Thank you for replying to my post.
Originally posted by TeaAndStrumpets
But if those independent groups run counter to the mainstream, who will take them seriously?
I would appreciate it if you wouldn't dismiss my
question with a question.
That's the point.
Its not, my question was that there are groups with scientists that are indeed studying the phenomena outside the
mainstream. You are arguing that the mainstream is not vigourously persuing the topic, yet when I point out others are you debase it by begging that
mainstream science must some how validate it. You create a paradox for yourself.
The Condon Report defined the mainstream. Actually, Condon's own Summary and Conclusions and Recommendations defined it -- saying there's
nothing to UFOs -- and his conclusions don't fit at all well with the hundreds of pages of actual science that follow them. (Released later....)
Condon actually states that there seemed to be no new scientific knowldege gained from the studies of UFO.
The incidents in the report argue against that in the instances in which those incidents remained unknown. I agree it is a little dismissive but even
his critics like Sturrock, as much as 20 years later, come to the same conclusions that they are still none the wiser and that all the evidence
reviewed is inconclusive as far as the ETH is concerned.
If you are as honest as you are as vocal of Sturrock, you would have to accept that, if you are unwilling to accept that I think you should read
The UFO Enigma: A new review of the physical evidence
I cannot see how there is any disagreement between Condon and Sturrock other than the fact that Condon was ahead of his time.
They've stated at various times either that they believe the ETH is the most plausible answer
I understand that they may believe that
is the most plausible answer, but considering the OP is examining the logical trickery of skeptics I find it amusing that you would answer my question
by pointing out a belief when I asked if any of these groups can EXPLAIN ufo that is supporting ETH.
Who is the trickster amongst us?
or that it can't be ruled out, or that UFOs are simply an unknown on which they take no stance, but only gather information.
obvious statements, but I wanted to know if they could EXPLAIN ufo with the ETH.
This was my questions: Have any of those organisations publically stated that the ETH explains any of the UFO phenomena they have encountered?
From your respones, above, I could just as well state that you are saying "no, they don't but they believe ETH is plausible, can't be ruled out and
needs to be studied more.
]But we can't say there've been "no results" yielded, can we?
To date we can, otherwise we wouldn't be arguing about the ETH relative
to the UFO phenomena.
Are you familiar with the AIAA findings or the Sturrock results, when anonymously polling astronomers? Privately, a higher percentage of
astronomers than of the general population say they've seen what's best described as a 'UFO'.
I am familiar with the poll. Just over 50% of the
surveys were returned. Of the 1356 surveys returned, 65 incidents of UFO were reported. Just under 5% of the population. Stating that this percentage
is significant relative to the general population is pointless considering the general population is being contasted against a specific population
that is significant due to the fact that it is an Astronomical society.
And do you know how Jacques Vallee became interested in UFOs? He saw astronomer colleagues destroying data that suggested a true UFO.
Apparently this was to avoid ridicule.
That is untrue, the data was destroyed by a superior at the French Space Commitee. They believed they
has discovered a retrograde satelitte that was possibly an asteroid.
You do know Vallee argues against the ETH, don't you?
edit on 23/2/13 by atlasastro because: (no reason given)