From: Peter Brookesmith Mendoza <DarkSecretPB@compuserve.com> Date: Sat, 10 Apr 1999 21:38:05 -0400 Fwd Date: Sat, 10 Apr 1999 22:04:42 -0400 Subject: Re: Friedman vs. Krauss Debate With the usual compliments from the usual Duke: >From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com> >Date: Sat, 10 Apr 1999 13:46:00 EDT >Subject: Re: Friedman vs. Krauss Debate >To: email@example.com >Comments: The context of these remarks was that I presented two >surveys of American and worldwide UFOlogists in 1966 and 1981 >which listed the best-evidence UFO cases. Since most of these >ufologists believed in ETH as the best explanation of the UFO >phenomenon, these lists were therefore de facto best-evidence >ETH lists. I would surmise that almost everyone understood that. At least, it wasn't so hard for me to understand, so I imagine the rest of the world got the drift even faster. What is your point? >Only the very myopic could fail to grasp that reality, unless >Brookesmith wishes to contend that most ufologists in 1965 and >1979 (the dates of the actual polling) were actually PSH >advocates or some such. Er, no. Why should I? What makes you think I would, or should, or could? Laborious reiteration: the (boy) Bishop of Canby-In-All-Its-Dimensions wanted to know what his name was doing in a repsonse to a post responding to one by you, Brad. I explained why. Now you explain what you were saying in your post, which was, see above, hardly in doubt, even to the meanest intelligence, or even Jerome Clark. What is this hall of mirrors? I pinch myself; I invite the fairies from Purcell's opera to pinch me; still it seems I am broad waking. Yet the madness continues. It is all very strange. >>As for Uncle Phil, I merely remarked that he acknowledged that >>reconstructing the then 17-year-old RB-47 case, even with the >>help of the pilot, was problematic because of the passage of >>time. This is a matter of fact. Where is the straw? >Comments: The implication of Brookesmith's remark is that the >RB-47 case is impossible to reconstruct. No, that is crap; it is your inference, and an unfounded one, not my implication. Obviously Jerome Clark (him again) [who he?--Ed] isn't the only one who can't read around here, or does so too fast for his own good. This results in missing joaks about tolerance of ambiguity and, ah-so, getting glands in uproar, or, in this instance, failing to remember (or read) what was said inthe first place. What is so difficult to follow here? Klass and the RB-47 pilot both recognized that the passage of time made it difficult, not "impossible", to reconstruct the events of 1954. When someone, such as the distinguished Brad Sparks, re-investigates the case, time continues to pass, and memory is not likely to become any more reliable. This is, and was never meant to be more than, a single illustration of a general truth, that the longer ago something happened the harder it is to be sure one recalls, or that someone else recalls, the events accurately. I presently have no opinion about the virtues of Brad Sparks's analysis of the RB-47 case, having read his UFO Encyclopedia article but once, and not having compared it in detail with Klass's analysis. From his performance in this latest post, no one could accuse Sparks of any literary talent, whether creative or critical, and I can see no reason to read his research report in that light or judge it as such. I did also remark previously that I hoped the comment I was making wouldn't be misconstrued as impugning the integrity of his analysis. Need I have bothered? As Sparks spent 17 years on the RB-47 case, two options occur to me: (a) sometime in the next 17 years what I was actually saying will dawn on Sparks, and all will be well; or (b) someone so incapabable of following two of three posts of simple English may not be entirely reliable when it comes to analysing yet more detailed events. But then kindness was never my strongest point. >I should think that if skeptics are truly seeking the scientific >truth they would be drawn to such powerful scientific evidence >for a highly maneuverable radar-emitting UFO whose movements and >microwave emissions were recorded by electronic instruments and >found to neatly correlate with visual observations and ground >radar tracking. Do you have any indication yet that they are not so drawn? What (I ask on behalf of those not privileged to have a copy of the Clark Encyclopedia, or who are unfamiliar with the case) makes you say the UFO _emitted_ microwave radiation, as opposed to being passively detected by (microwave) radar? >But it seems that the greater the scientific substance to a UFO >case, the less the interest in it by present-day skeptics, >especially of the PSH variety. From dim memory of the case, I'd say there was a fairly narrow band of maneuver for anyone of the PSH persuasion in the RB-47 affair; for example, the attitude of the crew members to UFO phenomena _before_ their "encounter". Still, they could all have been dyed-in-the-wool True Believers and an impartial analysis could still demonstrate that they did encounter something anomalous, and that their prior disposition was irrelevant. A skeptic of the PSH variety might then find it "interesting" that an anomalous, microwave-emitting airborne object should be taken as evidence of some ET alien presence in Earth's atmosphere. But that's a question that takes us back to where we started - where is the direct evidence for the ETH, and what cases support it, and why do those enamored of the ETH believe they do? A _mass_ of inexplicable cases, assuming in every case that the facts really are all in hand, and the witnesses are not misled, simply indicates a problem, to a scientist. In analogous circumstances in everyday science, a researcher would then devise experiments to explain the anomalies - either in the hope of resolving them in accordance with accepted theory, or (grand hope) to find and justify a new theoretical explanation. The Top Ten ETH-Supporting Cases for which the more irritating of us persist in asking may be regarded as the equivalent of those experiments. There is, as far as I can see, no other way to justify the ETH given the nature of the data - i.e. observational, not empirical, results. I still believe that, if Brad chose to see past the haze of his hasty reactions, he and I actually have more to discuss than to argue over. Time will well. best wishes Permutation D. Morphogenesis Lamdah Field PS: Time will also tell whether he will distinguish between this List and PJ-47, whose members not privy to UpDates must be increasingly bemused by his posts there.
[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp