UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2007 > Jun > Jun 15

Re: Caution More Press Bias & 'Research' - Boone

From: Greg Boone <Evolbaby.nul>
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 17:45:09 EDT
Fwd Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 21:37:36 -0400
Subject: Re: Caution More Press Bias & 'Research' - Boone 

>Source: The National Post - Toronto, Canada


>Friday, June 15, 2007

>Sixty Years Later, We're Still Alone

>In June, 1947, an Idaho businessman invented the idea of 'flying
>saucers.' Thousands of supposed sightings later, the world
>remains alien-free

>Scott Van Wynsberghe, National Post

>Sixty years ago this month, on June 25, 1947, an Idaho
>businessman named Kenneth Arnold showed up at the offices of an
>Oregon newspaper, the East Oregonian. He had quite a story to

>Arnold claimed he had seen something strange near Mount Rainier,
>in neighbouring Washington state, while piloting his own plane
>the day before. It was a bizarre formation of aerial objects
>scooting around at what he reckoned was over twice the speed of
>sound. The objects moved, he said, "like a saucer would if you
>skipped it across the water." At that moment - as described by
>aerospace historian Curtis Peebles in his 1994 book Watch the
>Skies! - the concept of the flying saucer was born, and the UFO
>movement began to stir.


>Once the dust
>has settled, we invariably are left with no proof that the sky
>has yielded anything unusual, and so no proof to dispute the
>default assumption that we are alone in the universe.

>This unchanging pattern over six decades should be sufficient
>grounds to dismiss the possibility that our earth is being
>visited by space aliens. But in case you aren't convinced, here
>are 10 more reasons.

1 Humanity has yet to detect a single, extraterrestrial


He's right here as far as we the public are concerned. Some
might argue but I've said over and over again, since these
abductees or contactees are speaking for the 'space brothers'
what they have to say has to be taken with a big grain of salt.
Why? Because if you don't have a messenger you don't have a
message. We can't allow people claiming to be in contact with
superior civilizations and those reps from said superior
civilizations are too chicken squat to speak for themselves.
 Can anyone say Mr. Applewhite? It's too dangerous to allow
this nonsense.


>2 People have always seen too much in the night sky. Astrology,
>for example, has stubbornly survived, based on ancient, esoteric
>interpretations of random star patterns. Comets, too, have
>regularly been interpreted as mystical portents. We seem to have
>some inborn need to look to our sky in search of existential

Okay here's where things start to fall apart. Dude had a great
start but using the term_always is the first indicator of
generalizing. That's the first stage to blanket covering and non
specific data that a pro researcher is supposed to do.

>3 Human perception is shaky. By the mid-1970s, it was already
>could be wrong. J. Allen Hynek, a prominent believer, conceded
>in The UFO Experience (1974) that claimed sightings always
>occurred more often at night, when human visual perception is
>weakest. Philip J. Klass, a debunker, spent a whole chapter of
>his own UFOs Explained (1976) on the impossibility of estimating
>the size, distance, and altitude of an unknown, aerial object in
>the absence of any known point of reference. (A frisbee one yard
>away looks much like a giant flying saucer one mile away.)

Again he's falling apart here when he could have been on the
right track by using the word_sometimes_human perception is

Humanity wouldn't be here on this hostile world if our
perceptions were that shaky. It takes good eyes to hit a deer
with an arrow or spear or rock and we've done quite well for
several million years. Avoiding those pesky predators, telling
the difference between poisonous foods, inventing writing, fine
art, knitting, sewing, plucking eyebrows etc. We do quite well
on the perception dept.

Now had he said something about how_sometimes_our imagination in
conjunction with our perceptions and recall can be shaky I'd be
on his side to a degree.

>4 Consequently, almost all UFO sightings are explainable. At a
>1977 UFO conference in Chicago, American researcher David M.
>Jacobs observed that the rate for explainable sightings was "90%
>or more." In recent, annual surveys, Canadian researcher Chris
>Rutkowski has arrived at such rates as 83% (2003) and 88%

Those statistics I'll leave up to the respective researchers to
confirm. Wouldn't surprise me if they were accurate. Bottom line
is if one million people reported a UFO and only 10% were
unexplainable that would be a heck of a lot of unexplainable to
deal with. If just one of those were from an advanced Earthly or
non terrestrial source that would be news. It could mean a
foreign government or our neighbor Joe had more fun on the
weekends tinkering in his garage.

>5 And the "unexplained" sightings may not be unexplained at all.
>So much is now known about CIA and Pentagon activities involving
>balloons and spy planes in the post-war years that the history
>of UFOs for that era has had to be completely rewritten.
>Peebles, cited earlier, is also an authority on U.S. aerial
>reconnaissance in the Cold War, and his book Shadow Flights
>(2000) makes clear that U.S. authorities chose to allow "UFO"
>sightings to spread rather than admit to the existence of
>widespread airborne intelligence. In one case, Peebles uses
>declassified records to produce an exact match between a balloon
>launch on May 21, 1952, and a same-day "UFO" sighting that was
>documented by flying-saucer enthusiasts Jim and Carol Lorenzen.
>Historian Gerald Haines has estimated that "over half of all UFO
>reports from the late 1950s through the 1960s" were caused by
>spy flights.


Okay now he starts off better. Sure we know some UFO reports are
military craft and experiments. Problem is when these
experiments and craft interfere with our daily goings on we
report on them. Try to find out about them. National security is
a must so that's understandable and forgivable. Consider the
source is best laid here because we all know that no branch of
our government would lie to we the investors.

>6 Nor is there a government conspiracy to conceal alien
>visitations. For example, in the case of the widely claimed "UFO
>crash" at Roswell, N.M., in 1947, a 1994 study by the U.S. Air
>Force found that reports of mysterious wreckage actually
>involved yet another intelligence effort. It was called Project
>Mogul, and it used specially equipped balloons to detect
>atmospheric traces of Soviet nuclear tests. One of the secret
>balloons came down at Roswell.

There've been government conspiracies to conceal murders, well
poisons, beatings, rapes, and all sorts of horrific situations.
 If there's a conspiracy to conceal something regarding aliens
does that or would that surprise anyone? Bottom line is we have
no irrefutable proof of alien visitations of any kind so that is
indeed still up in the air and the final cog to this wheel. The
government is so infiltrated with hateful, greedy, bigotted,
egotistical criminals that if they came out tomorrow with a
disclosure I'm sure the battle hardened UFOlogist would still do
the due diligence to study the data presented.

>7 There are no alien abductions. In the late 1980s, UFO skeptic
>Klass noticed that almost all abduction claims came from the
>U.S. To him, that suggested a cultural problem, not a cosmic
>one. In 2005, Harvard psychologist Susan Clancy argued that even
>the apparently sincere claimants of abduction were probably just
>victims of sleep-related hallucinations, recklessly administered
>hypnosis, and social influences.

Diction again. 'almost all' and 'were probably' are about as
scientific as Bullwinkle Moose's Mr. Know-It-All routine.
Consider the source.

>8 UFO activists are their own worst enemies.


Yes, I've noticed how UFO activists have been seen punching
themselves in the face and ruining their own bank accounts and
using broad generalities in their research papers.

>9 The study of UFOs is riddled with fraud and hoax. As early as
>1950, a convicted swindler in Denver, Colorado, named Leo
>GeBauer began passing himself off as a UFO expert, "Dr. Gee." A
>few years later, Californian handyman George Adamski declared he
>was in contact with spacemen, but his only evidence was blurry
>photographs and witnesses who later recanted. From the late
>1950s until his confession in 1966, U.S. Navy radio operator
>Z.T. Fogl mischievously spread doctored photographs across the
>flying- saucer community.

>In the 1980s, the UFO world was rocked by a 1947 U.S. government
>document that mapped out a flying-saucer cover-up entitled
>"Majestic 12" (or "MJ-12"). The document was a forgery, and such
>activists as Kevin Randle have since denounced it. Beginning in
>1991 (and as recently as 2002), British tricksters have come
>forward to admit responsibility for huge numbers of crop circles
>that appeared in their country.

Name one field of research or any social structure that isn't
riddled with frauds and hoaxes? We humans are masters of frauds
and hoaxes. Maybe we should rename ourselves homo sapiens
bullshottus or something. As long as we have the resistance to
fair and impartial research and study and as long as we have
stonewalling, lies and threats while doing research in this
field we'll have opportunities for such frauds and hoaxes.
That's why some of us have been petitioning for years for open
discussion on the issue with our legislators with full
protection for our witnesses. If there's nothing there, then why
the fear to grant our witnesses protection? We need an open
discussion with facts only so we can avoid and put an end to the
crooks and psychopaths who use the mystery associated for
personal profit and gain.

>10 In the end, UFOs are just an overgrown offshoot of science


Well that last statement by the writer killed about any
redeemable value to his story.

One wonders who pays people like this to do such half-assed
research and to make such broad unsubstantial claims?

Sounds like someone is afraid of something. Maybe someone is
afraid of something and they don't even realize it.

Bottom line is in 60 years of research and popular culture we
have no irrefutable physical evidence. Some disagree and some
debate but it's the oddest thing ever that like ghosts, UFOs
have that 'must have been there' aspect to them.



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



[ Next Message | 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