# Cecil a UFO debunker? **URL:** \ **Category:** Cecil's Columns/Staff Reports\ **Created:** [October 28, 2004, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cecil-a-ufo-debunker/271694 "2004-10-28T17:34:28Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![north](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/7ea924/32.png) [@north](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/north)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2004, 8:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cecil-a-ufo-debunker/271694/181 "2004-11-10T20:03:27Z")
> [@Cervaise](#): > > Yes, **Voyager** , your clarification is correct. Sorry for the imprecision.It’s not a yes-or-no question. Knowledge changes all the time. It would be foolish to say that something will “never” happen, because we don’t know what we don’t know. It’s _conceivable_ that some unforeseen breakthrough will make faster-than-light interstellar travel not just possible but practical. > > However, everything we know right now points to its impossibility. And we know a hell of a lot more than you think we do; your amoeba-on-a-space-shuttle analogy speaks volumes about your ignorance of the sheer magnitude of our scientific understanding of the physical universe. Pick up a survey of cosmology, something written for the layman, something like Tim Ferris’s _Coming of Age in the Milky Way_ or Bill Bryson’s _A Short History of Nearly Everything_, and _learn_ just how much we’ve managed to figure out despite being pinned to this small rock at the bottom of a gravity well. > > Look: _The fact that we cannot yet exploit our knowledge to the fullest does not devalue that knowledge_, and it does not provide permission to dismiss the basis by which we arrived at that knowledge. We know the universe is vast; we also know that we can’t go there and look at it, and as far as we can tell we won’t be able to any time soon. We are only just now starting to get a handle on what it’ll take to put humans on the surface of Mars, and the more you know about that effort, the more you know about how ridiculously difficult just putting boots in the red dust of our very nearest planetary neighbor will be, the more you know how far out of reach the stars really are. Our imagination has far outstripped our available technology, and we’re frustrated by the enormous gulf between what seems _possible_ and what appears to be _probable._ > > “Will we never visit the stars, yes or no,” is not an answerable question. “Do we have any idea how to visit the stars in our lifetimes given our current understanding, yes or no,” is answerable, and the answer, I say with great sadness, is no. > > Again: You seem to be proceeding with the assumption that we must study the possibility of faster-than-light travel or other advanced concepts and technologies because it is inevitable that we will solve the problem and colonize the galaxy. That is an invalid assumption, because it is _not_ inevitable. It is quite possible, based on our deep (and yes, it is deep, your ignorant assertions to the contrary) knowledge of the physical universe, that the speed of light is a completely insurmountable barrier, and that we will never travel to the next star in a vessel that takes less than a hundred years to make the voyage. Yes, it’s possible the opposite will be true, that a stroke of luck and genius this afternoon will have us living in the land of Star Trek next week. It’s just not likely. > > Or, in short, what I said before: You apparently want to investigate because you _know_ there is an indistinguishable-from-magic technology just waiting to be found that will open the biggest frontier of all. I want to investigate because that technology _might_ be found, but I also know it _might not._ Like I said before, the distinction may seem subtle, but it is absolutely critical. > [@](#): > > You apparently want to investigate because you _know_ there is an indistinguishable-from-magic technology just waiting to be found that will open the biggest frontier of all. I’ve actually never said that (which is the crux of your argument). It bears mentioning though, that if we brought a car back 600 years it would be “indistinguishable-from-magic technology” > [@](#): > > And that, I think, is the extremely subtle difference between the position I’m arguing for and the position you seem to be arguing for. I want to study the evidence and pursue the hypothesis because something interesting, even earth-shaking, might — emphasize might — be found, even while I concede that it might not. By contrast, you, apparently, based on your comments in this thread, want to study the evidence and pursue the evidence because you already believe there’s something to find. If that’s the subtle difference between our arguments that makes you feel superior to me then so be it. You’re damn right I believe there’s something to be found! Maybe I am ignorant as you seem to believe, but I also saw something do something that is supposedly impossible and I’m not alone. Maybe it was man-made and maybe it was not, but I’m not the only one seeing those types of things. I really don’t expect you or anyone else to feel the same way about this issue as I do but I believe if we keep our eyes and minds open and take more interest in the UFO phenomenon instead of denigrating it to the pages of the tabloids, something earth-shaking will be found. I believe that with all my heart (and brain) because of what I saw with my own two eyes. I’m sorry but I don’t fully subscribe to the theories of: - I believe there’s no evidence so I won’t look for any, or study any, and won’t recognize the paradox this presents. - That it’s impossible for other intelligent life (which most certainly exists in the universe) to be visiting Earth. We can’t visit the stars so nobody else can. If that makes me ignorant or deluded or crazy I’m cool with that. North ---
**Author:** ![Cervaise](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cervaise/32/16693_2.png) [@Cervaise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cervaise)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2004, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cecil-a-ufo-debunker/271694/182 "2004-11-10T20:09:51Z")
> [@north](#): > > I’m sorry but I don’t fully subscribe to the theories of: > > - I believe there’s no evidence so I won’t look for any, or study any, and won’t recognize the paradox this presents. > - That it’s impossible for other intelligent life (which most certainly exists in the universe) to be visiting Earth. We can’t visit the stars so nobody else can. The fact that you’re still so badly misinterpreting and misrepresenting our position after so many pages and so many different ways of trying to explain it indicates to me that either you can’t understand what we’re getting at or you don’t want to. Rewind to my “religion” post above. Enjoy your blind optimism. I’ll be over here enjoying reality. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2004, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cecil-a-ufo-debunker/271694/183 "2004-11-10T20:17:25Z")
> [@north](#): > > I’ve actually never said that (which is the crux of your argument). It bears mentioning though, that if we brought a car back 600 years it would be “indistinguishable-from-magic technology” The relevant analogy is that it is just as impossible to square the circle today as it was 200 years ago when Gauss realized it was impossible. And I wouldn’t put figuring out a car past Leornardo at all. > [@](#): > > - I believe there’s no evidence so I won’t look for any, or study any, and won’t recognize the paradox this presents. > - That it’s impossible for other intelligent life (which most certainly exists in the universe) to be visiting Earth. We can’t visit the stars so nobody else can. > > If that makes me ignorant or deluded or crazy I’m cool with that. > > North No one said that it was impossible. The evidence doesn’t support the statement that any aliens have done so. And many of us have looked at 100 cases, 200 cases and found nothing, and don’t feel it is worth looking at similar case 201. When they drop in at 42nd street and First Avenue in New York, then we can talk. But your story is similar to many others I’ve read that have turned out to be nothing special. ---
**Author:** ![Telemark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/telemark/32/372_2.png) [@Telemark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Telemark)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2004, 8:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cecil-a-ufo-debunker/271694/184 "2004-11-10T20:19:34Z")
> [@north](#): > > - I believe there’s no evidence so I won’t look for any, or study any, and won’t recognize the paradox this presents. I don’t think anyone is taking this attitude. We’ve looked at the eyewitness reports and found them to be lacking. Most are easy to explain away as Venus, blimps, underwing advertizing planes, etc. Some don’t have explanations yet but after working through hundreds of mundane ones it’s hard to get excited about the few that remain. Besides being notoriously unreliable, eyewitness accounts are difficult to study since there is no physical evidence. Which is why physical evidence becomes so important. It’s not open to memory flaws or tricks of the light, other people can study it independently and test they hypothesis. As of now, there is NO physical evidence that indicates an otherworldy origin. > [@](#): > > - That it’s impossible for other intelligent life (which most certainly exists in the universe) to be visiting Earth. We can’t visit the stars so nobody else can. No one said it is impossible, but just that there is no indepedently verifiable evidence that suggests it. There are lots of things that are unknown, we don’t worry about them until we have some evidence to suggest one way or the other that an answer is around the corner. > [@](#): > > If that makes me ignorant or deluded or crazy I’m cool with that. I wouldn’t call you any of those things. I’d say you’re too committed to a specific outcome to be scientific about this topic. ---
**Author:** ![north](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/7ea924/32.png) [@north](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/north)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2004, 8:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cecil-a-ufo-debunker/271694/185 "2004-11-10T20:58:43Z")
> [@](#): > > The fact that you’re still so badly misinterpreting and misrepresenting our position after so many pages and so many different ways of trying to explain it indicates to me that either you can’t understand what we’re getting at or you don’t want to. Actually, I can say the same thing about you. > [@](#): > > Enjoy your blind optimism. I’ll be over here enjoying reality. Since you’ve chosen to go there: I’ll take my “blind optimism” over your “reality” any day. So I guess that’s that. North ---
**Author:** ![north](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/7ea924/32.png) [@north](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/north)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2004, 9:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cecil-a-ufo-debunker/271694/186 "2004-11-10T21:15:04Z")
> [@](#): > > The relevant analogy is that it is just as impossible to square the circle today as it was 200 years ago when Gauss realized it was impossible. And I wouldn’t put figuring out a car past Leornardo at all. You know what **Voyager**? I wouldn’t put it past 'ol Leo either. Okay 1000 years ago. > [@](#): > > No one said that it was impossible. The evidence doesn’t support the statement that any aliens have done so. And many of us have looked at 100 cases, 200 cases and found nothing, and don’t feel it is worth looking at similar case 201. When they drop in at 42nd street and First Avenue in New York, then we can talk. But your story is similar to many others I’ve read that have turned out to be nothing special. Okay so you don’t think the UFO phenomenon deserves to be studied because you looked into 200 cases (out of how many exactly?) and since you found nothing, the whole phenomenon is thusly explained; there’s nothing to any of it. So me not being a scientist and all (just a blind optimistic) maybe you can explain something for me; is this how science works? Don’t look at case number 201 out of 3000 because there was nothing to 1-200? North. ---
**Author:** ![north](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/7ea924/32.png) [@north](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/north)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2004, 9:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cecil-a-ufo-debunker/271694/187 "2004-11-10T21:56:18Z")
\*The undeniable reality is that there are a substantial number of UFO cases backed by thousands of credible witnesses. In the physical domain there are many photos, videos, radar tracking, satellite sensor reports, landing traces including depressions and anomalous residual radiation, electromagnetic interference, and confirmed physiological effects. Personal observations have been made both day and night, often under excellent visibility with some at close range. Included are reports from multiple independent witnesses to the same event including policemen, pilots, military personell and other highly trained observers. I ask you, why is none of this considered evidence? There are over 3000 cases reported by pilots, some of which include interference with flight controls. On numerous occasions air traffic controllers and other radar operators have noted unexplained objects on their scopes. So too have several astronomers and other competent scientists reported their personal observations. Many military officials from several countries have confirmed multi-sensor observations of UFOs. The most senior air defense officers of Russia, Brazil, Belgium and recently a former Chief of Naval Operations in Chile all have stated that UFOs are real. These cases and comments are a miniscule fraction of the total body of evidence. Of course they do not constitute irrefutable proof. However, to state there is no evidence suggestive of intelligent extraterrestrial life simply belies the facts. Decades in duration and global in nature, there are too many hard sensor data-points and millions of eyewitnesses to ignore. We certainly can debate the significance of specific data and question whether or not it establishes a causal relationship between those observations and extraterrestrial life, however, it is only through ignorance or pomposity that one can say no evidence exists. \* - John B. Alexander, NIDS (National Institute for Discovery Science). Not that this will sway any of you (and I’m not calling anyone specifically ignorant or pompous), but I agree with this guy. Look, if reputable people kept telling me this, including some respected scientists, I’d be at least curious enough to want to know what the hell is going on. Even if I had not seen one myself. In the end I believe that there is sufficient evidence to warrant further study and observation by mainstream science. Don’t you? North. ---
**Author:** ![John\_W.Kennedy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_w.kennedy/32/1031_2.png) [@John\_W.Kennedy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_W.Kennedy)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2004, 10:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cecil-a-ufo-debunker/271694/188 "2004-11-10T22:16:21Z")
> [@north](#): > > Ok then, answer me this: > > So you believe humans will never be able to travel vast distances in space? > > So you believe that interstellar travel will never be achieved because of the theory of special relativity? > > Yes or no. Special relativity doesn’t rule out interstellar travel. Slowships are possible, as is the amelioration of travel time by relativistic time dilation (though the energy budget becomes a problem in that case). But it _does_ make interstellar travel so very expensive an endeavor as to appear to rule out the inbred-farmboys-on-a-spree behavior commonly ascribed to aliens by UFO fans. ---
**Author:** ![Telemark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/telemark/32/372_2.png) [@Telemark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Telemark)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2004, 10:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cecil-a-ufo-debunker/271694/189 "2004-11-10T22:30:22Z")
> [@north](#): > > The undeniable reality is that there are a substantial number of UFO cases backed by thousands of credible witnesses. In the physical domain there are many photos, videos, radar tracking, satellite sensor reports, landing traces including depressions and anomalous residual radiation, electromagnetic interference, and confirmed physiological effects. Personal observations have been made both day and night, often under excellent visibility with some at close > range. Included are reports from multiple independent witnesses to the same event including policemen, pilots, military personell and other highly trained observers. I ask you, why is none of this considered evidence? Because the above statement is a gross misstatement of facts. The data mentioned above simply does not exist. Yes, people have reported UFOs, even very reliable witnesses, but the vast, vast majority have mundane explainations. The “photos, videos, radar tracking, satellite sensor reports, landing traces” etc all become quite nebulous and uninformative as soon as you push a little deeper. They do not show what this person claims they show. > [@](#): > > Not that this will sway any of you (and I’m not calling anyone specifically ignorant or pompous), but I agree with this guy. Look, if reputable people kept telling me this, including some respected scientists, I’d be at least curious enough to want to know what the hell is going on. Even if I had not seen one myself. I do not believe this person is a reputable scientist. The National Institute for Discovery Science is not a reliable or reputable organization, and in fact they have shut down. Based on past track records, I would not put much faith in anything they have said. Does that make me biased? Perhaps, but only against bad science. > [@](#): > > In the end I believe that there is sufficient evidence to warrant further study and observation by mainstream science. Don’t you? No. I don’t believe there is sufficient evidence to warrent study in UFOs. ---
**Author:** ![Bosda\_Di\_Chi\_of\_Tricor](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bosda_di_chi_of_tricor/32/16845_2.png) [@Bosda\_Di\_Chi\_of\_Tricor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bosda_Di_Chi_of_Tricor)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2004, 10:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cecil-a-ufo-debunker/271694/190 "2004-11-10T22:49:16Z")
**north** , I’m very disappointed in you. ☹ ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2004, 1:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cecil-a-ufo-debunker/271694/191 "2004-11-11T01:38:52Z")
> [@north](#): > > You know what **Voyager**? I wouldn’t put it past 'ol Leo either. Okay 1000 years ago. The real point is the difference between something that can be proven impossible (like squaring the circle) and things we don’t know how to do yet. The people saying we could never fly in the 19th century would be a better example - they were underestimating the engineering, and had no good theory backing up their doubt. That’s why we all say that we can go to the stars - not in our lifetimes, and not faster than light. > [@](#): > > Okay so you don’t think the UFO phenomenon deserves to be studied because you looked into 200 cases (out of how many exactly?) and since you found nothing, the whole phenomenon is thusly explained; there’s nothing to any of it. So me not being a scientist and all (just a blind optimistic) maybe you can explain something for me; is this how science works? Don’t look at case number 201 out of 3000 because there was nothing to 1-200? Yes, that is how science works. I’ve both done research, written proposals, reviewed proposals, and even once had a nice pot of money to give out. You need to evaluate the risk vs. the reward. High risk, high reward projects are good if there is some reason to think there might be an answer. A project that is high risk because the last 10 people who tried it failed miserably isn’t going to get funded, nor should it, unless there is some damn good reason why the investigator’s approach is different. If a saucer crashed in plain view, you know full well no one will have trouble getting money to study it. If a landed saucer left traces of compounds unknown on earth, ditto. But money to investigate more lights in the sky just like the other ones? Nope. BTW, the ones everyone looks at are those with the best evidence. No one is going to bother with just a light seen by someone. How would you propose someone investigate your case? Ask the air force if they had seen something? You’d get a “no” no matter what. You can’t really study them statistically since I’d expect even you would admit that most sightings are mistaken. What would your UFO research program look like, and how would it be different from everyone else’s that have failed? North. [/QUOTE] ---
**Author:** ![Wendell\_Wagner](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/8491ac/32.png) [@Wendell\_Wagner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wendell_Wagner)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2004, 4:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cecil-a-ufo-debunker/271694/192 "2004-11-11T04:48:57Z")
north writes: \> He was being funny, or cute, or clever, whatever you want to call it. I didn’t \> mind and was taking it a little further (You obviously didn’t get the joke). By the \> way, I didn’t need a dictionary for the term, I know what it means…read my \> answer. Why do you have to be so caustic anyway? That wasn’t caustic. When I get caustic, you’ll know it, because your head will explode. Please, you were not being funny when you failed to recognize that DrDeth had mistyped a word and then made a further mistyping when you quoted him. \> Maybe I am ignorant as you seem to believe, but I also saw something do \> something that is supposedly impossible and I’m not alone. Maybe it was man- \> made and maybe it was not, but I’m not the only one seeing those types of \> things. Actually, it seems to me that the most likely explanation of your sighting is an optical illusion. ---
**Author:** ![north](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/7ea924/32.png) [@north](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/north)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2004, 8:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cecil-a-ufo-debunker/271694/193 "2004-11-11T08:10:44Z")
[QUOTE=Wendell Wagner] north writes: \> He was being funny, or cute, or clever, whatever you want to call it. I didn’t \> mind and was taking it a little further (You obviously didn’t get the joke). By the \> way, I didn’t need a dictionary for the term, I know what it means…read my \> answer. Why do you have to be so caustic anyway? > [@](#): > > That wasn’t caustic. When I get caustic, you’ll know it, because your head will explode. Please, you were not being funny when you failed to recognize that DrDeth had mistyped a word and then made a further mistyping when you quoted him. Yes, I was. \> Maybe I am ignorant as you seem to believe, but I also saw something do \> something that is supposedly impossible and I’m not alone. Maybe it was man- \> made and maybe it was not, but I’m not the only one seeing those types of \> things. > [@](#): > > Actually, it seems to me that the most likely explanation of your sighting is an optical illusion. No it wasn’t. North ---
**Author:** ![north](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/7ea924/32.png) [@north](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/north)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2004, 8:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cecil-a-ufo-debunker/271694/194 "2004-11-11T08:32:40Z")
[QUOTE=Telemark] Because the above statement is a gross misstatement of facts. The data mentioned above simply does not exist. Yes, people have reported UFOs, even very reliable witnesses, but the vast, vast majority have mundane explainations. The “photos, videos, radar tracking, satellite sensor reports, landing traces” etc all become quite nebulous and uninformative as soon as you push a little deeper. They do not show what this person claims they show. > [@](#): > > Because the above statement is a gross misstatement of facts. The data mentioned above simply does not exist. Exactly how did you come by this conclusion? Explain those statments please. > [@](#): > > I do not believe this person is a reputable scientist. The National Institute for Discovery Science is not a reliable or reputable organization, and in fact they have shut down. Based on past track records, I would not put much faith in anything they have said. Does that make me biased? Perhaps, but only against bad science. I’m not qualified to say it was or wasn’t a reputable organization. That’s one of the reasons why I’d like to see a study into the phenomena that everyone agrees is reputable. Public or private. > [@](#): > > No. I don’t believe there is sufficient evidence to warrent study in UFOs. Well your wrong. Data exists to study and track. It may not be sufficient to conclude anything solid at this point, but it’s there. Does every scientist or researcher start out with conclusive evidence? Is _that_ the way science works? North ---
**Author:** ![glee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b5a626/32.png) [@glee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/glee)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2004, 11:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cecil-a-ufo-debunker/271694/195 "2004-11-11T11:14:58Z")
> [@north](#): > > I’m not qualified to say it was or wasn’t a reputable organization. That’s one of the reasons why I’d like to see a study into the phenomena that everyone agrees is reputable. Public or private. I had never heard of this organisation before you posted the quote (not significant - there’s loads of things I’ve never heard of!). I looked them up: [http://www.nidsci.org/](http://www.nidsci.org/) Their current status: ‘We have not had the need to do any major investigative work for well over 2 ½ years. In view of that fact we decided to reduce our staff.’ This is a private research organisation, designed specifically to investigate UFO’s and related topics. (It’s not clear whether it justifies the title ‘National’, or ‘Institute’, which suggest that it is rather larger than it is and that it was somehow recognised as an official body.) Now good luck to these people - they have ‘put their money where their mouth is’. But they have not achieved any awards or discovered anything. John B. Alexander is not an astronomer (his expertise is in non-lethal weapons). So your quote is not as impressive as it seems. However it was well worthwhile your posting it, because I was able to follow it up and learn something. Thanks! And I think this shows the best of an Internet message board. You gave a starting point - we could follow it up. Unfortunately what this shows is that an organisation specifically funded to investigate UFO’s has found nothing worth mentioning, and is now cutting back. In view of this, why do you want anyone else to investigate? These guys clearly believed there was something to find - but nothing came up. > [@north](#): > > Well your wrong. Data exists to study and track. It may not be sufficient to conclude anything solid at this point, but it’s there. Does every scientist or researcher start out with conclusive evidence? Is _that_ the way science works? > North Science needs evidence to progress. Yes, you might have a theory, or perhaps an extension of existing knowledge. But when no evidence turns up, you need a new area to investigate. NIDS says there is nothing worth looking at in recent times. Nobody has come up with anything since Roswell. To believe in Roswell, you have to agree to a massive and perfect Government conspiracy. The alternative is that eye-witnesses have indeed seen something in the sky, but that it was just something like Venus, a plane etc. We know that thousands of sightings have been explained that way already. I’m content with the latter - if you want me to change my mind, bring me evidence! ---
**Author:** ![north](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/7ea924/32.png) [@north](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/north)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2004, 1:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cecil-a-ufo-debunker/271694/196 "2004-11-11T13:26:08Z")
> [@glee](#): > > I had never heard of this organisation before you posted the quote (not significant - there’s loads of things I’ve never heard of!). > I looked them up: > > [http://www.nidsci.org/](http://www.nidsci.org/) > > Their current status: > > ‘We have not had the need to do any major investigative work for well over 2 ½ years. > In view of that fact we decided to reduce our staff.’ > > This is a private research organisation, designed specifically to investigate UFO’s and related topics. (It’s not clear whether it justifies the title ‘National’, or ‘Institute’, which suggest that it is rather larger than it is and that it was somehow recognised as an official body.) > Now good luck to these people - they have ‘put their money where their mouth is’. But they have not achieved any awards or discovered anything. John B. Alexander is not an astronomer (his expertise is in non-lethal weapons). > So your quote is not as impressive as it seems. > > However it was well worthwhile your posting it, because I was able to follow it up and learn something. Thanks! > > And I think this shows the best of an Internet message board. You gave a starting point - we could follow it up. > > Unfortunately what this shows is that an organisation specifically funded to investigate UFO’s has found nothing worth mentioning, and is now cutting back. In view of this, why do you want anyone else to investigate? > These guys clearly believed there was something to find - but nothing came up. > > Science needs evidence to progress. > Yes, you might have a theory, or perhaps an extension of existing knowledge. But when no evidence turns up, you need a new area to investigate. > > NIDS says there is nothing worth looking at in recent times. Nobody has come up with anything since Roswell. To believe in Roswell, you have to agree to a massive and perfect Government conspiracy. > The alternative is that eye-witnesses have indeed seen something in the sky, but that it was just something like Venus, a plane etc. We know that thousands of sightings have been explained that way already. > I’m content with the latter - if you want me to change my mind, bring me evidence! Thanks for checking that out Glee. If it’s astronomers that you be wanting check out this guy: **Peter Sturrock**. I’ve mentioned him before in this post and he basically backs up my position on evidence and further study of UFOs (or I back up his whichever comes first). Here’s a transcript of a CNN interview with him (it was awhile ago so the original CNN link does not exist anymore sorry) [Sturrock interview](http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/1998/jul/m02-015.shtml) A link to his Bio: [Peter Sturrock - Biographical Information - UFO Evidence](http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc543.htm) Thus far the biggest argument I’ve been getting can be summed up as follows: UFOs: There is no evidence to study or to warrent further study. I disagree with that position and so does Dr. Sturrock. Have a look North ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2004, 2:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cecil-a-ufo-debunker/271694/197 "2004-11-11T14:28:18Z")
> [@north](#): > > Thanks for checking that out Glee. If it’s astronomers that you be wanting check out this guy: **Peter Sturrock**. I’ve mentioned him before in this post and he basically backs up my position on evidence and further study of UFOs (or I back up his whichever comes first). > > Here’s a transcript of a CNN interview with him (it was awhile ago so the original CNN link does not exist anymore sorry) [Sturrock interview](http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/1998/jul/m02-015.shtml) > > A link to his Bio: [Peter Sturrock - Biographical Information - UFO Evidence](http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc543.htm) > > Thus far the biggest argument I’ve been getting can be summed up as follows: > > UFOs: There is no evidence to study or to warrent further study. > > I disagree with that position and so does Dr. Sturrock. > > Have a look > > North (Bolding mine) It appears that Dr. Sturrock in fact does not make that assertion. And all they really say is that further research might lead to understanding the cause of UFO _reports._ Hardly a ringing endorsement on the possibility of aliens visiting Earth. STURROCK: **Well, I’m not presenting my belief.** **I’m presenting the** **assessment of a panel of scientist who met with a group of eig\*\*\*\*hti\*\*\*\*nvestigators.** The investigators were asked to present whatever physical evidence they found in the course of their research. **And the only question asked of the panel was that, do you believe that further study of this kind of case, this kind of evidence, might eventually lead to answers to the problem of understanding the cause or causes of UFO reports**? And the panel felt, yes, this would be a promising line of research for the future. ---
**Author:** ![north](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/7ea924/32.png) [@north](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/north)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2004, 3:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cecil-a-ufo-debunker/271694/198 "2004-11-11T15:55:01Z")
> [@](#): > > It appears that Dr. Sturrock in fact does not make that assertion. And all they really say is that further research might lead to understanding the cause of UFO _reports._ Hardly a ringing endorsement on the possibility of aliens visiting Earth. Before you make any assertions about Dr. Sturrock’s assertions you should read his book **The UFO Enigma: A New Review of the Physical Evidence**. One of the things I happen to like about Dr. Sturrock is that he hasn’t jumped to any conclusions about the origins of UFO’s but insists that the enigma deserves more study. I should say once again before somebody jumps on that statement that I have not completely made up my mind on the matter. More on Dr. Sturrock here: [The Sturrock Panel](http://www.ufoevidence.org/topics/SturrockPanel.htm) North. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2004, 7:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cecil-a-ufo-debunker/271694/199 "2004-11-11T19:01:52Z")
**north** - You mentioned, back on page 1, that you believed that the UFO crashes and other evidence was being covered up by the government because if it were generally known, “our religious and economic structures would collapse”. Why do you think this is the case? In particular, why would not a President like Jimmy Carter, who presumably had complete access to all classified information, and who claims IIRC to have seen a UFO, continue the cover-up? Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![glee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b5a626/32.png) [@glee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/glee)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2004, 12:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cecil-a-ufo-debunker/271694/200 "2004-11-12T00:18:50Z")
> [@north](#): > > More on Dr. Sturrock here: [The Sturrock Panel](http://www.ufoevidence.org/topics/SturrockPanel.htm) > > North. Here is an example of evidence Dr. Sturrock thinks should be analysed further: 'And they found there were indentation in the soil that would have taken about 1 ton to produce, and the vegetation has strange biochemical changes, which could perhaps be caused by micro-radiation; they didn’t know what. ’ I’m not sure what he means by one ton - couldn’t the speed of the impact affect the indentation? Also the scientists don’t know if micro-radiation is involved. Dr. Sturrock states that the French Space Agency (CNES) collected all the samples. This case occurred in 1981, and nothing further has emerged. North, do you think CNES is covering something up, or that there is no evidence of a landing? Interestingly Dr. Sturrock also says there is ‘no convincing evidence of extraterrestrial intelligence or any violation of natural laws’. Doesn’t that knock Roswell out of the equation? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cecil-a-ufo-debunker/271694.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cecil-a-ufo-debunker/271694.md?page=11)