|
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/
[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp