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 -> 1999 -> Jul -> Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?

UFO UpDates Mailing List

From: Martin Phillips <mphillips@btinternet.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 02:46:44 +0100
Fwd Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 09:03:53 -0400
Subject: Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?


 >From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
 >To: <updates@globalserve.net>
 >Subject: Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?
 >Date: Sun, 25 Jul 1999 18:27:57 +0100

 >>Date: Sat, 24 Jul 1999 11:27:15 -0500 (CDT)
 >>From: Brian Cuthbertson <brianc@fc.net>
 >>To: updates@globalserve.net
 >>Subject: Re: Sheffield UFO Incident 2?

 >>PS.  I guess you might call me a "ufologist" instead of a
 >>"Ufologist".  It strikes me we really do need a professional
 >>exam for this field.  Perhaps Klass could suggest some of the
 >>questions to go on it?


 >In the UK right now a gang of rebels (alright, Dr Dave Clarke,
 >Gloria Dixon - who holds the record score in the test by the way
 >- Tim Matthews, Robert Moore, Andy Roberts and myself for now)
 >(but we're growing!) have been discussing such issues as
 >professionalism in UFOlogy. It is a good idea to have something
 >to add to the self policing that we do. But finding the right
 >balance is not easy.


I agree that the field needs to be more professional, and have
higher standards, but I don't think it will happen. I've been
watching this list from the sidelines for a year, and I've seen
slanging matches worthy of 5 year-olds in the playground.
usually it's the ETH people and the 'they're all American'
people calling each other silly names and arguing over spurious
'facts'. Just look at the recent debate on statistics for
sightings, with people quoting percentages. They're guesses, but
people defend them as facts. The arguments for and against ETH
remind me of the debates in the Reformation about what happens
in the Communion.

For the field to become more professional, there will need to be
some big names who will have to change their approach, and stop
defending positions that they hold as certainties when there is
no conclusive proof.

Martin Phillips