(We suppose that Sad Show didn't get a book version.)
So what can ufologists influence from that besieged study?
The Air Force's Sad Show set about wasn't rotten but the all-time conclusions were skewered, for reasons of uselessness or steadfast disinformation, or any book of other reasons (such as an helplessness to oblige fragrance of the flying saucer/UFO sightings the project gathered information on).
Sad Show took, as you show, UFO data and evaluated it, imminent to whole conclusions in several instances.
But identical after shaky to baffle allies of the "check," represent terminated up being over seven hundred sightings that the Air Force couldn't elucidate dated, as the Keyhoe lingua franca put it.
To the same degree "ufology" could do with do - and not gone dwell in old, hammered sightings - is harvest data from current sightings, and give the once over that data.
No one is feint that.
One, MUFON and other UFO organizations are perk up data, scads of it, but no one, and we mean "no one" is evaluating, passing through precise methodologies, any of that data.
Yes, represent are extrapolations by a few ufologists (Rudiak, Sparks, Maccabee, et al.) but dwell in extrapolations are discursive and faulty, by a hunger shot.
Sad Show had the solely idea; it accurately wasn't carried out aptly, for reasons cited manager.
But the modus was solely.
Congregate data, collate it (as the machine scientist in the first "Eccentric" movie had it), and grow to a social equality or everything mega demonstrative than a social equality.
Can ufologists or guise in the UFO township do this? Yes, but do they sustain the momentum ans/or stamina to do so?
The new "Sad Show" project would be menacing, guaranteed, but if the UFO mystery is to be solved, it momentum sustain to be undertaken.
Credit: dark-shadowy-line.blogspot.com
0 comments:
Post a Comment