"Anthony M. Saffer" wrote:

 That makes
them no different than any quantum physicist researching a theory that has
never been proven but has some evidence of existence.

The difference is that the more (and better) data that comes in, the closer to
a consensus two quantum physicists researching the same theory can come.  As
was pointed out earlier, "UFO research" is no closer to a consensus now than it
was in 1947.  That points to serious problems with the quality of the data
being studied.

I'm not saying that controversy in science indicates a serious problem.  Every
science has ongoing controversies.  I'm saying controversies in which there is
zero progress toward a resolution for many decades is a warning sign.

The two quantum physicists in our hypothetical example can eventually come to
an agreement on the validity of a particular theory even if one votes
Republican and the other Democrat.  But there are as many different views of
the UFO phenomena as there are researchers in the field, and what they "find"
is invariably in accord with their own personal philosophies.

-- 


Regards,
Mike Combs
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We should ask, critically and with appeal to the numbers, whether the
best site for a growing advancing industrial society is Earth, the
Moon, Mars, some other planet, or somewhere else entirely.
Surprisingly, the answer will be inescapable - the best site is
"somewhere else entirely."

			Gerard O'Neill - "The High Frontier"