It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

have we hit a dead end with UFO-ET research?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 5 2005 @ 02:53 PM
link   
Is it just me or have we hit a dead end as far as UFO-ET research and postulation is concerned?
On this and other boards, there is never any new evidence or encounters.
It's just the constant rehash of all the material we've had at our disposal for ten or more years.
I have no new material to offer. I was only wondering why the seemingly sudden stop of ongoing research and sightings or encounters.
This may just be a perception issue of my own. It seems that we discuss the same things, over and over and none of us is privy to any new and forthcoming info. What could be the reason for this?
Could it be that 'they' have left or could it be that 'they' never were?
I have no idea. I'm just looking for other opinions and perceptions.




posted on Oct, 5 2005 @ 07:19 PM
link   
Sure you see people re-Hashing old cases constantly , but there is always new people coming around who have never heard of these cases.

As to the reasreach , I see exciting new things all the time in the UFO field. Like the Hessdalen Project.

Brazil opening classified UFO Files and giving Ufologists acces to those files.

The COMETA Report 1999.

The discovery of Extra-solar planets has happened in the last ten years.

The Discovery of conditions that could support Microbial life exist elsewhere in our own Solar System has been made in the last ten years.

Ten years ago the Internet was brand new. The Phenonix Lights incident hadn't happened . You would be lucky to catch an Unsolved Mysteries Roswell episode or maybe you saw the occasional episode of Sightings, today we have UFOs on the History Channel and Nat Geo.



posted on Oct, 5 2005 @ 08:32 PM
link   
UFO activity comes in waves. Remember that. Nothing is "done"



posted on Oct, 5 2005 @ 09:34 PM
link   
Places like ATS give people who might actually have seen something an outlet where they can tell their story with relatively little ridicule. Get enough people together telling stories and a phenomenon develops from what is then a community instead of a few fringe radicals. It's a lot easier for the mainstream media to take a community seriously than a few individuals.



posted on Oct, 5 2005 @ 11:25 PM
link   
It is kind of hard to hit a dead end in any true research effort. So before considering the topic of this forum, I need to know
just where and when the UFO research began. (Yes, lost_shaman, I have seen your references. Isolated locations with repeatable
phenomenon tend to make physical discoveries.) And before Gazrok joins in, no matter how intricately you research testimony and
hearsay, that is not scientific data points. I say again, when does the research effort begin ?



posted on Oct, 6 2005 @ 06:23 AM
link   
www.nuforc.org...

just check out all of the 10000 eye witness testemony of indivuals who claim to have witnessed UFO's. with that grain of salt check out some of the hundreds upon hundreds of crystal clear videos of lights that are accurate to the eyewitness account. they with that look at the scope and magnitude of our military infrastructure and ability to keep secrets....

something they are damn well at and you know it



posted on Oct, 6 2005 @ 09:21 AM
link   
I would agree that not much more can be learned from existing information, but I would say there is still more that can be done. I think if I had the means I would try to investigate and recreate some natural phenomenon that are still a mystery like Earth lights and plasma balls. I think they would explain several sightings and would be something to compare to. These have been studied, but I don't know any that have tried to recreate them. Plus it sounds like fun to play around with extreme high voltage like Tesla did back in his day. Debunkers use this phenomenon to explain away sightings, but fail to provide the proof.


Originally posted by nightwing
I say again, when does the research effort begin ?

Are you saying that a serious effort hasn’t been made yet, or that all the experts to this day have done it wrong? You don't think studying UFO history and searching through archives is research? Or investigating sightings? What do you consider to be research, and how would you suggest going about it?



posted on Oct, 6 2005 @ 09:57 AM
link   
I feel the same way . All topics have now been discussed to the point of exhaustion . Nothing new has happend in a long time now . The last thing I saw was about that preach guy and how he contact the UFOS and that was totally bogus ! The fact is we been discussing the same thing over and over again and not getting at any conclusion or clue of what is happening ( or in this case what happend ) . I just hope something big happens soon , because we need a breath of fresh air for UFO research !



posted on Oct, 8 2005 @ 02:13 AM
link   
"Are you saying that a serious effort hasn’t been made yet, or that all the experts to this day have done it wrong?" == Hal9000

I am saying that there has been no scientific inquiry to my knowledge, other than isolated and repeatable phenomenon. Define
for me, if you can, just what a UFO expert is supposed to be. And tell me what they have done right for scientific inquiry.
Historical research is great, for a historian. Re-read the latter part of lost_shaman's post. Do you see his insite ?
He repeats the word "discovery". I suspect UFO's would qualify for that word. You dont make a scientific "discovery" by
historical research or by looking at testimonies under a microscope.

"I feel the same way . All topics have now been discussed to the point of exhaustion ." ==Fanatic

I agree. Maybe its time for a change.



posted on Oct, 8 2005 @ 09:27 PM
link   
I posted a similar topic on this a few weeks ago. See "Getting Board of it all?"

but yea I agree with you. Where the hell are all the smoking guns?



posted on Oct, 10 2005 @ 09:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by nightwing
"Are you saying that a serious effort hasn’t been made yet, or that all the experts to this day have done it wrong?" == Hal9000

I am saying that there has been no scientific inquiry to my knowledge, other than isolated and repeatable phenomenon.

Not sure what you mean by scientific inquiry. If you mean an inquiry like a meeting, there have been many symposiums and congressional hearings in the past, though not recently. In 1966, people like ex-president Gerald Ford (senator at that time) held hearings with attendees like Dr. J. Allen Hynek and again in 1968 with others like Stanton Friedman and Carl Sagan.

www.ufoevidence.org...

I take it you mean isolated and NON-repeatable phenomenon, which is true and why it is so elusive. It doesn't mean it doesn't happen and is just that much more fascinating. If it was easy, the answer would have presented itself by now.



Define for me, if you can, just what a UFO expert is supposed to be. And tell me what they have done right for scientific inquiry.
Historical research is great, for a historian.

We could argue till the cows come home what qualifies an expert, so I will not bother to answer that because it is irrelevant. But the first thing anyone would do to determine the cause of a scientific phenomenon, is research the history and what others may have uncovered. If scientist did not rely on the previous work of others we would have never gotten beyond the Stone Age.



You dont make a scientific "discovery" by
historical research or by looking at testimonies under a microscope.

But you do make discoveries by researching history and the previous work of others. If this were not true all discoveries would only happen by accident. The truth is most scientific discoveries are found after lots of research and years of hard work.

So nightwing, before you reply with more questions, can you answer the most relevant question of my last post? I will repeat it.

What do you consider to be research, and how would you suggest going about it?

I doubt that you have a better way of doing it, but my point is I don't think anyone should criticize someone else’s work unless they have a better idea. You may not have meant it that way, but you did imply that up till now it has not been done correctly.



posted on Oct, 10 2005 @ 10:34 PM
link   
"What do you consider to be research, and how would you suggest going about it? " == Hal9000

Did you not see the first option I placed in the PJ forum of yours ? Make a model good enough to use for
predicting results of ET physical hardware contact with humans. Use the predictive templates to look for a
modern day match up. Since I had essentially NO reaction to that, I sorta lost interest in posting the second
option.

As far as a proactive method of research, the first thing that comes to mind is more fun discussing by U2U.
At least the discussion of that with lost shaman has been productive enough to conclude that it is viable.
But it is also work and requires resources. Like the model, I suspect there would be NO interest.

Since my inclination on the matter is that any real idea proposals that require work etc... will generate no
interest, I just pose the questions that might generate alternative ideas from others. Soon I will be bored
with that as well, so you may get a needed respite.

I love the encouragement you toss my way.

"I doubt that you have a better way of doing it" == Hal9000

Prejudgement is always an interesting challenge.



posted on Oct, 11 2005 @ 11:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by nightwing
Did you not see the first option I placed in the PJ forum of yours ? Make a model good enough to use for predicting results of ET physical hardware contact with humans. Use the predictive templates to look for a modern day match up. Since I had essentially NO reaction to that, I sorta lost interest in posting the second option.

I went back to review your proposal and although it would be an intriguing exercise, it would be too speculative. I would suggest starting a new thread with this idea to see if there is any interest or not. I for one would contribute what I can. Frankly, I was surprised that thread went as long as it did, and went way off topic.

But the problem with a model is there needs to be a pattern of behavior that can be modeled. The only part of the exercise that can be modeled is how people would react. Just a minor alteration at any point could cause various outcomes, and anyone could manipulate factors until they get the outcome they want. I know you wanted to do this to disprove the story of Roswell. Regardless of how unbiased we would try to be it would still be biased. Even if we went through the exercise to predict an outcome, I don’t think it would prove anything.

With that said, I was referring to doing research in manner that is tangible. There is an old saying that states “The way to understand something is to measure it”. With the background I have in electronics, I prefer a “hands on” approach; though I’m sure many will disagree. If I got all my old experiments and projects together, it would look like a mad scientist’s garage sale, so I have some experience with this.

As I said before, I would propose trying to recreate the various Earthlight phenomenons, and see if they behave the same as other observed phenomenon. Nicola Tesla built several devices that I think could be experimented with. It might not be possible, but we won’t know unless someone tries. Earthlights are only one aspect of the phenomenon, but it is one I think could be solved. Unfortunately, this type of research requires a lot of time and money, and is why is has not been done yet.



I love the encouragement you toss my way.

"I doubt that you have a better way of doing it" == Hal9000

Prejudgement is always an interesting challenge.

Didn't mean it that way, just saying I wasn't expecting you to come up with a better way. I think regardless of all the obstacles, many researchers have uncovered a lot of facts, and there is nothing wrong with their approach.



posted on Oct, 11 2005 @ 11:58 AM
link   
I think we will get some documents in a few years that were based on stuff that is happening now I'm not really sure but I think some of them come out a few years after they were created so we might get some in a few years on stuff thats happening now.



posted on Oct, 11 2005 @ 02:51 PM
link   

I need to know just where and when the UFO research began.


Well, in 1947 the first preliminary study was done by USAF Intelligence (shortly after being established in that year).

In 1948, the Air Force established Project Sign, as the first long-term and official (though not quite public) UFO investigation.

In 1949, Project Grudge takes over for Sign.

In the 50's we see Grudge then go to Twinkle.

Then in '52 we see Blue Book take over.

But surely, there has been no scientific investigation or actual research...
I'd think that most in this forum are quite familiar with some of the prominent scientists part of one of more of these projects. Sure, they explained a lot of cases too, but there also remained many unsolved cases as well, and cases with good data to boot....

Moreover, this was well before the establishment of the "ridicule factor". The armed forces were SERIOUSLY concerned about unidentified craft over the US.


And before Gazrok joins in, no matter how intricately you research testimony and
hearsay, that is not scientific data points. I say again, when does the research effort begin ?


We obviously differ on what we deem to be acceptable data. In addition to testimony, many unexplained cases contain scientific data points. Also, in some cases, scientific data is manipulated to provide an explanation to unexplained cases. The year-later report on the '52 DC flyover for example, trying to use temperature inversions to explain it, when experts on the phenomenon were crying foul... As to when it began, see above.


One could also point to the NICAP scientific study in 1964 "The UFO Evidence"...even the 1953 Robertson Panel (especially if you want to see scientists use heresay to try and debunk incredible sightings..."it was probably seagulls" - how scientific), or the Condon Committee in '69 which effectively allowed the closure of Blue Book (both the Panel and the Committee being CIA in origin, not USAF).



I think we will get some documents in a few years that were based on stuff that is happening now


I doubt it. Most of what we have now is due to the fact that when all of this started, it was all new, and protocols and procedures weren't in place yet....so things fell through the cracks. IF we are correct in the assertion of an effective coverup, modern paper trails will be scarce in the extreme.

Still, technology holds more promise.

For example, with camera phones becoming more and more common, we've now got many walking around with a camera in their pocket, sometimes even a video camera capability. Unless we're in some kind of major visitation lull, in the coming years, we should see FAR more pics and vids of unexplained aerial objects (most of which will likely be misidentifications, yet there's always the chance).

Remember though, even if 999 out of 1000 such sightings are just a misidentification, if even 1 is an extraterrestrial craft, then the phenomenon is very very real.



posted on Oct, 11 2005 @ 10:30 PM
link   
"I would suggest starting a new thread with this idea to see if there is any interest or not. I for one would contribute what I can. " == Hal9000

OK, you are soon to be on the spot. Let me see what I can work up on short notice. I have a few other things to toss out as well.


"“The way to understand something is to measure it”. == Hal9000

Precisely. If you cant measure it, it aint real. Measurement is the most substantial of all observations.


"many researchers have uncovered a lot of facts, and there is nothing wrong with their approach." == Hal9000

But is their approach the right one for the task ? I think not.


"Well, in 1947 the first preliminary study was done by USAF Intelligence (shortly after being established in that year).

In 1948, the Air Force established Project Sign, as the first long-term and official (though not quite public) UFO investigation.

In 1949, Project Grudge takes over for Sign.

In the 50's we see Grudge then go to Twinkle.

Then in '52 we see Blue Book take over.

But surely, there has been no scientific investigation or actual research" == Gazrok

A nice thumbnail sketch. I would include the Condon report date there as the end of Blue Book just to add the period to the paragraph.
Here is where we differ on these things. You left out the ONE thing that WAS scientific. 1961, Frank Drake was playing around with
the earliest scientific look at how to proactively search for intelligent radio signals. Technically, the birth of SETI. And the Drake Equation and etc.
You have to leave him out to be consistant with the thumbnail. Why ? Because no matter how you sprinkle "study" efforts and investigations
with scientists, an investigation into "people", testimony, unscientific observations, hearsay, and etc is all legalism, not science.

That was the main driver for my participation in the PJ forum, to try and show the difference between dealing with people (legalism) and the universe (science).

Drake broke the rule. He decided to go out and see if something can be measured. I really should place this in all CAPS.



posted on Oct, 11 2005 @ 11:01 PM
link   
Dr. Hynek has some insight to offer us in this discussion.


ufologie.net...

After many years of experience with virtually all aspects of the UFO phenomenon, I have come to believe that if we "precipitate out" the essential elements from the chaos of "popular ufology," we will uncover a new empirical phenomenon, perhaps comparable to the first glimpses of microorganisms by Leeuwenhoek or Jupiter's satellites by Galileo. Unfortunately, the process may be almost as taxing as Madame Curie's extraction of a gram of radium from several tons of pitchblende.

This hasn't already been done because in the face of overwhelming ridicule, it has been impossible to obtain qualified personnel and the necessary funds to treat the subject seriously and professionally. in the wake of buffoonery and religious fantasy, the field has been left to the well-meaning but untrained amateur who all too often has fallen into the same trap as the scientist - of equating the UFO phenomenon irrevocably with "SETI" (the search for extraterrestrial intelligence), leaving no room for open-ended research. However, these same amateurs have done yeoman service in gathering and preserving data that otherwise would have been irretrievably lost, and they did this while earning their livelihood elsewhere. What chance would medical research or going to the moon have if left entirely to unpaid volunteers?



(That is just a snip the rest of this discussion from Hynek is also relevant I just did not quote everything.)



posted on Oct, 11 2005 @ 11:34 PM
link   
"Dr. Hynek has some insight to offer us in this discussion. " == lost shaman

No kidding. I had forgotten about some of that. Almost enough for me to
forgive him for the "swamp gas" thing.



posted on Oct, 11 2005 @ 11:46 PM
link   
Hynek sure has taken untold amounts of criticism for that "Swamp Gas " suggestion.

But I highly respect Hynek and after reading much more about him and his work I think he was only throwing out possibilities and that Blue Book and the USAF policy of explaining every sighting away at all costs is what lead to that unfortunate explanation, not Hynek.


[edit on 11-10-2005 by lost_shaman]



posted on Oct, 12 2005 @ 12:39 AM
link   
"But I highly respect Hynek and after reading much more about him and his work I think he was only throwing out possibilities
and that Blue Book and the USAF policy of explaining every sighting away at all costs is what lead to that unfortunate explanation, not Hynek." == lost shaman

If you hold your interest and really look at his stuff, I think you will stumble upon a real curio to cast a shadow upon your opinion of
the USAF policy. When Hynek re-examined the Blue Book stuff, I recall that he comes up with LESS unknowns than the USAF
did. The USAF policy is no secret and does NOT dictate any such explaining away. Ref : AFR 200-2
dated 20 July 1962 and superceeding AFR 200-2 dated 14 September 1959, as amended.

(BTW, that specific set of quotes from Hynek would make an excellent example post for a "Generic" post in the forum I started in
response to Hal's challenge.)




top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join