UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2007 > Aug > Aug 2

Re: Why The Cover-Up?

From: Paul Scott Anderson <paulscottanderson.nul>
Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2007 23:37:24 -0700
Archived: Thu, 02 Aug 2007 12:31:19 -0400
Subject: Re: Why The Cover-Up?

>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark.nul>
>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 09:41:55 -0500
>Subject: Re: Why The Cover-Up?

>Why do you keep repeating what I wrote originally, all the while
>asserting that I never said what you're repeating?

>One last try:

>Scientists of the 18th Century investigated the evidence for
>meteorite reports. They investigated because the evidence for
>falling stones existed in abundance; they did not ignore it on
>the grounds, as you initially claimed, that because stones don't
>exist in the sky, stones cannot fall from the sky, case closed.
>Where scientists initially erred - not unusually in the history
>of any kind of inquiry, especially when the discipline is in its
>formative years - was in the interpretation, which was limited
>by the very modest scientific understanding (let me repeat: very
>modest scientific understanding) that prevailed more than two
>centuries ago.  Between today's science and the science of 200+
>years ago, an enormous knowledge gulf stretches. In due course,
>meteorites became explainable. Just like all kinds of other
>phenomena of nature.

My point was specifically about _attitude_ only. I gave you a
specific reference, how Chladni was _ignored_ and _ridiculed_
for believing that meteorites must have come from space, and
even Thomas Jefferson _declared_ that it couldn't be true. I
realize that scientific understanding was much more modest back
then of course, but it is still limited now, more than a lot of
people would like to admit. There is still that knee-jerk
reaction to blindly dismiss certain ideas, and, in some cases,
scientists again end up with egg on their faces. The ones I
respect most are the ones who are willing to admit when they are
wrong (such as Stephen Hawking a while ago re black holes).

The problem, as I noted before, is that modern science has
increasingly come to accept the possibility of weird quantum
physics, multiple universes, time travel, teleportation, etc.,
yet I still see some ufologists who dismiss these kinds of
notions to explain UFOs. Ufology needs to keep up with and
familiarize itself more with what is actually being discovered.
"Silly" ideas like this _are_ starting to become more a part of
mainstream scientific thinking (among some scientists at least),
so people who hastily debunk them need to get their heads of the
sand. I don't understand researchers who promote serious
scientific thinking (which is good) but then don't bother to
consider some of the latest findings coming from that science; I
guess because some of those findings are still too "weird" for
them. Skepticism is one thing (and healthy) but there is the
danger of crossing the line into debunkery.

On that note, you didn't answer my other question yet:

"If similar evidence was to be confirmed supporting a
terrestrial explanation for some UFO reports, would you be
willing to acknowledge you were wrong?"

>Except by proclamation - yours - the meteorite episode has
>nothing to do with the reception of Gehrmanism.

>Or is the answer to that obvious - that this is just a game to
>you guys and, beneath it all, you know perfectly well that this
>is second-grade science fiction?

A game? My posts had nothing directly to do with Gehrmanism
specifically. I'm only outlining similarities in attitude toward
new or unconventional ideas in general. That's it, nothing more,
nothing less. That was my attempted point all along. And yeah,
that's why I've invested the last 17 years or so now to serious
research including with MUFON initially and then founding CCCRN
back in 1995, with no financial gains from it (more debts, if
anything), etc...

I don't really want to go on about this, I had just wanted to
add my 2 cents as it were.


Listen to 'Strange Days... Indeed' - The PodCast