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 -> Oct -> Re: Failure Of The 'Science' Of Obergian Debunking

UFO UpDates Mailing List

From: Ed Stewart <ufoindex@jps.net>
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1998 11:45:32 -0700
Fwd Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1998 20:46:39 -0400
Subject: Re: Failure Of The 'Science' Of Obergian Debunking


>From: Scott Ribordy <sdr@ns.net>
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>Subject: Re: Failure Of The 'Science' Of Obergian Debunking
>Date: Thu, 08 Oct 1998 02:29:16 GMT

>>Date: Mon, 05 Oct 1998 16:33:09 -0700
>>From: Ed Stewart <ufoindex@jps.net>
>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>>Subject: Re: Failure Of The 'Science' Of Obergian Debunking

>>I bring this up to
>>affirm a strong point. Klass and other skeptics are not the
>>problem with ufology, nor the deamons that are continuously
>>presented on this list by UFO illuminaries looking for something
>>to blame for their own problems. The problem is within ufology
>>and the people that have keep it wallowing in its present
>>condition by refusing to clean itself up. Ufologists can shoot
>>as many messengers as they want, shrug responsibility for its
>>woes and blame whoever they want for its paralysis, and in the
>>end nothing will have changed.

>With your obvious interest in the health and well-being of
>ufology, I have to ask; What, in your opinion, should be done?

A good starting point would be trying to emulate Allan Hendry in
his methodology placing emphasis on critical thinking,
discernment and evidence that can be independently verified and
provides linkage. It is very frustating to maintain such rigid
standards of evidence if one has acquired belief systems along
the way as to what ufology is all about, but necessary for
progress to be made. Allan Hendry became so frustated with the
lack of such standards in ufology that he left the field in
total disgust never to turn back to it. Deep inside he realized
that ufology was a 'failure' as practiced and simply didn't want
to be part of it anymore. A short time after he left ufology,
Marge Christensen (who has also left ufology) spotted him at a
wedding which he was videographing, the business he was then in.
She tried to engage him in conversation as to why he left and he
refused to even discuss any aspect of his time in ufology or
even to look back at it, his disgust was so overwhelming.

>The impression I get from your articles (Please correct me if
>I'm getting the wrong impression.) is that you feel that there
>are certain individuals who should *not* be participating in
>ufology. I am curious as to how you would endeavor to exclude
>(excommunicate?) them.

You got the wrong impression. The only people that I have met
that have endeavored to suggest for people to leave the field
are individuals that have taken offense with more rigid and
strict viewpoints contrary to their own positions. People like
Jerome Clark and Robert Swiatek of FUFOR, for example, suggested
that I should leave the Project 1947 mailing list because of
statements I made suggesting the Sturrock Panel announcement was
a managed news event. It didn't make any difference to them that
the statement was not derogatory and that I spoke from the
personal viewpoint of being in the same room with Sturrock, as
well as Haines, Vallee, Gross, and nine others two months before
the announcement was made and Sturrock brought the subject up
and the upcoming news 'event' was discussed. We see examples of
managed news all the time when public support is needed.
Examples are the martian meteorite and cold fusion. Both have
fizzled, but it sure brought a lot of attention to the initial
claims. The Martian meteorite even helped to save the Ames
Research Center.

The idea is not to target individuals and exclude them out, but
not to let them get away unchallenged when their beliefs are
presented as facts. The idea is to raise the level of critical
thinking and discernment and require and maintain higher levels
of evidence including independent verification, provenance and
linkage shown between two allegedly supporting facts. This is
all common sense. In present day ufology, belief systems are so
strong that the above are interpreted as 'tools of debunkers'
when they conflict with rigid beliefs.

>Where can ufology be practiced so that it can be safe from
these >foul despoilers of good scientific practices?

Anywhere outside a temple.

>I would be interested in reading your (and the List's, of
>course) thoughts on this.

On a separate posting, I will post a commentary by Barry
Greenwood found in a past issue of JUST CAUSE that is relevant
to the present state of ufology.

Ed Stewart
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ed Stewart ufoindex@jps.net|So Man, who here seems principal alone,
There Is Something         |Perhaps acts second to some sphere unknown.
   Going On!       ,>'?'<, |Touches some wheel, or verges to some goal,
Salvador Freixedo  ( O O ) |'Tis but a part we see, and not a whole.
---------------ooOO-(_)-OOoo------- Alexander Pope, Essay on Man -------