Sunday, January 09, 2005

The Devil's In The Details?

Just in case you missed this item, Rich Reynolds wrote this post for UFO UpDates 8th Jan 2005. Have a read. I thought it was very insightful.

Don’t take offence to the link between age and need to reminisce, we all do that, and as we get older we do it more and more, so in many ways it is a truth… the important fact or should I say observation is some researchers have their head buried so hard or back in the past that they forget to look at whats new, or on now – today!

In an odd way that is why the Australian Disclosure Project in all its glory will with time failure - as it offer nothing other than a collection of old documents.

I have no problem with the collection of files but if you think you’re going to solve the disclosure problem then your nuts.

Nevertheless, these documents have been searched with a fine tooth comb in the past and nothing new was found.

But read Rich Reynolds comments.

The Devil's In The Details?
"The older UFO-study guys have a penchant for the historical UFO events. Why? Because when death is at the door, humans go back through their lives and experiences rather than set a path to the future, which for them is not going to happen.

(I won't name those here at UFO Updates who are ensconced in the past for the above reason but we all know who they are.)

But there are a few (Brad Sparks for instance) who see the value of exhuming past UFO events for study. And there may be some good reason to do that, but with caveats.
When several here got long-winded about the radar episode(s) in the 1952 Washington D.C. sightings, they were remiss in their rehashing.

It seems to me that one should look at the common factors in sightings, or radar episodes, anecdotes, et cetera.
Separate out those things, as best as one can, which are mundane, and accumulate those things which are similar in each episode.

The common threads may reveal something unique to UFOs.

Unless one has an epiphany (such as Euclid had or Newton), or if one is not a genius (such as Einstein, Jung, Bohrs), then one is relegated to the grunt work of gathering identical or nearly identical elements in sightings (past, present, and future) which might give a clue as to what UFOs are, or are not.

The books and studies so far are like those Washington, D.C.ruminations here: fraught with everything but the kitchen sink.

No one wants to take the "scientific" or quasi-scientific stepor discipline to ferret out that which could be meaningful. It's easier to include everything, which is what the great unwashed do when they make a stew or slumgullion.

Databasing the common elements in UFO events might elicit something(s) which could (or should) lead us all to insights which might be more productive than the skeptical stances by some oldsters here or the rampaging zeal of the younger set who pile everything up in a heap, from which a sensible scrutiny is nearly impossible."

From: Rich Reynolds
Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2005 12:48:12 -0500
Fwd Date: Sat, 08 Jan 2005 08:34:55 -0500
Subject: The Devil's In The Details? - Reynolds