Anonymous
Not logged in
Talk
Contributions
Create account
Log in
Search
Editing
MUFOB ARCHIVE/02 1966 MUFORG Bulletin 01
(section)
From KB42
Namespaces
Page
Discussion
More
More
Page actions
Read
Edit
Edit source
History
Warning:
You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you
log in
or
create an account
, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
Anti-spam check. Do
not
fill this in!
=== Investigators Investigated === The latest developments in UFO investigation and research are rather encouraging. Ufologists are at last becoming generally aware of their own inadequacies and are thinking seriously about how they can attract people with the intelligence, application and technical knowledge that this difficult subject demands. [[Jacques Vallée]]’s survey of UFO organisations in the USA is an invaluable first step towards the compilation of a list of the world’s more reliable UFO organisations. This should help to divide the world’s UFO enthusiasts sharply into two camps – those who uncritically accept contact stories and make a sort of mystical cult of the subject, like the people described by H. Taylor Buckner of California, whose findings were published in this country in New Society, and those who wish to see each report investigated objectively and scientifically. The latter group could perhaps arouse the interest of the scientific fraternity by the exchange of relevant information. For example, ufologists receive reports from observers all over the world. Many of these are obviously misinterpretations of such natural phenomena as meteors, mirages and ball lightning. Some of the phenomena reported, such as ball lightning, are very rare and imperfectly understood by modern science. Reliable reports of the more unusual manifestations of atmospheric electricity would be most useful to meteorologists and physicists. Accurate descriptions of meteors are of great interest to astronomers. When we gain the confidence of scientific organisations by means of an objective attitude and reliable observations we shall be able to call on them to help us in our investigations into the more difficult cases, such as the Cappoquin and Liverpool sightings described in this Bulletin. The editorial in the Jan-Feb 1966 issue of Flying Saucer Review is very timely and seems to have been inspired by the work of Jacques Vallée. There is no reason why we should worry ourselves about the statements put out by government departments. Utilising our own resources to the full may eventually lead us to a definite conclusion without their help. Flying Saucer Review’s world coverage of sightings is impressive, but it would be better if more indications could be given as to the genuineness of some of the more sensational reports. This is where Vallée’s work on UFO organisations comes in. All serious UFO groups should give him their full co-operation. ——————————————————————————–
Summary:
Please note that all contributions to KB42 may be edited, altered, or removed by other contributors. If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly, then do not submit it here.
You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource (see
KB42:Copyrights
for details).
Do not submit copyrighted work without permission!
Cancel
Editing help
(opens in new window)
Navigation
Navigation
Main page
Recent changes
Random page
Help about MediaWiki
DONATE
Wiki tools
Wiki tools
Special Pages
Categories
Import Pages
Cargo data
Page tools
Page tools
User page tools
More
What links here
Related changes
Page information
Page logs