Allan Sturm Bowing Out?

[IsaacKoi]

IasscKoi found it and a fresh digital copy of ULOs goes to him!

I've now received the digital copy of "ULOs". Thanks Allan.

Having had a look through it, I can't say that I agree with the views expressed in the book - but I'm pleased to have a copy on file.

 

[Allan Sturm]

I'm on the fence of the whole topic. Sometimes I sit back and think hogwash, and then I find myself thinking it just doesn't add up.

And to borrow from your earlier response to Jeff Davis, I was at a loss as to who to help dig into this topic, much less even be willing to have an in-depth conversation about them that didn't start with them saying, "So what do you think that is?".

To anyone who thinks LRO and LROC are the end all to be all, you may consider this quote:

“A lot of the images they’re taking today, our imagery from 1966 and ’67 has sometimes greater resolution and greater dynamic range because of the way the pictures were taken. So sometimes you look into a shadow in a picture that LRO’s taken, and you don’t see any detail — with ours, you do.“ (Full article on CNN)

And I have seen that ^ time and time again when I attempt to cross reference objects of interest... and I don't normally focus on the LO I-V photos.

 

[Jeff Davis]

1) To be frank Jeff, I'm not aware of much "serious, rigid, and disciplined study of UFOs" that has taken place. Almost everyone in this field is involved in their (often very limited) spare time, generally with limited resources, with limited co-operation between UFO groups/researchers and often with pretty significant biases affecting their work/publications.

There have been several interesting PhD dissertations which relate (directly or indirectly) to ufology - largely from a sociological/psychological viewpoint. But those are generally studies of ufologists rather than of UFOs.

Basically, I think there is a lot of room for improvement within ufology.

Isaac,
1) Respectfully, I beg to disagree here. Certainly if one limits their focus of such serious ongoing research and study to the commercially viable paranormal talk circuit, then yes, one can find much opinionated entertainment that stacks up to little more than just that, entertaining opinions. Me thinks the same can be stated concerning internet forums. Oh drats!

However, if one uses the amazing amount of documented resources, whose results are clearly and unequivocally substantiated for all the public to take firm hold of within Leslie Kean's UFOs: Generals, Pilots, etc, one soon finds that a true wealth of such scientifically rigid, disciplined, and legitimate institutionally funded studies have in fact been taking place for literal decades now. We know much as a result, and at the same time, we know little to next to nothing concerning the aforementioned UFO relative attributes apart from that which the context of our own human awareness affords us via, you guessed it, an outpouring of centrifugal speculations. No matter how scrutinously we set about to study the environmental impact, be it on soil, plant life, or our given notions regarding the natural physical laws that we ourselves are bound to and within, we know not. Why?

Despite the astringent training that some are equipped with, apart from what is contextually relevant to our conscious awareness, even those possessing extreme credibility and having had personal first hand, direct observations of UFO activity, don't seem to get us any closer to a factual understanding when made the subject of such scientifically ardent studies.

My point here, and certainly not the point that much who would chide such introspective observations as these might suggest that I find a hat to fit, is really very simple. Crusades or cliques that push for this or that in terms of "serious UFO investigations", of the not so amusing variety, don't really allow for any real UFO comprehensibility in result whatsoever.

Whereas derision is never an act accompanied by the momentum of true progress, and I am certain you would agree Isaac, because I know you to be both fair minded, as well as an exceptionally constructive contributor to the the historic blanket of speculations that are UFO in nature, it would seem logical that any think tank with any real hope of successful effectiveness, would insist first and foremost on the strategic dichotomy of conflicting opinions, even those that we might consider in consensus as being completely absurd.

IMO, we should all strive to endorse the absurd, if we ever hope to understand as much. Certainly that which incorporates clearly observable aspects of the definitively impossible, must be in fact absurd in nature. That which consists of an impossible logistic scope of magnitude is that which might also best orientate us to this aforementioned absurdity's keyed road map of progressive achievement. That which offers logically portentous hope may be a long, long, long way from what we understand as being the truth.

There will always be room for real improvements, no matter what the human mind considers with respect to "the undefined" or that which is beyond (para) typical nature as we understand and observe it presently. All is contextually derived speculative portents that more so point to a transient condition of centrifugal relativity which we ourselves only possess a partial understanding of, or access to. Reality is painted with such a broad brush dependently frequenting a mysterious and absurd palette to be certain. I know of no classic masters within such an artistic scope of considerations. We seem like random cells of consciousness comprising an ever expanding whole by producing swipes at a canvas of endlessly progressive uncertainty.