UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2003 > Dec > Dec 4

Re: Ufology - Ten Questions - Shell

From: Tim Shell <tshell@vcmails.com>
Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2003 10:12:07 -0600
Fwd Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2003 16:28:30 -0500
Subject: Re: Ufology - Ten Questions - Shell

>From: Roy Hale <roy@thelosthaven.co.uk>
>To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
>Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2003 23:23:15 -0000
>Subject: Ufology - Ten Questions

>1: If after many years in Ufology, you arrive at the fact, that
>ET has arrived here on this planet, should you be considered
>someone who has a 'Closed Mind'?

Do I have a "closed mind" because I think I'm typing at a
computer keyboard? It seems to be there under my fingers. I
could argue persuasively for its existence. But I do realize
that my perceptions can be faulty. And I have been led to
understand that with quantum fluctuations and all that, the
keyboard only partially exists in the dimensions I can perceive.
And maybe the Buddha was onto something, and this is all just
an illusion. So I like to think that because I understand these
things, I could be wrong about the keyboard. That should
qualify me as someone with an "open mind." I do seem to be
typing on something, though.

>2: If yes to the above, does this mean that the choice of being
>a sceptic is the only one available to UFO research?

The "choice" of being a skeptic is the only one available for
anyone with an inquisitive, rational mind. But there's a
difference between approaching an unknown with the attitude, "I
must find a reason for this that fits comfortably with my
personal beliefs," and "I'll see if it can fit something I
understand, but if it doesn't, I'm willing to hold off on any
explanation of it. I can simply admit I don't know."

>3: If you believe ET has arrived, does this make you less of a
>person to debate with?

A good debater should be able to skillfully argue either side to
the point where you can't tell what their personal beliefs are.

>4: How closely should UFO researchers align themselves with
>Government agencies?

How closely should a UFO researcher align himself with any
organization that has an agenda, stated or hidden?

>5: Should censorship play an important role in closing debates,
>if answers are not forthcoming?

Debates should be closed (or at least paused) when each side has
had an equal opportunity to present their arguments. Some
debates never produce answers, as such, but hopefully they
stimulate other lines of inquiry.

However, in the absence of new information, or a new
interpretation of old information, there is such a thing as
beating a dead horse.

>6: Is UFO research a subject for _free_ thinkers, or is there a
>line to toe?

There's a certain degree of free thinking necessary in any
endeavor, whether it's researching UFOs or designing toilets.
And you're free to think of the subject any way you please. If
you don't care what other people think, that's just fine. You
can sit in your room and bask in the warmth of your special

However, once you feel compelled to leave that room and convince
someone else of your reasoning or beliefs, then you must take
into account the reasoning and beliefs of the person you're
trying to convince. What might be good enough for you, might not
be good enough for them.

If that's a problem for you, then it might be best to stay in
your room.

>7: Who patented UFO thought as non-ET related?

Jacques Vallee is, I suppose, generally known for proposing a
non-ET possibility for UFOs. Charles Fort or someone else might
have done so before him. Who first thought the odd lights in the
sky were gods?

>8: How far should one use, web stats tracking as evidence of

Quality is more important than the source. How quality is judged
is debatable.

>9: How far should personal prejudice play a role in your UFO

By simply choosing to do UFO research (as opposed to studying
bumblebees), you've already made a personal, subjective
judgment. You're certainly free to study UFOs any way you want.
But, again, the minute you want to convince someone else of your
conclusions, you need to accommodate their requirements for

>10: Should any researcher, be treated as an unreliable
>candidate for UFO research DATA if they have used illegal drugs
>- past or present?

All data is qualified. The drug usage just adds another
qualification. If you can smoke dried grasshopper legs and
channel plans for an alien warp drive engine, hey, that's great.
But you can see how it would help your argument if the engine
actually worked.