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 Location: Mothership -> UFO -> Updates -> 1997 -> Mar -> Re: EL/TST

UFO UpDates Mailing List

From: DevereuxP@aol.com
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 1997 17:10:04 -0500 (EST)
Fwd Date: Thu, 20 Mar 1997 09:05:48 -0500
Subject: Re: EL/TST

>From: Chris Rutkowski <rutkows@cc.UManitoba.CA>
>Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: EL/TST
>To: updates@globalserve.net (UFO UpDates - Toronto)
>Date: Sat, 15 Mar 1997 13:36:59 -0600 (CST)

Among other things, Chris wrote:

>My view is that *neither* the TST/EL theory or the ETH are fully
>supported by the available evidence at this time. Both have problems
>in their formulation, investigation, evidence and proof. I cannot
>endorse *either* theory at this time, but encourage rational,
>serious discussion on the subject in order to resolve the issue.

I fully agree with Chris in this view, and would only point out
that is all we have been trying to do. But no one is asking Chris to
endorse anything - that is his self-appointed role. What he could
perhaps recognise is that the work we *are* doing on EL
at the moment is precisely to address the shortcomings.
(There will have to be more than mere discussion to resolve the
matter, will there not?) Or, to put that another way, to research
the matter in greater depth.

To do so, however, we *do* have to work on some assumptions -
if only to test them!

>As a scientist, I must be objective, assessing all the data and
>not reaching conclusions before their time.

I could be unkind and say that scientists are obliged to keep
up with events. And I could ask, "What about Black Holes?", "What
about the Big Bang?" and what about a thousand other assumptions
scientists operate on until the next major paradigm shift. Science
is more pragmatic than scientists often like to admit.  It isn't
as pure as the driven snow. The same with EL research - we work
on what we have until something better comes along.  I know of
no one who is claiming to say what EL are, what they consist of,
what their nature is. We are only homing in on some of their
characteristics and some of the conditions that apparently
accompany their appearance.

The argument with Chris's stance up to now is that it has not been
logical, in that he has demanded final proof of something while
it is still at the research stage (ie. the reason for the research).
Following that logic, it would mean that unless one had final
proof of something, and knew exactly what it was, one shouldn't
be researching into it. It is a self-destructive logic, and most
certainly isn't the one that physics, say, and especially astrophysics,
works to.

EL researchers who adopt the perfectly respectable norm
of researching into something should not be held up to ridicule,
nor should it be implied that they are New Age softies or potential
con-men.If Chris's reasoned statement in his latest post means
an end to that sort of thing, then we are all going to get along
just fine.

Paul.