UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2007 > Jul > Jul 31

Re: The Fermi Paradox

From: Brad Sparks <RB47x.nul>
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 08:57:07 EDT
Archived: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 09:44:51 -0400
Subject: Re: The Fermi Paradox

>From: Dimitris Hatzopoulos <dhatz-ufo.nul>
>To: ufoupdates.nul
>Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2007 19:52:36 +0300
>Subject: Re: The Fermi Paradox

>>From: Eleanor White <eleanor.nul>
>>To: ufoupdates.nul
>>Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2007 16:56:17 -0400
>>Subject: Re: The Fermi Paradox


>>This is why I urge again (having recently done so in response to
>>a post by Brad Sparks) that the very best cases need to be
>>agreed upon by the UFO researcher community, and summarized as a
>>single sheet handout for use every time the topic comes up, by
>>people calling into talk shows, by researchers being asked to
>>participate in documentaries - the summarized best needs to
>>become the default response at every opportunity.

>>Post it on the web for all to see and print off.

>>That simple move could start the field on it's way to the next
>>credibility plateau and is definitely worth the small amount of
>>time and money to do so.

>A good candidate would be the "UFO Briefing Document - The best
>available evidence" (1995), endorsed by CUFOS, FUFOR and MUFON
>(I located an online copy via the Internet WayBack Machine).

>A more elaborate list of cases would be James McDonald's
>presentation in July-1968 (who also debunks the usual
>misinformation: why don't pilots or astronomers see UFOs? Why no
>multiple witness sightings? etc). I include links to those and
>other similar free online resources at


>But in my experience with the Internet and having run A/B-type
>testing and visitor behaviour (click tracking) analysis on
>various pages, if you want such material to be viewed by the
>general public, it needs to be audio-visual.

There is a serious confusion of goals here, without picking on
anyone in particular here. You are referring to UFO cases chosen
for reasons of publicity and political impact, such as possible
Congressional hearings, and using them for public advocacy. This
is fine but it is not the same thing as choosing the best
scientific cases to impress the scientific community. It is my
contention that the best scientific cases will in the long run
have the greatest public and political impact, and not the UFO
cases chosen for publicity and senational public impact.

There is a huge difference. The publicity oriented cases tend to
be very controversial and often have huge holes or weaknesses in
them. Don't we have thousands of excellent UFO cases already,
and aren't there many without gaping holes or defects? Why then
do we perversely choose the cases that are going to cause the
most problems and allow the debunkers as well as legitimate
skeptics wide opportunities to shoot them down? It almost makes
me think that UFO researchers really don't believe they have
"thousands" of excellent UFO cases and so they have to
desperately cling to controversial and sensational pet cases --
 because they have nothing else to offer. More on this below.

McDonald's catalog was designed to impress political types at a
Congressional symposium, not impress a scientific audience.
McDonald was trying to puncture popular misconceptions and
fallacies about UFO phenomena, not present a list of best
evidence cases.

The FUFOR Best Available Evidence was also chosen to impress the
politically influential and emphasized high-publicity cases such
as Socorro and Rendlesham, which would not persuade scientists
and as we can see have not made any inroads into convincing the
scientific community to launch a true scientific investigation.

What I am mainly talking about is the pressing need for best
scientific UFO evidence to be carefully selected and presented
to the scientific community.

This has not been done before. It requires that the number one
collection of best UFO evidence, the Air Force files, be
thoroughly combed for this scientific evidence. I am doing just
that with the invaluable help of a number of dedicated
colleagues, but it will take a long time (we have about 56,000+
pages online at the BlueBookArchive.com which is about half way,
but just being online doesn't mean they have been thoroughly
analyzed yet).

It is sad that many NICAP members spent years fighting for the
release of the AF files, then when the AF files were finally
released it was too late, those fighting for release were gone
or had lost interest, or could not recruit assistants to tackle
such a huge project. To this day no one really knows what is in
all the AF files, publicly available for over 30 years now, as I
can show by the startling cases that I have found so far. Breezy
books skimming over a few sensational cases doesn't cut it.
Cutting corners by jumping to the 500+ Unidentified cases and
ignoring the probably 5,000 other unexplained cases won't cut it

A major drawback to some websites and case collections is the
commingling of disreputable cases and personalities with
legitimate UFO cases and researchers. This is an increasing
problem as apparently the US Air Force continues to propagate
disinformation to discredit the UFO field, by promoting
questionable organizations and claims that mix the legitimate
with the fraudulent. Whenever someone tries to point out these
discrediting associations the AF stooges and their unwitting
followers gang up on them.

Another problem is the dogmatic insistence of UFO advocates that
the entire UFO problem must be solved all at once, or else none
at all. But this is not how science works. As much as some just
hate hearing this, science is fundamentally "reductionistic," a
fancy word meaning the "reduction" of a problem to its simpler
parts (not necessarily smaller parts, by the way, but _simpler_
aspects which could very well be physically larger).

UFO researchers sink their case by demanding that scientists
solve all of the UFO phenomenon all at the same time, including
the toughest cases right at the beginning, such as abductions
and CE III's, etc. This kitchen-sink approach is never going to
impress physicists at the American Physical Society or
astronomers at the American Astronomical Society. Don't come
back at me saying this has never worked, it will never work,
etc. It has never been tried before so you can't say that.

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



[ 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