96 lines
5.3 KiB
Plaintext
96 lines
5.3 KiB
Plaintext
SUBJECT: TO THE ASTRONOMERS RE: EASTLAKE UFO FILE: UFO2521
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
---------------------------------------
|
|
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 is 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. Youut 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 cuosity 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 ws 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 torical 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 gus--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 ansrs.
|
|
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 admiyou
|
|
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 igres 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 Ee 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 *
|
|
********************************************** |