11916Fw: Scientists And The ET Hypothesis - McGonagle
- Mar 3, 2002
----- Original Message -----
From: "Joe McGonagle" <joem_cgonagle@...>
Sent: Sunday, March 03, 2002 7:53 PM
Subject: Re: Scientists And The ET Hypothesis - McGonagle
----- Original Message -----
> From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@...>
> Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2002 13:08:55 EST
> Subject: Re: Scientists And The ET Hypothesis
> To: ufoupdates@...
> >Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2002 10:20:43 -0500
> >From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@...>
> >Subject: Scientists And The ET Hypothesis
> >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@...>
> >>From: Joe McGonagle <joem_cgonagle@...>
> >>To: <email@example.com>
> >>Subject: Re: Scientists And The ET Hypothesis
> >>Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2002 00:12:00 -0000
Oops, I missed my manners on some previous postings in my hurry
Hello, Jim et al,
> I speak for me. My opinion may be too fine a point, but it is a
> point worth one's attention. The word "UFO" Stan's... stands,
> sorry, for "Unidientified" flying object. And it is my opinion
> that very few, too few in fact, researchers claim that these
> craft from another planet. Rather, that the only really
> reasonable fit appears to be the 'other' planet... time...
> space... dimension theory. It's the only one which fits into
> that weirdly shaped and very complex hole in the box.
Again, I have to disagree-the concept that an ET craft is the
only solution to fit the known facts is the easiest to
understand, but that doesn't make it true. How about
shape-shifting demons, terrestrial under-sea civilisations, EM
induced misperceptions, for examples? They can also be made to
fit the known facts.
> >>It is my contention that the scientific approach should not
> >>to prove that UFOs are spaceships from another planet, but to
> >>attempt to identify what UFOs are.
> Seems to me that is what is going on. But then, there is the
> phenomena which relates UFOs to the abdcution experience. Now
> if both assumptions are true, where does one go from there?
My point is that it is not what is going on in most cases,
especially in "popular ufology". Most of the emphasis is on the
ETH, with little regard for other hypotheses which are equally
valid, both exotic and (relatively) mundane.
> >So, let's first establish that there is at least one, well
> >reported, credible sighting, presumably with a description
> >defies explanation in terms of a "natural" - read that as
> >"unintelligent" - phenomenon.
> >If we find one, then we can offer speculation as to what can
> >explain the presence of said phenomenon.
> Bruce, there are too many to mention. The problem is that no
> one outside of the small community of nutcases (like our little
> group here) believe what we have to say. And likely never will.
> Unless we provide or 'they' provide a bolt holding the framous
> to the trihydropaducal generator. And maybe not even that.
Again, it comes down to lack of quality data. I don't think that
the lack of quality data is because there is none, but that it
hasn't been adequately documented, and has been diluted with a
lot of very poor-quality data to such a point that the filters
- << Previous post in topic