Aliens On Earth.com Resources for those who are stranded here UFOs | Paranormal | Area 51 People | Places | Random Top 100 | What's New Catalog | New Books 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 Our Bookstore is OPEN Mothership -> UFO -> Updates -> 1998 -> Feb -> Here

From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 22:59:45 -0500
Fwd Date: Sat, 14 Feb 1998 09:58:11 -0500
Subject: Re: 'UFO Sphere/Orb' over Brooklyn, NY


From: "Tom Burnett" <burnettc@gte.net>
To: "UFO UpDates - Toronto" <updates@globalserve.net>
Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: 'UFO Sphere/Orb' over Brooklyn, NY
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 05:33:08 -1000

<snip>

>Thank you for your comments.  I agree with them to a point, but
>my position is not exactly the way you present it.  First, I
>neither dispute Alex's sighting report nor his photograph.  What
>I dispute is a tendency, on the part of people who claim to be
i>nvestigators, to infer data which cannot be supported by the
>evidence. In this case an eyewitness report and a photograph are
t>he evidence.  Unfortunately, neither the report nor the
>photograph are clear and undisputable evidence anything, and
>certainly not of the moral and ethical propensities of
>extraterrestrials.


I would certainly agree that one cannot infer moral and ethical
propensities of ET's from the sighting and photo alone. (If one
had a priori knowledge about ET morals and ethics then one might
be able to use determinet whether or not the sighting and photo
were in some way consistent or inconsistent with the ethics and
morals.   But since we have no such a priori knowledge the
sighting can do no more than establish that some UNKNOWN
PHENOMENON - possibly ET - was or was not present at th time of
the sighting.)

>This is not an investigation since no one disputes Alex's
>sighting report.

Well.................................................,

I suppose that if everyone accepted the report entirely "as
written" then the only argument would be over the interpretation.
But an "investigation" to determine details of the reports could
be needed to make the correct interpretation.

>This is an exercise in futility.

On a larger scale perhaps.... since the rest of the world
probably won't notice this any more than it notices numerous
other more spectacular sightings.  Futile because we already have
THOUSANDS of sightings..... do we need another?

On the other hand, if the "investigation" establish that the
UNKNOWN REALLY DID OCCUR (the sighting is inexplicable), then we
can perhaps use the information in this sighting to help clarify
whatever th nature of teh phenomenon is (OK, for you true
believers, the information might provide some insight into what
"they" are doing here.   On the other hand it might provide no
such information.  But you can't tell which without the
"investgation." or analysis.)

> The object has gone on its
>merry way and no matter how much everyone argues about what it
>may or may not have been, there is no possible way to know.  Even
>if a similar object appears as you read this, you cannot know
>whether it is the same object as before or whether it has the
>same purpose.  When people start rationalizing evidence instead
>of dispassionately looking at the evidence at hand, the
>investigation becomes an imagination contest.

Yes.

Theories are needed to understand data... but theories which
"excuse" data are not very useful.   The data (sighting, photo)
are real.  They mean something.   When one tries to compare the
data to a preferred theory, one is usually or at least often,
confronted with inconsistencies.   Some of these may be excusable
(bad data points, etc.)... but when excuses go off the deep
end.... it is time to stop theorizing and go back for another
look at the data or.... admit defeat!  (The data can't be
understood.)

> Let's
>develop a focus for all of this.  We can start a foundation, get
>some sponsors, and  offer a million dollars to any non-government
>entity who can demonstrate clear and unambiguous proof of first
>contact.  Then turn the investigators loose on the applicants.
>That would give UFOlogy a shot in the arm and generate some good
>press for the cause.  And, it would also open up every claim to
>public scrutiny. I think I can find the sponsors.  And no, I am
>not joking.

Not joking, eh?  Something like this has been tried in th past.
In the 1970's the National Enquirer offered a megabuck, if I
recall correctly, for indisputable proof.   They also offered
$50K per year... or some such sum.... for the best sighting of
the year as determined by an independent panel.  There have been
other offers (seems to me a British liquor company..also had an
offer years ago).  This is not the same as a foundation, but the
incentive was there.   And the Enquirer got lots of entries into
the contest... but no big winner (did have annual winners, but
none of these was considered conclusive).

Of course a well funded foundation could provide another shot in
the arm.  The conditions aren't the same as they were 20 years
ago BCE4  (Before Close Encounters of the 4th Kind). I suspect
there would now be more entries with potentially better data
(multiple witness, video recorded, etc.).

And of course, it is my duty as former chairman of the Fund for
UFO Research to say that if you are aware of major sources of
funding... contact me directly..