UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 1998 > Jun > Jun 24

Re: A Divided Community Can Never Get Anwsers

From: bruce maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 1998 16:05:18 -0400
Fwd Date: Wed, 24 Jun 1998 00:02:26 -0400
Subject: Re: A Divided Community Can Never Get Anwsers

>From: Ori Jackson <Kaosquasar@aol.com>
>Date: Sun, 21 Jun 1998 16:33:38 EDT
>To: updates@globalserve.net
>Subject: The Role Of The Researcher In Modern Ufology

>> Date: Sat, 20 Jun 1998 09:50:30 -0700 (PDT)
>> From: Roy Hale <roy_hale@yahoo.com>
>> Subject: A Divided Community Can Never Get Anwsers
>> To: updates@globalserve.net

>As a recent initiate, conscientious observer say, of the field
>of ufology I have been taking notice of many of the postings on
>Updates but I have begun to question the role of the ufologist
>who seems to spend more time engaged in verbal battles of
>sarcasm and inuendo than in actually completing any research. I
>am in complete agreement with Roy Hale's recent posting>

>A divided community can never get answers

>To become drawn into purial paroxysms serves only to discredit
>the work of the ufologist who is then seen to care more for his
>reputation and standing amoungst others than for the validity of
>his/her research. Is this a conspiricy to draw public attention
>away from the offerings of theoretical answers?

>Obviously the nature of the field dictates differing opinions as
>shown currently through the Burns v Clarke controversy but I
f>eel it is important to focus only on the research and not on
t>he personal lives of those involved.

This would certainly be desirable. Unfortunately, one person's
gold is another's pyrite ("fool's gold") and one ends up not
believeing in th results of someone else's investigation. Unlike
conventional science, it is impossible to recreate a UFO event
such that investigator B can independently check on the results
reported by investigator A. If B does not believe A did a good
job investigating, then B may reject A's results and A will get
angry and call B an SOB and then B will get in a huff and say A
is a jerk, doesn' t know his rear oriface from a hole in the
ground.... and then things get really nasty. Ad homninem attacks
take over (friends of A attack friends of B) and pretty soon NO
ONE KNOWS what is the real status of the UFO report that started
it all off.

In ufology the best one can do for replication is (1) carry out
your own interviews of the witnesses, while realizing that if
the witnesses have alreay been interviewed their statements to
you might be modified by the fact that they have already told
their stories (that is, mere investigation can, in principle
although not always in actuality, modify the "data" - - the
"experimenter effect" analogous to the problem in quantum
mechanics of "uncertainty") or (2) gather all the pertinent
information from the people who have already done the
investigation and (3) do your own analysis and arrive at your
own conclusion. NOTE: the analysis of most UFO sightings
requires a rather broad spectrum of knowledge in order to
understand the interplay or relationship between the sighting
details (or characteristics of the reported phenomenon)and the
Candidate Explanatory Phenomena. An investigator may have to
know about astronomy, satellites, aircraft (what do you know
about various types of heavier and lighter than air craft?),
physiology of the eye (how people see things), radar, optics,
photography, soil analysis, interviewing techniques,
trigonometry,map reading, history, atmospheric phenomena
including the way the atmosphere modifies the appearance of
things (especially distant lights at night). Anyone who wishes
to carry out an independent investigation of a previously
investigated case had better be certain s/he can do at least as
well as the original investigator. (I have had problems in the
past with people who have questionsed my results of
investigation and have tried to carry out their own, but they
just don't understand the various technical issues involved, so
they arrive at what I consider to be the "wrong answer.")

Another problem is that an "outside" person who is not totally
familiar with the sighting information or who cannot
independently evaluate it is left with a decision of which
"expert," A or B, to believe. Often the choice will be made on
which investigator seems more credible in the face of attacks
from the other side.

>Proof undeniable may well be the researchers ultimate goal, for
f>ame and fortune and being the first has always in any genre
>been the ambition and intention but the ufologist's
>responsibility should be not only the search for and the
>uncovering of the secrets of the UFO prodigy it should also be
t>o provide the general public with information beyond proof.
>This rather than self gratification should be the goal.


>As the general consensus seems to be that E.B.E's (if they do in
>fact exist) have hostile intentions where are the ufologists who
>are offering the public concrete strategies for dealing with the
>prevention of alien intervention?

Will send you FRIGHT NIGHT by private email since it
doesn't fit the publication format here.

[ Next 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