UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2012 > May > May 12

Re: The Roswell Investigation & The Skeptics

From: Kevin Randle<KRandle993.nul>
Date: Fri, 11 May 2012 08:49:26 -0400 (EDT)
Archived: Sat, 12 May 2012 08:39:50 -0400
Subject: Re: The Roswell Investigation & The Skeptics


>From: Kathy Kasten <catraja.nul>
>To: <post.nul>
>Date: Tue, 8 May 2012 19:18:47 +0000
>Subject: Re: The Roswell Investigation & The Skeptics

>>Date: Tue, 8 May 2012 03:34:26 -0400
>>To: ufo-updates-list.nul
>>From: post.nul
>>Subject: UFO UpDate: The Roswell Investigation & The Skeptics

>>Source: Kevin Randle's A Different Perspective Blog

>>http://tinyurl.com/cbholsl

>>Sunday, May 06, 2012

>>The Roswell Investigation And The Skeptics

>>I have seen, over the last several months, nothing but criticism
>>from the world of the skeptic about our efforts to assemble a
>>team to investigate the Roswell claims. We have published little
>>about our investigation, other than to announce the members of
>>the team, and the skeptics and debunkers have found nothing to
>>like about it. They are convinced that all we will do is
>>reinforce the ideas that have already been published. That is,
>>we'll endorse the extraterrestrial and that is it.

>>In fact, I believe that the only answer they will accept is that
>>Roswell was something mundane, most probably a weather balloon
>>array launched from Alamogordo on June 4, 1947. If we determine
>>anything else, regardless of what evidence we might uncover, it
>>will be rejected as more of the same. They all know that there
>>has been no alien visitation and therefore anything that
>>suggests otherwise is the result of poor technique and
>>investigation on our part.

>>Any eyewitness testimony that suggests otherwise is the result
>>of poor memory, confabulation or outright lying. Nothing these
>>people say will be believed, unless they provide testimony that
>>what fell was something mundane, most probably a weather balloon
>>array launched from Alamogordo on June 4, 1947.

>>If, however, the eyewitness testimony reinforces the balloon
>>explanation, then those memories are accurate and reflect
>>reality. It doesn't matter if those memories are can be proven
>>false with documentation, they must be believed because they
>>lead directly to the accepted explanation.

>>As I say, all this is ridiculous because we haven't completed
>>our work. We have developed some interesting leads, but the
>>skeptics are already rejecting our research without seeing any
>>of it.


>Kevin:

>I find it just as disingenuous to defend a research solution you
>have not formulated. How would you know the outcome of research
>you have not started, discussed with your team or planned the
>new approach to solving a problem.

>Usually, a researcher in the academic world would make the
>proposal to the juried panel before starting the research. Then,
>wait for the approval before going ahead with the research.

>If you are looking for approval from your peers - for all
>practical purposes, members of this list, please present your
>proposed outline of the research you intend to pursue.

>The information in your blog seems to be a defense without
>outlining an approach. I think you know better.


Kathy -

Once again I have to question your reading comprehension. All I
was saying was that some skeptics have attacked our research
without having seen anything about it. We have published (and by
we, I mean me) on my blog a couple of minor points, just to make
a point. It is premature to reject our work because you don't
agree with us... but how do you know you don't agree? Sure,
you can say you don't agree with what we have said in the
past, but it would be more enlightened to wait to see what we
say after we complete our work.

I'm not looking for approval here. I just asking to wait to see
what we say. You can't review a book without reading it... you
can't review a movie without seeing it. There are those who will
review anything based on their personal bias or what they have
heard, but my point is that such criticism is unfair.

Wait until we have finished before you criticize our conclusions
(which is not to say you personally, but those out there who are
posting and blogging about all the things we are doing wrong).

And just what academic world do you suggest we work in?... Seems
to me that academia has passed judgement on the topic and, for
the most part, is unwilling to look at any evidence. We talked
to a number of our peers inside the UFO community about what we
wanted to do and have proceeded from there...


Kevin




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

At:

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

These contents above are copyright of the author and
UFO UpDates - Toronto. They may not be reproduced
without the express permission of both parties and
are intended for educational use only.

[ Next 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