Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Scientists And The ET Hypothesis - McGonagle

Expand Messages
  • youfoh
    ... I m with Joe on this one. It must be determined first what constitutes a UFO. Only then could one determine, perhaps obviously, what it s purpose is.
    Message 1 of 5 , Feb 28 7:05 PM
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In ufonet@y..., "Joe McGonagle" <joe@m...> wrote:
      >
      > It is my contention that the scientific approach should not be to
      > prove that UFO's are spaceships from another planet, but to
      > attempt to identify what UFO's are.

      I'm with Joe on this one. It must be determined first what
      constitutes a UFO. Only then could one determine, perhaps obviously,
      what it's purpose is. Without such a bearing, it's only presumptuous
      to label it an alien spacecraft or mezmerizing dodad.
    • Roger Anderton
      Hi Joe, ... Yes, but: (1) Mainstream science has ignored the subject of UFOs. The subject was supposed to have been solved in Condon report etc. (A few
      Message 2 of 5 , Mar 1, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        Hi Joe,

        > It is my contention that the scientific approach should not be to
        > prove that UFO's are spaceships from another planet, but to
        > attempt to identify what UFO's are.


        Yes, but:

        (1) Mainstream science has ignored the subject of UFOs. The subject was
        supposed to have been solved in Condon report etc. (A few scientists like
        Hynek disagreed.)

        That left the field open to independent researchers- amateurs, lone
        scientists etc., and all those people have now had a very long time to reach
        their own conclusions to the answer. These people think that the answer is
        now obvious.

        From that perspective the solution is just a matter of convincing everyone
        else.

        There is too much History of their investigations, to be able to easily
        start afresh. And to start afresh, ignoring their work, is showing no
        respect to them, for many of them have applied the scientific method.

        (2) There are many other 'buts'. .......


        Which probably add up to being that its too late to do as you say. It should
        have been done that way in the first instance, but now we have things like
        Roswell: where we know that something was defintely covered up, whether it
        was weather balloon, aliens or something else. From that perspective, 'we'
        merely want the authorities to tell the truth and convince us. The scientifc
        method does not seem able to cope with the scenario that has been
        concluded. Starting again, merely seems another cover up.




        -Roger





        ----- Original Message -----
        From: "Joe McGonagle" <joe@...>
        To: <ufoupdates@...>; <ufonet@yahoogroups.com>
        Sent: Friday, March 01, 2002 12:12 AM
        Subject: [UFOnet] Re: Scientists And The ET Hypothesis - McGonagle


        > Just a quick note in case anyone has the impression that I am
        > veering off-topic in an attempt to "bash" Stan, I think I should
        > clarify my reasoning for challenging his post.
        >
        > Please note that this post may be negated by any response from
        > Stan that is already in the pipeline, due to the inherrent (and
        > justified) delays in the moderation of the list.
        >
        > A major postulation involved in this thread is that UFOlogy as a
        > subject area has little or no credibility in the general
        > scientific community.
        >
        > I believe that the most likely cause for this perception by the
        > scientific community is a tendancy for many people involved (even
        > amongst "serious" researchers, including Stan) to set out to
        > prove that UFO's are spaceships from another planet in our
        > universe.
        >
        > It is my contention that the scientific approach should not be to
        > prove that UFO's are spaceships from another planet, but to
        > attempt to identify what UFO's are.
        >
        > Cheers, Joe
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > UFOnet is an international news and discussion list dedicated to:
        > UFOs, UAP, Anomalous Phenomena in general and the Paranormal.
        >
        > To subscribe, send a blank e-mail message to:
        > ufonet-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
        > To unsubscribe, send a blank e-mail message to:
        > ufonet-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
        >
        > Website (Dutch only): http://www.ufonet.nl/
        > Messages to the list-owner: admin@...
        >
        > Word voor 10 euro (of meer) donateur van de Stichting UFO-Platform en
        ontvang vier maal per jaar de UFO-Nieuwsbrief. Kijk op www.ufonet.nl!
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
        >
        >
      • major_crisis
        ... was ... scientists like ... to reach ... answer is ... everyone ... easily ... no ... method. ... Those that have applied the scientific method should then
        Message 3 of 5 , Mar 2, 2002
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In ufonet@y..., "Roger Anderton" <R.J.Anderton@b...> wrote:
          > Hi Joe,
          >
          > > It is my contention that the scientific approach should not be to
          > > prove that UFO's are spaceships from another planet, but to
          > > attempt to identify what UFO's are.
          >
          >
          > Yes, but:
          >
          > (1) Mainstream science has ignored the subject of UFOs. The subject
          was
          > supposed to have been solved in Condon report etc. (A few
          scientists like
          > Hynek disagreed.)
          >
          > That left the field open to independent researchers- amateurs, lone
          > scientists etc., and all those people have now had a very long time
          to reach
          > their own conclusions to the answer. These people think that the
          answer is
          > now obvious.
          >
          > From that perspective the solution is just a matter of convincing
          everyone
          > else.
          >
          > There is too much History of their investigations, to be able to
          easily
          > start afresh. And to start afresh, ignoring their work, is showing
          no
          > respect to them, for many of them have applied the scientific
          method.
          >

          Those that have applied the scientific method should then submit
          papers for peer (scientific) review. If no scientists can pick holes
          in their work, then it will stand.

          Aside from those using strict scientific disciplines, many ufologists
          have as you say done an excellent job, and their work could be used
          as a basis for further scientific work.
          Unfortunately, the majority of ufo researchers have not documented
          all aspects of their work, starting with the source of their data,
          the rationale used to come to certain conclusions, etc, rendering
          their work worthless to anyone trying to follow it up.

          > (2) There are many other 'buts'. .......
          >
          >
          > Which probably add up to being that its too late to do as you say.
          It should
          > have been done that way in the first instance, but now we have
          things like
          > Roswell: where we know that something was defintely covered up,
          whether it
          > was weather balloon, aliens or something else. From that
          perspective, 'we'
          > merely want the authorities to tell the truth and convince us. The
          scientifc
          > method does not seem able to cope with the scenario that has been
          > concluded. Starting again, merely seems another cover up.
          >
          >

          No, I disagree. The difficulty would be establishing what data can be
          used scientifically. Much of it is dated, and relies heavily on
          witness testimony. Some of those witnesses will now be dead, others
          will have the added difficulty of remembering events from a long time
          ago without adding to or detracting from those memories.

          Radar tapes have been destroyed, or decomposed, so have film
          negatives. Contemporary records have been lost or destroyed.

          It is never too late to start applying the scientific method. It may
          take 50 years to build up sufficient acceptable data on which to base
          testable hypotheses, but the longer the start is delayed, ultimately
          the longer it will take to make any progress.

          Before any of this can take place, people involved in investigation
          of UFO's need to be trained (not as scientists, but how to collect
          and document information in a way that will be acceptable to science).

          Cheers, Joe
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.