UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 1998 > Jun > Jun 20

Re: Fast Walker

From: Stanton T. Friedman <fsphys@brunnet.net>
Date: Sat, 20 Jun 1998 07:14:54 -0300
Fwd Date: Sat, 20 Jun 1998 09:24:11 -0400
Subject: Re: Fast Walker



> Date: Fri, 19 Jun 1998 11:23:35 -0400
> From: bruce maccabee >brumac@compuserve.com>
> Subject: UFO UpDate: Re: Fast Walker
> To: UFO UpDates - Toronto >updates@globalserve.net>

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


> >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...................)


Bruce is right on here. It is the good cases that matter, the
gold, not the dross. That is why I  start my lectures with 5
large scale scientific studies which, in my experience all over
the world, 98% of the people have not read. Dr. Jim McDonald's
outstanding investigations are there. His 71 page Congressional
testimony (shameless plug $10. postpaid from UFORI, POB 958,
Houlton, ME 04730- 0958) is an excellent collection. There is no
point in reinventing the wheel. BB Special Report 14 includes,
as Bruce has noted, some terrific cases. It isn't even mentioned
in a dozen anti-UFO books, and in a number of pro UFO ones.

Stan Friedman





[ 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