UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2008 > Oct > Oct 16

Re: Kumburgaz Turkey UFO Videos

From: Dick Hall <dh12.nul>
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2008 12:45:51 -0400
Archived: Thu, 16 Oct 2008 22:34:40 -0400
Subject: Re: Kumburgaz Turkey UFO Videos 

>From: Ray Dickenson <r.dickenson.nul>
>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2008 21:21:25 +0100
>Subject: Re: Kumburgaz Turkey UFO Videos

>>From: Dick Hall <dh12.nul>
>>To: ufoupdates.nul
>>Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2008 08:38:19 -0400
>>Subject: Re: Kumburgaz Turkey UFO Videos

>>From: Steven Kaeser <steve.nul>
>>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>>Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2008 08:59:25 -0400
>>Subject: Re: Kumburgaz Turkey UFO Videos

>>From: Martin Shough <parcellular.nul>
>>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>>Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2008 14:02:07 +0100
>>Subject: Re: Kumburgaz Turkey UFO Videos

>Hello All, have to lump you together since you're now arguing
>'rationality', 'economy' and 'lack of resources'.

I refuse to be lumped. This is not my argument at all, though it
has merit from the standpoint of pragmatism. I argue that the
failure to screen raw data leads to wasted time and contaminated
databases. Not to mention publicity and attention for

Further, everyday life provides many examples of what I am
talking about. If you have a serious medical condition, I am
sure you don't consult just any alleged doctor, or include
reputed quacks among your choices. You assess their credentials.

Sure, the "scientific investigaton" (experiment) might pick up
on a quack, the hard way.

>>From earlier stuff you should've seen that it doesn't matter if
>'bad cases' get on the data-set:


> - a scientific investigation will pick them up. Indeed they can
>make for useful comparisons.

>The point of this argument is that any exclusion of data - and
>many/most investigators can be guilty of this if they 'edit'
>witness statements to make them more acceptable - is a potential
>loss of vital clues. And, if you think about it, it's a vote for
>the status quo - no real progress.

Here again it comes down to your rather broad-minded, open-ended
definition of "data." Of course you don't exclude valid data,
but you damn well better distinguish between genuine data and
garbage. Not to do so makes a travesty of science.


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