textfiles/ufo/UFOBBS/2000/2598.ufo

SUBJECT: MUFON REPORTS                                       FILE: UFO2598





PART 8



ons" which of course is non-
sense.
    It is my understanding that a UFO sighting can only be
assigned to the CE II category if it leaves behind some form of
physical evidence,e.g. a burned patch of grass,etc.I suppose
this report is being given CE II status because of the reported
sound of the lake ice cracking under the weight of the landed
UFO.A more likely explanation for that aspect of this event is
the arrival of spring.
---------------------------------------
---------------------------------------
Date: Mon Apr 11 21:47:08 1988
From: RICHARD P. DELL'AQUILA (ab114)
Subj: TO THE ASTRONOMERS RE: EASTLAKE UFO
       AN OPEN LETTER TO THE PROFESSIONAL SKEPTICS, RE: UFO SIGHTING 
OVER LAKE ERIE OVER THE WEEKEND OF MARCH 4, 1988
       It is understandable that a professional in any occupation 
will have a reputation to preserve among his or her peers, and that 
the desire to maintain that professional reputation will sometimes 
require the professional to defend indefensable positions (e.g. 
"C.Y.A.") from which he cannot otherwise extricate himself.  It's 
okay guys, I understand.  You put out the Venus/Jupiter hypothesis 
before the Coast Guard report was released and now you are stuck with 
it for better or worse.  I suspect that, being the professionals you 
are, and given the natural curiosity which is the sine quo non of of 
the true scientist, your real opinions are very different than those 
you publicly express.
       Anyway, for the rest of us who remain willing to fairly 
examine ALL the reported phenomena and express our true opinions, it 
is now apparent that the professional skeptics on this SIG have so 
commmitted themselves to their position that the Eastlake UFO 
sighting of March 1988 was a misidentification of the planets, that 
it is almost laughable to expect any thinking individual, who has 
read the Coast Guard report of the sighting, to accept the 
Venus/Jupiter hypothesis.  Frankly, a more honest response would have 
been a simple, "I don't know what the Coast Guard saw that night for 
3-4 hours, it could have been Venus/Jupiter."
       But at least you had the fortitude to respond.  It is 
important that the subject of UFOs be discussed openly without 
emotionalism or hysterics.  After all, we are free to disagree, 
hopefully in a civil manner. I suppose yours is at least a more 
straightforward approach than that taken by the sysop of another 
Freenet SIG who, after inviting UFO discussion, has elected to erase 
all UFO uploads from his SIG and who, when all else fails, resorts to 
name-calling as a rhetorical device.  Well, taking your toys home 
when you lose the game is a rather immature way to deal with 
confrontation. Doctor, take an example from the skeptics on this SIG, 
bravely sticking to their guns--going down with their ship, flags 
waving--but proudly, stubbornly, sticking to their guns to the bitter 
end. "Solution: Venus/Jupiter" period.
       Guys: You are the experts.  People look to you for answers.  
If you teach, your students rely on you for accuracy.  When you 
publish, other experts rely on your objectivity and clarity of 
analysis. Yet you ask us to accept the Venus/Jupiter hypothesis 
primarily because you have put it forward as the "truth."  Now that 
the professional skeptics have made their final pronouncement, I 
trust you will permit me to raise a few minor details, tie up some 
loose ends and send along you ways to comfortably bury our heads back 
in the sand again until the next time the planets start releasing 
strobing multi-colored triagular UFOs 20 feet over the surface of 
Lake Erie that cross distances of several miles in a few seconds, 
cast spotlights, and scare the wits out of U.S. military personnel 
for several hours.  At least when the next UFO comes along, the handy-
dandy Venus/Jupiter explanation (or something similar) will be ready 
to go.
       By the way, what an insult to the Coast Guard.  Apparently, 
according to the skeptical "experts", their men are not capable of 
distinguishing the planets in the night sky--even after several hours 
of observation.  Fair enough, but don't expect any Christmas cards 
from the Coast Guard, guys!  (No loss--they probably can't write 
either.)
       At any rate, at least you haven't run away and hid when things 
got a little rough.  You proud graduates of the Phil Klass School of 
Skeptical Technique have recognized that the first requirement of a 
skeptic is to remain skeptical: to sift through the evidence, only 
emphasizing those facts that can be made to support your hypothesis 
and ignoring the "meaningless residue"  for purposes of clarity. 
However, the a priori assumption with which you approach this 
particular subject (i.e. "UFOs do not represent any phenomena which 
cannot be explained in prosaic terms.") renders your resulting 
opinions on the matter largely irrelevant. Although your credentials 
as Skeptics remain firmly intact, be honest enough to admit you 
cannot adequately explain ALL aspects of the sighting. Don't push 
sophistry. 
       I respectfully suggest that the Venus/Jupiter hypothesis is a 
professional embarassment to you, since it completely ignores the 
observed phenomena and fails to explain how the Coast Guard personnel 
could have been so grossly fooled by known celestial objects.  Guys, 
it's okay to admit you just "don't know" what was over Lake Erie that 
night.  That diploma over your desk doesn't make you a vending 
machine--you don't have to dispense a Pepsi every time someone drops 
in their change and pulls your handle.
---------------------------------------



**********************************************
* THE U.F.O. BBS - http://www.ufobbs.com/ufo *
**********************************************