[Frank_Discussion]

Sometimes there is hard evidence. Contrast that to Astronomy, and limit the data source to just stars, what physical evidence do you have other than light spectra? Not much. This not to say that astronomy is bunk, it certainly isn't, but if that science can be supported by optics and radar, but not chunks of stars of bits of extrasolar planets, it isn't unreasonable to consider the reality of UFO's. Ufology has photographic data, spectra, soil evidence, physical adjuncts manifested in materials and sometimes people after encounters, and of course the anecdotal evidence - it really isn't a narrow base of evidence on which the study rests.

That said, not all of us who study such stuff fall for everything that is included in the pop culture spectra. Crop Circles? I don't know what they are. Abductions? Another area of inquiry that holds more physical data than people realize, but not *necessarily* a ufological phenomena. Face on Mars? It is intriguing, but is in no way logical linked with UFOs in my mind. Hoagland is a functional moron.

There are constants in the Ufology, the things repeat themselves. Whatever they may be.

"All word pictures, stories, flapping of gums."

Until we have the ability to directly measure a phenomenon that is difficult to anticipate, it is hard to have much else. There were efforts that met with some success outside of Austin, Project Starlight International, I think was the outfit. They gathered more than pics and tales.

[Quix]

Sometimes there is hard evidence. Contrast that to Astronomy, and limit the data source to just stars, what physical evidence do you have other than light spectra? Not much. This not to say that astronomy is bunk, it certainly isn't, but if that science can be supported by optics and radar, but not chunks of stars of bits of extrasolar planets, it isn't unreasonable to consider the reality of UFO's. Ufology has photographic data, spectra, soil evidence, physical adjuncts manifested in materials and sometimes people after encounters, and of course the anecdotal evidence - it really isn't a narrow base of evidence on which the study rests.
- - - -

Excellent paragraph.

Won't sway many 'true UNbelievers' but we knew that. They have this addiction to TYPE II errors that they have a Death Grip on.

[RightWhale]

Has to do with subjective versus objective. We might not know what anything really is, but we can at least set up procedures and get the same numbers. Not so with UFOs; they are all different and there are no procedures.