SCIENTIFIC PANEL SAYS UFO EVIDENCE DESERVES STUDY

In all of this nonsense, there are two items not mentioned from the study:

1)  The study agreed with Condon in that the study of UFOs has added nothing to
scientific knowledge!  From the report:

"The panel also reviewed some of the conclusions advanced in 1968 by Dr. Edward
U. Condon, director of the Colorado Project. He asserted that "nothing has come
from the study of UFOs in the past 21 years that has added to scientific
knowledge," and that "further extensive study of UFOs probably cannot be
justified in the expectation that science will be advanced thereby." While
agreeing with the first conclusion and its extension to the present, the panel
considers that there always exists the possibility that investigation of an
unexplained phenomenon may lead to an advance in scientific knowledge." 

Of course, Condon never stated that nothing could be learned.  His statement
has ALWAYS been taken out of context because he wrote after his recommendation:

"Scientists are no respecters of authority. Our conclusion that study of UFO
reports is not likely to advance science will not be uncritically accepted by
them. Nor should it be, nor do we wish it to be. For scientists, it is our hope
that the detailed analytical presentation of what we were able to do, and of
what we were unable to do, will assist them in deciding whether or not they
agree with our conclusions. Our hope is that the details of this report will
help other scientists in seeing what the problems are and the difficulties of
coping with them. 

If they agree with our conclusions, they will turn their valuable attention and
talents elsewhere. If they disagree it will be because our report has helped
them reach a clear picture of wherein existing studies are faulty or incomplete
and thereby will have stimulated ideas for more accurate studies. If they do
get such ideas and can formulate them clearly, we have no doubt that support
will be forthcoming to carry on with such clearly-defined, specific studies. We
think that such ideas for work should be supported. 

Some readers may think that we have now wandered into a contradiction. Earlier
we said that we do not think study of UFO reports is likely to be a fruitful
direction of scientific advance; now we have just said that persons with good
ideas for specific studies in this field should be supported. This is no
contradiction. Although we conclude after nearly two years of intensive study,
that we do not see any fruitful lines of advance from the study of UFO reports,
we believe that any scientist with adequate training and credentials who does
come up with a clearly defined, specific proposal for study should be
supported."

Therefore, the Sturrock panels conclusions seem right in line with what Condon
had stated some thirty years before.  However, you won't hear any UFOlogists
stating this because they refuse to even read all of what Condon had written! 


2)  The panel felt the evidence presented (the best cases possible were given)
did not support the ETH!  Again from the report:



"...the review panel was not convinced that any of the evidence involved
currently unknown physical processes or pointed to the involvement of an
extraterrestrial intelligence "

If the best UFOlogists could not convince this panel with the best case
material possible that there might be an ET source for UFOs, what does it say
about the "mounds" of evidence that supposedly indicate alien spaceships are
visiting the earth?

When UFOlogists come up with a decent plan to study UFOs and propose it to an
organization for funding, maybe there will be progress. However, UFOlogists
continue to waste their time, money and effort "collecting" UFO reports and
then write about them with little investigation in order to present one point
of view. This has been a wasted effort for over 50 years now. and will continue
to be a wasted effort.  The headlines should have read:

SCIENTISTS SEE NO ETS IN UFO DATA!

or 

UFOLOGISTS CONTINUE TO WASTE TIME, MONEY, AND EFFORT COLLECTING USELESS UFO
REPORTS!

 

  
Tim Printy
Skeptical opinions on UFOs
http://members.aol.com/TPrinty/UFO.html