UFO UpDates Mailing List
From: Jerry Cohen <email@example.com> Date: Thu, 2 Jul 1998 07:28:05 -0400 Fwd Date: Thu, 02 Jul 1998 19:53:20 -0400 Subject: New goals/directions for Ufology >From: "Jerry Cohen" <firstname.lastname@example.org> >Date: Wed, 1 Jan 1997 22:37:06 -0500 >Fwd Date: Thu, 02 Jan 1997 07:33:57 -0500 >Subject: Re: UFOs and Mainstream Science >>Date: Thu, 26 Dec 1996 20:40:49 -0500 >>From: "Steven J. Powell" <email@example.com> >>To: firstname.lastname@example.org >>Subject: UFOs and Mainstream Science - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - EBK and List, Since the publishing of the erroneous conclusions of the Condon Study in 1969, it has been "out of fashion" or "out of mainstream" for scientists, in general, to openly proclaim any serious interest in UFOs. It has taken monumental effort by _all_ serious UFO researchers, data accumulated, etc. and the proper conclusions of the Sturrock Committee to overcome the air of illegitimacy which has tainted ufological research in some people's minds for approximately the past 28 years. Click for the Sturrock workshop Location: Contact Journal for Scientific Exploration John Powell had posted a letter from Bernard Haisch, Ph. D. (Journal of Scientific Exploration) back in March 1996 to which I had responded. Click for Dr. Haisch's original letter My response, below, was intended as a combination "thank you," from all serious researchers, for his and the JSE's important contributions and a simplified review of some of the things he brought to our attention in his original essay. I believe it is probably important at this time to once again review some of the items which were addressed by Dr. Haisch and the JSE as a partial step in redirecting our primary goals to hopefully keep us flowing in an ongoing positive and productive direction. Although one may feel that some of what he discusses may be almost impossible to achieve in ufology as it exists today, other things most certainly have great merit. (Successes of the combined efforts of FUFOR, CUFOS, MUFON, etc. as an example.) It is also important to note that even with the recent Sturrock success, our debates will certainly continue until we hopefully, eventually cut closer to the core of the enigma we are attempting to examine. We should also remember that success in this one area, although certainly a time to rejoice (yes, we all earned it), does not mean it is time to relax. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - >Dr. Haisch .. you wrote: >>UF0's and Mainstream Science >>by Bernhard Haisch, Ph. D. >>[Bernhard Haisch is the Managing Editor of the Journal of >>Scientific Exploration, P.O. Box 5848, Stanford, CA 94309. >>E-mail: <haischGjse.com>] >>(Mutual UFO Network UFO Journal, Number 335, March 1996, >>Copyright 1996 by the Mutual UFO Network, 103 Oldtowne Rd., >>Sequin, Texas 78155, published monthly with a >>membership/subscription rate of $25/yr.) >>--- >A RESPONSE FROM ONE RESEARCHER: >JC: Your thoughtful letter certainly deserves a reply. First, it is a pleasure to hear someone of your credentials and background saying that you have "been exposed to enough data and met enough serious investigators to become supportive of the need to carefully study whatever this phenomenon (phenomena,) may be." The points you have brought to our attention are excellent. >> From someone who is "an insider in the scientific mainstream: author of research papers, principle investigator on NASA projects, associate editor of a leading journal in astrophysics," this statement alone and your "Journal of Scientific Exploration' (JSE)" is another "breath of fresh air" that Ufologists having been working towards and literally praying for, for a number of years. I believe this is very significant as your letter is proof that the diligent efforts of Ufologists, although certainly divergent in nature, have been able to amass enough data or evidence to convince more scientists of your caliber that there is at least "some" substance to "some" of the things UFO researchers have been saying for years. As you have found, some of that evidence is indeed persuasive and that as you said; "It seems from my unique vantage point as both scientist and editor of JSE, that substantial evidence exists of "something going on." >Your remarks concerning comments made by Daniel Goldin, the head of NASA, at "the American Astronomical Society in San Antonio," as to how Ufology might some day earn enough respectability to procure at least a portion of the "billions" which government spends on research, hopefully will be thoughtfully received. >As you have said "Goldin's lesson for NASA" apply to us as well. It is important for us to remember that "If the American people truly want the UFO problem officially investigated, the government will do that by and by", and that "As Goldin urged us to do on behalf of NASA's research: write, call, visit your representatives and senators. Constituencies count. No doubt about it." Some of these are being attempted in Ufology today. >But, you also said Goldin made a second point that there is... >> "a second key ingredient that really needs to come first, is that somehow, the community of Ufologists must reach consensus on prioritizing projects," and that "those of us whose projects may not make the cutoff, owing to fiscal limitations, should still obligated as members of the research community to support those that are selected." >JC: Basically what is said here is that in collective unity, there is strength. This is the incredibly difficult part for us, unifying and agreeing as to who should lead this "crusade" and what specific direction we should take as a whole. > >You have said; "Evidence needs to be properly analyzed and then properly presented using techniques and venues as close as possible to those of mainstream science. The disparity of the evidence appears to be confusing enough without layers of unproven theory and conspiracy." >JC: This is why researchers are attempting present the facts as we see them and to inform more "scientists" of the data that does presently exist so we can enlist their aid in achieving the above. More of us need to realize it is only people with the proper credentials and properly trained skills that can do this for us the most successfully. >The Internet has become a valuable aide in this endeavor. It is helping us communicate with one another. This mail list is one such forum which has been dedicated to bringing these facts to anyone curious enough to find out more about this important topic. Many thanks are owed its overseer, Errol Bruce-Knapp, and the many people who are and have been contributing their time and research to making this list a place where one can analyze and collect other people's serious thinking on the subject. (J.C. 7/1/98 Certainly not to omit Glenn Campbell, who's magnificent, important data base/storage facility makes handling the massive volume of correspondence at least bearable.) >Additionally, scholarly journals such as your own, material published by the Center for UFO Studies (CUFOS), etc. are gradually leading us in the direction you mention. Hopefully, other newly interested "mainstream" Scientists, etc. may gradually be able to glean enough information from these sources to get them started on a path that will eventually achieve some of the goals you have mentioned. >You also make another very important point that should be remembered by all: >> "To be fair to the principles of objectivity and comprehensiveness one must also acknowledge the possibility that the disarray of Ufology may be partially driven by official or semi-official disinformation, or even, taking the view of the respected researcher Jacques Vallee, by the UFO phenomenon itself." >> "Even if the UFO phenomenon should turn out to be deeper than we imagine, even should it prove to transcend science as we know it, the scientific approach is the only feasible way in the real, political, economic, technological world we live in to give us some chance to control our dealings with this phenomenon, rather than letting the phenomenon entirely control us... if such it is." >JC: This is all the more reason why researchers need to continue their efforts in presenting the facts as they see them and doing their best to draw other mainstream Scientists into the fray. >Thank you, once again for sharing your thoughtful insights with all of us. This researcher certainly appreciates the valuable time you have taken to do so. I am sure many others do as well. >Respectfully, Jerry Cohen >E-mail: email@example.com Again, Click for Dr. Haisch's original essay - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - JC: Well done gentlemen. Onward! UFO UpDates - Toronto - firstname.lastname@example.org Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp - ++ 416-691-0716 Archived as a public service by Area 51 Research Center which is not responsible for content. Software by Glenn Campbell. Technical contact: email@example.com Page from the website of: CohenUFO.org
UFO UpDates - Toronto - firstname.lastname@example.org
Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp - ++ 416-696-0304
A Hand-Operated E-Mail Subscription Service for the Study of UFO Related
To subscribe please send your first and last name to email@example.com
Message submissions should be sent to the same address.
Link it to the appropriate Ufologist or UFO Topic page.
Archived as a public service by Area 51 Research Center which is
not responsible for content. Financial support for this web server is provided by the Research Center
Software by Glenn Campbell. Technical contact: firstname.lastname@example.org
Financial support for this web server is provided by the Research Center Catalog.