the dynamics. All the available information is in the Project Blue Book microfilm file. I also mentioned a White Sands triangulation event. In each of these cases the data are limited to what we have. There are numerous other cases like this, of course. The questions for mutual agreement would then be 1) is this(are these)..sighting(s) accepted as unexplainable by all concerned and 2) granted that the sight(s) is(are) unexplainable, is it evidence of technology of non-terrestrial origin? If the members/recipients of this list were to agree on just one unexplainable sighting we would "make history." After that, discussions on ETH, time travel, whatever, would be valuable.
[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp