Sir Arthur C. B. E. Wholeflaffers A.S.A. <nospam@newsranger.com> wrote in message news:<sChLa.4704$cJ5.266@www.newsranger.com>...

SCIENTIFIC PANEL SAYS UFO EVIDENCE DESERVES STUDY

In all of this nonsense, there are two items not mentioned from the
study which are very important to note.

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 from the
study of UFOs.  His statement has ALWAYS been taken out of context
because he added in his recommendations:

"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! The real rub about Condon's report was he
felt that it was a waste of government funds to study UFOs.  As a
result, all the UFOlogists could not tap into any government funds. 
Again, in this Condon has been proven correct.  NOTHING has been
learned from the study of UFOs to the present date (Even the Sturrock
panel agreed with this)!  His recommendation has saved valuable tax
dollars that were needed elsewhere.

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" (as some people describe it) 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" old 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.  Some better headlines might have been:

1)  SCIENTISTS SEE NO ETS IN UFO DATA!

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

3)  UFOLOGISTS CONTINUE TO FAIL AT STUDYING UFOS!
 
4)  UFOLOGISTS NO CLOSER THAN THEY WERE IN 1947 AT FIGURING OUT UFO
PROBLEM!

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