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 -> 1998 -> Jul -> Re: Sturrock Panel

UFO UpDates Mailing List

From: "Greg Sandow" <gsandow@prodigy.net>
Date: Mon, 6 Jul 1998 13:24:31 -0400
Fwd Date: Mon, 06 Jul 1998 18:01:42 -0400
Subject: Re: Sturrock Panel


> Date: Sat, 4 Jul 1998 23:56:12 -0400
> From: James Easton <pulsar@compuserve.com>
> Subject: Sturrock Panel
> To: UFO UpDates <updates@globalserve.net>

> Jerry wrote:

>>The Sturrock panel report is the best thing that's happened in a long
>>time, and the wide and respectful attention it has received is indeed
>>gratifying.

> Jerry,

> Can a small group of scientists, in such a short period,
> evaluate so few cases as an overall perspective of some 50 years
> evidence for the possibility of any extraterrestrial contact?

> Would you disagree that hardly constitutes a thorough scientific
> study?

> As an unmitigated PR coup, I personally have no objections to
> that achievement. Many would agree with the 'Sturrock panel's'
> conclusion that there is some related evidence which challenges
> an obvious explanation. It is after all, the essence of the 'UFO
> phenomenon' and its myriad facets.

> However, didn't we know that already?

<etc, including a swipe at Jerry for possibly thinking that
scientists now should study crop circles or abductions.>

Jeez.

Suppose a group of Catholic theologians -- most of them not
identified as liberals within the church -- listens to
presentations on homosexuality.

Then they issue a report. The report says, in essence: "We have
not heard evidence suggesting that the church should sanction
homosexual marriage. We feel, however, that homosexual
relationships deserve further study. In the past, they have been
considered sinful, and that position was understandable, in its
social context. Now we raise the possibility that the Church
might wish to reexamine this issue."

Hardly anyone would say, "This was hardly a scientific study of
homosexuality."

Hardly anyone would say: "So what? Any sensible person came to
the same conclusions long ago."

Hardly anyone would say, "See? Homosexuality IS bad! Even these
theologians didn't endorse transvestites or the Gay Pride
parade."

Almost everone would understand that this statement was a limited
but significant contribution to a complex and highly emotional
debate within the church, one in which there are strong vested
interests on both sides, and in which opinions don't easily
change. It would be clear to nearly everyone that the statement
was nuanced, and deliberately cautious, but that even so it
represented a small but tangible shift in the prevailing wind.

Same thing for the Sturrock panel, within the scientific world.
Why raise extraneous issues?

Greg Sandow