[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.

[Frank_Discussion]

Now, there, I agree with you to a degree. There is an awful lot of subjective chasing of the tail in ufology, despite a decent objective data pool. My disagreement with you rests on the idea that mainstream scientists confuse that high-visibility subjective screaming with an apparent lack of objective potential.

I also wouldn't say that there aren't procedures - MUFON in particular has a pretty rigorous set of standard tools for investigation and research. There are folks out there putting forth a best effort at consistency, but there as yet no analog to the NAS for ufology. We do what we can as best as possible, including trying to keep the data and its analysis as clean as possible. But that isn't everyone's approach.

My appeal to you is that there is no logical reason for UFO's to not exist. There are potential explanations for that which people see in the skies that is repeatable over the many years. I expect that an organized approach will only aid in characterizing that, especially if it exposes and freezes out the hucksters.