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 *
**********************************************
