Aliens On Earth.com Resources for those who are stranded here Our Bookstore is OPEN Over 5000 new & used titles, competitively priced! Topics: UFOs - Paranormal - Area 51 - Ghosts - Forteana - Conspiracy - History - Biography - Psychology - Religion - Crime - Health - Geography - Maps - Science - Money - Language - Recreation - Technology - Fiction - Other - New Search... for keyword(s)   in Page Titles in Book Title/Author in Contents of Pages ---other searches--- Metacrawler Yahoo FAST Search Google Altavista Dogpile Inference Find Northern Light IWon.com MSN Search Las Vegas Sun Mothership -> UFO -> Updates -> 1997 -> Jan -> Here

From: "Steven J. Powell" <sjpowell@access.digex.net>
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 05:25:23 -0500
Fwd Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 07:47:57 -0500
Subject: Re: Philosophy of Science and UFOs

>Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1997 22:52:46 -0500
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>From: "Jerry Cohen" <rjcohen@li.net>
>Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: Philosophy of Science and UFOs

>>I have a non-answer answer to my question above.  I'd prefer to do a
>>first-pass pre-screen of the unexplained data and separate out _all_ the
>>single-witness cases.  Then, with the multi-witness case dataset look for
>>trends/patterns.  If any trends/patterns are found (whatever they might be)
>>then look for those in the single-witness case dataset.  If we get matches
>>_then_ we can start arguing the details.

>JC:   Yes. This is basically what I was trying to say when I said if we
>found _1_ case that satisfied you, we might might find ourselves looking
>back at the "dust on some of those other rocks we put aside."

If knew you'd see it my way <GRIN>...

My personal strict view of the data is only to ensure that we are able to
develop trends/patterns that we can be very certain of.  Afterwards, we can
slowly add that less-than-perfect data to the mixture, more or less one
case at a time.