UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 1998 > Jun > Jun 19

Re: Fast Walker

From: bruce maccabee >brumac@compuserve.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Jun 1998 11:23:35 -0400
Fwd Date: Fri, 19 Jun 1998 19:03:53 -0400
Subject: Re: Fast Walker


>From: Greg St. Pierre >StrmNut@aol.com>
>Date: Thu, 18 Jun 1998 23:43:05 EDT
>To: updates@globalserve.net
>Subject: Fast Walker


>Dear ladies and gentlemen,

>I must confess a certain level of surprise at the lack of cases
>discussed here. "Fast Walker" is a good example. A military

<snip>

>It seems to me that the discussion about Occam's Razor is moot.
>It has become subjective to each party, and therefore rendered
>dull. What is the point of discussing it if you all have
>different interpretations of it? As long as data is collected

<snip>

>The energy wasted on
>them could, in my opinion, be better spent on research, and
>public relations campaigns. Most popular poles in the US
>indicate that at least half of the citizens believe UFOs exist.
>That isn't bad. If it's more scientists you want, then take the
>offensive. Don't let guys like Phil have the last word all the
>time. Inform the public, make commercials telling folks about
>sightings in their area, with phone numbers or other ways to get
>in touch with researchers. Give the skeptics a real run for
>their money! As long as broad statements are being made about
>the UFO phenomenon, skeptics are happy. This saves them from the
>unpleasant task of analyzing each case for its individual
>merits. It's time to publicly force the skeptics to deal with
>the best quality sightings, not "distant lights". Don't let them
>get away with that anymore, guys!

>Greg St. Pierre
>Strmnut@aol.com

HEAR, HEAR!  I posted a message over a week ago in which I
pointed out that if we really wanted to advance ufology, rather
than chopping ourselves to bits with both sides of Occam's
Double Edged Sword, we would leave the ODES to others of a
strictly philospphical bent, pick one or several sightings/cases
and argue it until we arrive at a conclusion that (a) it/they
can reasonably be explained, or (b) data are missing
(insufficient information..... why missing?) and therefore a
positive conclusion cannot be obtained (without more
information) or (c) it appears that the sighting(s) simply
cannot be explained in a reasonable manner in terms of
known/understood phenomena (e.g,, ball lightning is known but
not "understood") and therefore the possibility of TRuly
Unxplainable Flying Objects (TRUFOs) cannot be rejected. (Of
course, once there is copnscensus that at least one sighting
cannot be explained, then there is good reason to speculate as
to what this might be..... a "natural", which in this context
means UNINTELLIGENT phenomenon, or a phenomenon which
gives indications of NON-HUMAN INTELLIGENCE.

(Note that this really is the big dividing line between
"acceptable" and unexceptable explanations from the point of
view of conventional science. If TRUFOs represent new but
unintelligent phenomena conventional science/scientists will
likely accept them without too much fuss. But, if at least some
TRUFOs give indications of new and intelligent phenomena, but
not related to known fauna of the world - especially not related
to mankind - then scientists will reject them until the evidence
becomes overwhelming. In ored to determine whether or not there
is sufficiently overwhelming evidence it is necessary to study
"the ten best cases" or the hundred, or thousand or.....

even one...................)


[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |

UFO UpDates Main Index

UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp


Archive programming by Glenn Campbell at Glenn-Campbell.com