From: Frank Warren <frank-warren.nul>
Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2007 10:18:02 -0700
Archived: Fri, 14 Sep 2007 13:29:31 -0400
Subject: Re: Skeptic Wanted


>From: Robert Gates <RGates8254.nul>
>To: ufoupdates.nul
>Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 23:10:24 EDT
>Subject: Re: Skeptic Wanted

>>From: Frank Warren <frank-warren.nul>
>>To: ufoupdates.nul
>>Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 09:10:16 -0700
>>Subject: Skeptic Wanted

Greetings Robert, et al,

>>Fellow Listerions,

>>I would like to hear your thoughts on who might be regarded as a
>>'respected skeptic' (living) re. Ufology, specifically. Not a
>>debunker - those who say, black to our white - rather someone
>>who has done research and offers a good argument.

>>Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated...

>I don't know of any so called respected skeptic. It seems most
>if not all end up being skeptibunkers, which is deny and explain
>at all costs.

>Personally I think alot of folks in the field provide more then
>enough 'respectable skeptical analysis' of cases. People such as
>Richard Hall, Kevin Randle, Brad Sparks, Jerry Clark, Stan
>Friedman, and many, many others out there do a fine job
>dissecting cases, putting out information both pro and con.

Ironically the comments I have received off-list have all
pointed to Ufologists. Certainly in regard to science,
approaching a subject, problem or theorem from an unbiased
position is a prerequisite.

>I believe the key here is that whom ever does the original
>investigation, doesn't instantly vomit the case all over Coast
>to Coast or the Internet. It should be investigated, then a
>review by somebody, similar to the names I mention above would
>be in order to make sure the investigator didn't miss something,
>or follow up on a promising avenue of inquiry. Naturally the
>understanding with that person is the information doesn't leak,
>and the person conducting the review doesn't hijack the case.

There are certainly those that like to be in the limelight;
however, I would agree that a less obtrusive investigation is
more appropriate, particularly with historic cases and elderly
witnesses e.g., Roswell, etc. I would also add that that this is
the case more often then not with seasoned researchers;
however, given that very nature, it's seldom heard or known.

>Then hopefully once the case and the investigation does hit
>public eye alot of the i's are dotted and the t's crossed so to
>speak.

>I have actually had the opportunity to do a review for some
>investigators. The understanding is that the information is not
>leaked, nor talked about by me. I have provided input and
>thoughts after reviewing reports and data. Some they have agreed
>with, some not...i.e. judgement call.

>So the long answer to the short question is people should look
>to respectable people in the community for help.

My hope was for a name of a so-called skeptic who opposes ETH
in regards to UFOs, but doesn't just go through the motions;
someone who has actually done thorough research and has points
to offer in support of his or her argument.

Sadly the lack of responses doesn't bode well for this calling.

>Its kind of like the people who figure that we need to wait
>around until science decides it wants to study UFOS. Science
>will never get around to that in a serious vain, because truly
>science doesn't think much of UFOs. Its off there radar scope.
>You look at geologists. Most geologists are looking for clues to
>how the earth was formed and made etc etc. Well the
>Meteorologists couldn't care less about anything that comes from
>the geologists, unless of course it has some direct application
>to weather. Likewise the astronomers as a whole couldn't care
>less about what comes from geology, or weather, unless it
>directly applys to something they are doing.

You wrote:

"science doesn't think much of UFOs"

Ironically, this predisposition or bias or lack of skepticism is
unscientific. The fact that a phenomenon exists demands
scientific examination!

>Point being is that it is up to US within the field to make the
>difference. We shouldn't wait for others, or so called main
>stream science.

No waiting here . . ..

>Remember you esentially have four kind of people in the UFO world.

>1) The gulliable believer who believes every group of aircraft
>landing lights are an alien space ship, and who believes
>anything and everything they see over the internet or hear on
>talk radio.

>2) The skeptibunker who believes _everything_ is explained as
>some kind of natural occurance or misidentification, or witness
>fabrications. Anything that can't be explained falls into the
>category of 'it will be explained in 40-50 years.

>3) The Go Getter. Who is prepared to unload the latest wild and
>incredible tale that anybody, and I mean anybody tells them.
>They believe everything the individual tells them, does not
>check the back ground of the witnesses out, verify college
>degrees, or educational background and rationalizes any later
>found inconsistency away as an evil secret government plot. The
>more the story is unproveable and unverifiable, the more they
>seem to like it.

>3) The honest investigator. He or she may have witnesses
>strange activity, but they are still objective, forthright, and
>careful not to pronounce everything they see and or hear to be
>an alien space craft. They examine the evidence, look at all the
>possible explainations, and investigate the case to either rule
>them in or out. They are careful not to unload the story
>publicly until they have examined the evidence and come to some
>kind of conclusion.


Thanks for your input Robert...


Cheers,

Frank




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

See:

http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/sdi/program/