Is ufology "anti-science"?

(Q)Has there been adequate scientific study of UFO reports to date?If not,why not?

(A)Difficult one to answer.In the public domain,no,although with limited funds and somewhat isolated,Dr Richard Haines (NARCAP) is trying hard on the odd specific case,and understandably draws no conclusions to what the objects are,but helps eliminate what they`re not.Also GEPAN shows an interest,but its not enough.
As another poster mentioned,without sounding like a conspiracy nut,i feel it highly likely there HAS been investigations into the phenomenon behind tightly closed doors,and someone,somewhere knows some of the truth.

(Q)In 1969, the Condon Report suggested that “nothing has come from the study of UFOs in the past 21 years that has added to scientific knowledge”. Do you think the study of UFOs has added to scientific knowledge? If so, how?

(A)For the most part,no,the research which has been carried out and made known to the public has not achieved much at all.The one interesting exception is that there is ALWAYS some sightings which defy current scientific "rational" explanation even after "thorough research",but they`re usually and convieniently ignored and forgotten.

(Q)The Condon Report also suggested that “further extensive study of UFOs probably cannot be justified in the expectation that science will be advanced thereby”. Is there any real prospect that science will be advanced by the study of UFO reports in the future?

(A)Possibly,it depends how these reports are done.Another Condon or Condign report would not be of much use,especially the MoD`s Condign report (until it was discovered by David Clarke via FOIA did not exist according to the MoD)which proposed that so called "buoyant airborne plasmas" (yet unproven,and as far as i know,not yet reproduced under laboratory conditions) create hallucinations by affecting a certain part of the brain,and account for many UFO sightings.Yes,ok,right,tell that to hundreds of pilots with thousands of hours of flight experience and their RADAR/CAMERAS.I did not realize that radar/film could hallucinate. (very unproven,also highly unlikely according to a friend who has a good understanding of neuroscience).

TOPIC: POLLING DATA

(Q)One of the most common questions in opinion polls regarding UFOs is whether a person “believes” that “UFOs are real”. What do you think about this question?

(A)UFO`s are real and do exist,that is a fact.The problem lies with determining/agreeing on the origin of true UFO`s.

(Q)Would you expect polling data to indicate that belief in UFOs is inversely related to levels of intelligence?

(A)Not really.UFO`s interest some people in all walks of life with varying levels of intelligence.There`s people who are challenged with IQ who show interest in the subject,although they are more likely to make/believe in outlandish claims.I know intelligent people who are also seriously interested.

(Q)Would you expect polling data to indicate that belief in UFOs is inversely related to levels of education?

(A)The polls which i have seen,Often shown by Stanton Friedman,suggest that the higher the education,the greater the interest in UFO`s.In my experience a few of my University friends felt that we probably were not alone,others just did not care to even speculate.
Rather than academic education,self education of the subject of UFO`s and the history plays a big part.

On a final note,my world would not end if it was proven beyond all reasonable doubt that NO UFO`s are ETV`s.So far that has not happened,and i cannot see it happening either.I just want to know what these unexplained objects really are,and the best mechanism to achieve that is science.Unfortunately until then a mountain of absurd speculation and conjecture,stated by some as fact,will continue unabated.

Hope this helps.

And thanks for creating an intelligent,interesting thread,not seen many of late.
And Isaackoi,if your time permits,i would be greatly interested if you could answer your own questionaire too

[edit on 1-10-2007 by Swamp Gas]

Meier cult? NWO disnformation again. Discussing profiles of so called believers in UFOs, is simply a diversion from discussing facts. Why dont you discuss the 100 fotos anylysed by JPL, before computor fiddling, shot on Kodak thru a Pentax, and found to show a 7 metre metal object in the distance. Look at the videos from chief IBM scientist Vogel of the beamship metal analysis. Star in Lyra was, Vega. Our early ancestors lost their tech. after a comet strike, and took 1000 years to rebuild it, then leave. Went to Pleieades, Mars, Milopa, now the asteroid belt and earth. Earth was further bio engineered by placing the moon here. All this fantasy, OK then accept you are from chimp or Lucy and thats your perogative. Mine is to accept this and lez others make their own minds up without your empty comments. Check out the website and come back with some comments. theyfly.com. The info comes from the 4 volumes of 1800 pages of one on one/more et contact with Meier.

reply to post by ThomasT


Vega is a very young star, much younger than our own sun- planet formation is still going on it seems highly unlikely that a civilization has time to form let alone discover interstellar space travel!

I find it hard to be belive that they would go the Pleiades- this is a very young star cluster within which the stars have only just formed, no planetary formation here yet! None of this makes any sense astronomical wise and I think this sort of rubbish adds to the idea of Ufology being a worthless subject!

Anyhow, I thought they left LYra due to the War?

They said that the Pleieades is in a different time, not the same one we see in the night sky. As an astronomer, you should know how difficult it is to confirm distant planets, so how can you state that there are none around the Pleieades. UFO-logy is itself a nonsensical, made-up fantasy term. We have certain facts, dismissed as fantasy by those who want to perpetuate the myth of the unidentified, for whatever reason, govt disinfo, their own disbelief, jealousy, whatever.

[edit on 2-10-2007 by ThomasT]

reply to post by ThomasT


And what does that mean? "They're in a different time?"

I agree identifying planets is difficult. Identifying planets that haven't had chance to form yet and probably won't for another million years or so is even harder!

They're in a different time indeed! Such a lame reason. Anyhow, I thought it was established that Billy Meier was a hoaxer?

As me signature says:




[edit on 2-10-2007 by timelike]

reply to post by ThomasT


One more question Michael12, Vega is in the same catagory as the Pleiades- to young a system to support advanced life, so is Vega in "another time" as well?

Meier a hoaxer? As an intelligent astronomer/amateur astronomer, declare him a hoaxer AFTER you have read his notes. If your professors/amateur notes stated... impossible, then accept it, if that is yiour mindset. Makes no diff. to me. Vega is in the same time. The Plejarans said a different time for Pleieades, probably in a parallel universe. Who says their tech, 1500 years ahead of ours, cannot jump time/universes, as it jumps space? Actually they do jump time. Meier returned after a weeks trip with them, but was only gone for one earth day from Swiss. The investigators on hand noticed a one week beard growth on Meier, when he returned. Timelike, me is ThomasT not Michael 12.

[edit on 2-10-2007 by ThomasT]

IsaacKoi, also check out my thread about the Disclosure Project here. The fact that people try to discredit it with a vengeance is just a sign of how dangerous it is to the ones wanting to keep everybody in the dark.

The illusion that there are no aliens is starting to fall apart.


[edit on 2-10-2007 by Copernicus]

reply to post by ThomasT


I do beg your pardon, ThomasT.

There is a lot of speculation in your post- "probably in a parallel Universe", may be able to "jump time and parallel Universes" etc. First we have to presume there are other Universes to jump too- Moreless that they have envolved super techonologically advanced races that can hop to and fro!

In actual fact I have read his notes (I am also fully up to date on almost everything concerned with the UFO phenomena, from the Aurora crash, the so-called "Contactee" movement of the fifties up to the present day) I have read the books, been to your website (gaiaguys.net etc) and still think he's a complete fraud! I see nothing to credit his claims, and no stubble growth as proof as a week's time travel will not cut it! Many of his pictures of the so called trip back in time were obviously fakes, as no doubt the "beamships" are. Morevoer his views on homosexuality and religion are exactly the kind of intolerance this world can well do without!

I will accept his and other so called contactee claims if they have something unquestionably real to show for it, or the aliens themselves arrive on our doorstep for all to see. Until the arrival of that happy time, I am quite happy with my scientific mindset. I'd rather live in a rational world than a irrational one goverened by superstitions with hell down bellow and heaven just to the left of the Moon! I'm pleased that your happy with my decision!

I am happy to examine any UFO footage, pictures etc in the hope that one day ET life might make contact. A fanciful idea perhaps...



[edit on 2-10-2007 by timelike]

Have you read any UFO books?
If so, how many?

10-100


Do you consider the possibility that any UFO sightings are caused by extraterrestrial craft:

A real possibility


Is ufology either a "pseudo-science" or "anti-science"? If you think so, why? If not, why are such views expressed?

No its not. There is high quality and low quality science. Such views are expressed by people who limit science to the tiny amount of data already known rather than looking into the unknown.

What does it mean to you to be “scientific”?

Researching, examining, testing, inventing the known and the unknown.

Is it a good thing to be “scientific”?

If the definition of science encompasses research of all-that-is and all-that-could be, then yes.

Do you think levels of antiscientific/pseudoscientific views are increasing?

In the definition above there is no such thing as anti-science.


Would the number of sightings of UFOs and/or belief in UFOs decrease if there was increased knowledge of:
(a) scientific facts (e.g. relating to astronomy or meteorology)
(b) scientific methods.

No. The number of sightings would decrease if people were to loose interest and belief in their possibility.

Do you think skeptics are generally better educated in science than UFO researchers?

They are better educated in what they define to be science.



Is the involvement of scientists necessary or desirable in the study of UFO reports? If so, why?

Involvement of all and any viewpoint is desirable.


Does it matter how those involved in ufology are regarded by mainstream scientists?

No. An honest, curious and hard-working researcher does not need the approval of the scientific establishment.

Has, or will, science explain all UFO reports? If not, why not?

Sooner or later we as a society will know about and understand the topic because it was given enough attention by science and ufology research.


Has there been adequate scientific study of UFO reports to date? If not, why not?

Yes there has, but it also has to get better. The UFO-Phenomenon is not only a "Nuts and Bolts" event but has interdimensional and psychological components.

In 1969, the Condon Report suggested that “nothing has come from the study of UFOs in the past 21 years that has added to scientific knowledge”. Do you think the study of UFOs has added to scientific knowledge? If so, how?

The study of things that cannot be identified (the study of unknowns) always adds to scientific knowledge. Even "no conclusion" is a conclusion. The Condon-Reports statement is obviously phrased for the sheeple type personalities.

Is there any real prospect that science will be advanced by the study of UFO reports in the future?

Of course it will. Research of the unknown leads to more knowns.

One of the most common questions in opinion polls regarding UFOs is whether a person “believes” that “UFOs are real”. What do you think about this question?

This question is unspecific and slightly manipulative. I dont have to "believe" that there are things flying around that I cannot identify, as anyone has seen something flying he was not able to identify.

Would you expect polling data to indicate that belief in UFOs is inversely related to levels of intelligence?

Both belief and denial without investigation are indicative of low intelligence.

Would you expect polling data to indicate that belief in UFOs is inversely related to levels of education?

No.

Originally posted by IsaacKoi
BASIC DETAILS OF RESPONDENT
Have you read any UFO books?
If so, how many?
(1) 1-10
(2) 10-100
(3) 100+

Definitely (2), possibly (3)

Do you consider the possibility that any UFO sightings are caused by extraterrestrial craft:
(a) Beyond reasonable doubt?
(b) More probable than not?
(c) A real possibility?
(d) A merely fanciful possibility?
(e) Impossible?

Has to be (c)

TOPIC: ANTI-SCIENCE / PSEUDOSCIENCE

Is ufology either a "pseudo-science" or "anti-science"? If you think so, why? If not, why are such views expressed?

Hard to quantify. Some researchers clearly present pseudo/anti science. There is a high signal to noise ratio and thats the problem.

In my opinon its psychological - some people are more willing to believe than others, and therefore alot of "dubious" evidence that would not pass closer examination gets accepted. That then feeds a vicious circle of people publishing what they think they know, rather than the actual facts, and then the message gets degraded and turns into chinese whispers.

What does it mean to you to be “scientific”?

Having a sound methodology that is constantly backed up/reinforced with emprical data.

Is it a good thing to be “scientific”?

Yes. Although in the UFOlogy field its increasingly hard to be.

Do you think levels of antiscientific/pseudoscientific views are increasing?

Yes, because of a social trend to look at viewpoints rather than facts.

TOPIC: EDUCATION

Would the number of sightings of UFOs and/or belief in UFOs decrease if there was increased knowledge of:
(a) scientific facts (e.g. relating to astronomy or meteorology)

Probably decrease initially. I would wager, however, that with more trained observers more unusual things would be noticed in the longer term

(b) scientific methods.

As per my answer to (a) above

Do you think skeptics are generally better educated in science than UFO researchers?

No, and in alot of cases they are significantly less educated. Its far easier to adopt a position of "prove it to me" and stick to that than it is to have to do the proving.

TOPIC: INVOLVEMENT OF SCIENTISTS

Is the involvement of scientists necessary or desirable in the study of UFO reports?

Yes.

If so, why?

Because in order for the subject to be taken more seriously, analysis by established scientists makes the issues more socially acceptable. If Joe Bloggs from Hicksville USA claims he is abducted by aliens who left traces behind, not many people are going to believe him, but if he is backed by someone with a PHD who can adequately research and back up his claims, then the subject takes on a whole new strain of credibility.

Does it matter how those involved in ufology are regarded by mainstream scientists?

Yes. More scientific professionalism from the UFO community involving established scientific methodology will enable a closening of the "peer gap" that exists, and will lead to an overall strengthening of the subject.

Has, or will, science explained all UFO reports? If not, why not?

No. Definitely not. It can't, because our knowledge of the Universe is minimal as we only observe it from one point in space and time. Its the height of arrogance to assume we know all there is to know.

Has there been In 1969, the Condadequate scientific study of UFO reports to date? If not, why not?

No, because the overall scientific community does not take the subject seriously enough and the military actively uses it as a cover for both their own secret programmes and research into the phenomena.

Do you think the study of UFOs has added to scientific knowledge? If so, how?

Yes. Its made people think that some things might be possible, and therefore has given rise to new theories and avenues of thought that may otherwise never have existed.

The Condon Report also suggested that “further extensive study of UFOs probably cannot be justified in the expectation that science will be advanced thereby”. Is there any real prospect that science will be advanced by the study of UFO reports in the future?

Any scientific study that does not advocate the further use of science in a subject matter is pseudo science and as such can't be taken seriously surely?

And yes, the study of UFO reports may lead to considerable advancement of science if the subject matter is taken seriously enough

TOPIC: POLLING DATA

One of the most common questions in opinion polls regarding UFOs is whether a person “believes” that “UFOs are real”. What do you think about this question?

Would you expect polling data to indicate that belief in UFOs is inversely related to levels of intelligence?

No.

Would you expect polling data to indicate that belief in UFOs is inversely related to levels of education?

No.

Hope I've helped Issac Would be interested to see the finished paper

Do you consider the possibility that any UFO sightings are caused by extraterrestrial craft:

Hi Isaac. There's usually a mental leap from "alien" to "extraterrestrial," neglecting the possibility that non-human pilots of UFOs might originate here on earth, and there are a few logical reasons for favoring that view.

So, if the question were "Do you consider the possibility that any UFO sightings are caused by intelligent non-human entities," I would answer A (beyond reasonable doubt). But to the question as you have worded it, I would answer C (a real possibility).

reply to post by IsaacKoi

Originally posted by IsaacKoi
The mini-project has to be filed shortly and I still have plenty to think about.
Once I've met the deadline, I'll post a bit more in response to the views expressed in the focus groups and in response to the questionnaire.

Hi IsaacKoi,

I hope you don’t mind my asking, but I am a bit curious.
You did once started a mini-project that involves researching the perception of science and scientists by those involved in ufology.
And therefore you started your questionnaire in your thread “Is ufology "anti-science"?

My question is,
Did you have in the mean time get some results that you can show us now?
Thanks in advance.

BASIC DETAILS OF RESPONDENT

Have you read any UFO books?
If so, how many?
(1) 1-10
(2) 10-100
(3) 100+

(2) 10 - 100. I'd estimate around 25, most of them were bunk.

Do you consider the possibility that any UFO sightings are caused by extraterrestrial craft:
(a) Beyond reasonable doubt?
(b) More probable than not?
(c) A real possibility?
(d) A merely fanciful possibility?
(e) Impossible?

Definitely C. It can't be ruled out and it certainly explains the weirdness of UFO sightings.

TOPIC: ANTI-SCIENCE / PSEUDOSCIENCE

Is ufology either a "pseudo-science" or "anti-science"? If you think so, why? If not, why are such views expressed?

Real, true ufology is neither. Putting a UFO case through the scientific method and real investigation is definitely science. However, ufology as it seems to mean on this forum - That is "look at moon photos and think you see aliens" - is anti-science.

What does it mean to you to be “scientific”?

Keeping a level mind while being open to any possibility, but not throwing your opinion towards one without substantial reasoning.

Is it a good thing to be “scientific”?

Absolutely. Blind faith is a vice, especially in ufology.

Do you think levels of antiscientific/pseudoscientific views are increasing?
Sleeper's thread in this forum has 300+ pages while the thread about Bob White has something like 16. You tell me



TOPIC: EDUCATION

Would the number of sightings of UFOs and/or belief in UFOs decrease if there was increased knowledge of:
(a) scientific facts (e.g. relating to astronomy or meteorology)
(b) scientific methods.

Yes. Many UFO sightings can be explained by simple phenomena like meteors or even ball lightning.

Do you think skeptics are generally better educated in science than UFO researchers?

Judging primarily by this forum, yes. Those who call themselves "UFO researchers" here are quite often debunked by one simple scientific fact; they tend to write it off because alien technology is so much more advanced, right?


TOPIC: INVOLVEMENT OF SCIENTISTS

Is the involvement of scientists necessary or desirable in the study of UFO reports?

Not necessary, but desirable. You cannot call ufology a serious science without those of the necessary education involved.

Does it matter how those involved in ufology are regarded by mainstream scientists?

It shouldn't, but it does - obviously those involved are taken less seriously.

Has, or will, science explained all UFO reports? If not, why not?

No. As an example - Project Blue Book had something like 900 unexplained cases left after investigation.

Has there been adequate scientific study of UFO reports to date? If not, why not?

No. The reason is twofold: Mainstream science ignores ufology, and those willing to accept wild stories without reasoning (see: this forum) seriously impede the progress of real ufology.

Do you think the study of UFOs has added to scientific knowledge? If so, how?

Haven't seen any evidence that it has.

Is there any real prospect that science will be advanced by the study of UFO reports in the future?

Maybe if we capture a real alien spaceship and "reverse-engineer" it

TOPIC: POLLING DATA

One of the most common questions in opinion polls regarding UFOs is whether a person “believes” that “UFOs are real”. What do you think about this question?

UFOs are obviously real. Unidentified Flying Object, however, does NOT mean "alien lifeform in a spacecraft."

Would you expect polling data to indicate that belief in UFOs is inversely related to levels of intelligence?

Anyone who equates UFO automatically with aliens obviously demonstrates that they have no understanding of the acronym "UFO." That's all I can say.

Would you expect polling data to indicate that belief in UFOs is inversely related to levels of education?

See above.

Originally posted by spacevisitor
Did you have in the mean time get some results that you can show us now?

Sure.

I submitted the mini-project in October (and received a pass with merit in the relevant part of my Masters degree).

I'll write a summary of the results and post it on ATS in the near future.

All the best,

Isaac

Originally posted by IsaacKoi

Originally posted by spacevisitor
Did you have in the mean time get some results that you can show us now?

Sure.

I submitted the mini-project in October (and received a pass with merit in the relevant part of my Masters degree).
I'll write a summary of the results and post it on ATS in the near future.

All the best,

Isaac

I am looking forward to it, thanks.