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: Viktor Golubik <Diverge247.nul>
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2008 17:16:14 EDT
Archived: Thu, 16 Oct 2008 23:46:00 -0400
Subject: Re: Kumburgaz Turkey UFO Videos


>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark.nul>
>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2008 10:21:08 -0400
>Subject: Re: Kumburgaz Turkey UFO Videos

>>From: Santiago Ytturria <syturria.nul>
>>To: ufoupdates.nul
>>Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2008 12:40:26 -0500
>>Subject: Re: Kumburgaz Turkey UFO Videos

>>>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark.nul>
>>>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>>>Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2008 18:27:23 -0400
>>>Subject: Re: Kumburgaz Turkey UFO Videos

>>>If the claimant has a real case and solid evidence, we have yet
>>>to hear them. Till we do, I will assume - based upon ufology's
>>>long, unhappy experience with bogus photos and films, not to
>>>mention the necessary requirements of basic science, critical
>>>intelligence, and good sense - that I, and all of us, ought to
>>>remain skeptical.

>>That's very sad for you Jerome. Times are changing in a dramatic
>>way. We have living now times of massive sightings, increased
>>UFO activity all over the world, this is a reality and happening
>>so we have to keep our open mind if we consider ourselves
>>ufologists. Our experience of years is our great ally to detect
>>a hoax perpetrated not our skeptism and certainly not as you say
>>basic science wich is an utopia my friend. It's a wrong idea,
>>maybe technology, tools, software and basic tech knowledge but
>>not science in it's escence. There is no way both science and
>>UFOs will combine each other ever, not unless science decide to
>>change it's position.

>>As I said times are changing, science is not a bible and frankly
>>it is turning obsolete regarding the UFO phenomena after the
>>concurs of millions all over the world that are proving for more
>>than 50 years this is a irrefutable reality. Perhaps you would
>>want to reconsider your position regarding science and UFOs and
>>become more flexible? The decision is entirely yours.

>It will be science, not wishful thinking, that will bring the
>UFO puzzle to ground. On those occasions (sadly infrequent) when
>science has been applied to a case or cases, the results have
>been interesting and suggestive. Perhaps you really ought to go
>back and reread - or, perhaps, read for the first time - the
>works of J. Allen Hynek, James E. McDonald, Peter Sturrock,
>Bruce Maccabee, and other professionals (some on this List) who
>have explored ufology's scientific dimensions and potential
>scientific payoff.

>Apparently, you have confused science, a demonstrably successful
>approach to the accumulation and certification of knowledge
>about the world (it has vanquished all its rivals with good
>reason), with the passing preoccupations - at times misguided -
>of scientists, who after all are fallible humans. Science,
>however, is always bigger than individual scientists.

>Scientists' temporary neglect of UFO issues will surely pass in
>a generation or two, especially if sightings continue, as there
>is every reason to think they will. (In my view the continuing
>failure of the SETI project will eventually force
>exobiologically inclined scientists to turn to UFO data.) In
>time science - not mysticism, religious conviction, arm-waving,
>mystery-mongering, or saucer fandom - will yield the final
>answer.


Adding further...

First and foremost science does not prove anything, it merely
eliminates possibilities. What remains is further refined and
debated undergoing another more refined rejection or acceptance
process - often as technology improves or new theories emerge:
What we like to refer to as "proof" is merely a historically
derived zone - not an absolute real time point.

As such, I find Martin and Dick's comments most cogent
concerning this process as it relates to this case.

What is badly needed is a well thought out classification system
of UFO related phenomena. A hierarchical system that rigidly
categorizes sighting reports but does not necessarily prevent
them from moving up/down or left/right within such a ranked and
tiered system. Each report will, by necessity, have a certain
degree of fuzziness - just one more attribute of that system.
And, in so far as we can collectively agree on such a system, it
will either reflect poorly or properly on ALL our future claims.

Another objective should be to define what it is that
constitutes reasonable levels of proof within that system? A
question I seldom hear asked or properly projected onto the
debunker or skeptic. What constitutes proof for them?
 Incorporate those ideas and show how it does or does not fit,
relate, or properly scale.

I find it tiring to keep arguing about each case without a firm
boundary of where it first fits or does not fit within some
reasonably based classification system - preserve our resources
in recognition of a
commonly directed activity.

Toward these goals, this case so far lacks (can we agree):

1) No rapid object movements
2) No rapid directional changes
3) No distinct distance calculation ability
4) No data on the video camera
5) No witness interviews
6) No spectroscopic data on the light source
  (when will that ever happen?)

Many reasons not to get excited...

Obviously, a review of the 2.5 hr video can further clarify some
of these issues.

golubik





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

See:

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


[ 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