The Science of UFOs: Fact vs. Skepticism

reply to post by karl 12

---

As I said, I used this web page for my information about what Greenewald has to say.
www.theblackvault.com...
It seems to cover the same ground he is speaking about in the video.

As I said previously. Greenewald has misrepresented what the Air Force Fact Sheet on UFOs says. It does say that the Air Force will no longer be collecting information or doing any investigation. It does not say that no further investigation is warranted. It does not say that no agency will continue to investigate UFOs.

As I said previously, the report by the University of Colorado which led to the termination of Project Blue Book suggested that UFO investigations be "performed within the framework established for intelligence and surveillance operations". It sounds to me like NORAD is the obvious agency to collect and determine the disposition of UFO reports since the Air Force got out of that business.

I have yet to find the source of this quote provided by Greenewald

Emphasis is mine to point out the critical part of the "quote".

It does not appear in what he has posted as "Air Force Fact Sheet on UFOs" and it seems very strange that a document from the Air Force would make a blanket statement about the rest of the government. Unless I can see such a source I will continue to question his reliance on his misquote to bolster his case that the government is lying about having no interest in the significance of UFOs to national security.

Apparently NORAD makes no secret of its interest:
www.ufosnw.com...



[edit on 1/12/2009 by Phage]

[edit on 1/12/2009 by Phage]

How would you know if you did not watch it?
It seems you're attempting to fudge the issue here and just completely retyping your previous post seems a little melodramatic.

There are many authenticated military UFO documents which clearly state a heightened interest in the UFO subject.
As John Greenewald Junior says
"Argue with them not with him".

I realise many people here are true open minded sceptics,but I think its worth listing these statements again:





Again,its difficult to have informed,balanced discussion as you refuse to educate yourself about John Greenewald junior's findings.
I was referring to the classified JNF 146 E UFO forms which go straight through to NORAD from US/Canadian Military UFO reports -the FAA also sends commercial pilot UFO reports there.
Whats interesting is that NORAD,although receiving and collating all these
reports down the years completely deny they exist.
It seems like so many other government agencies in regard to the UFO subject;NORAD are 'lying through their teeth'.


[edit on 02/10/08 by karl 12]

Good post
Fear of ridicule is a powerfull weapon when attempting to belittle and discredit UFO reports;it also plays a major role in suppressing objective interest in the subject.
The corporate media are often guilty of compounding this problem by making cynical,kooky wisecracks when dealing with the subject (often accompanied by the predictable sinister music)
I think the desired conditioned response they're after is UFO = NUT.
Theres an interesting film here about it:
www.abovetopsecret.com...


I think the the more well respected organisations/individuals that bring their mind to bear on this subject the better.
This is an interesting link to PRUFOS - a comprehensive database listing a great many highly credible UFO reports made by British police officers (who are very well trained in reporting what they see):
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Cheers Karl


[edit on 02/10/08 by karl 12]

As a sceptic, there's a couple of things I'd like to add.

Firstly –

Science is subject to the same kind of sensationalist, superficial reporting as UFO reports. It is a constant bugbear among scientists to see their work hyped or misrepresented through the media.

Often the only people you will see in media re. UFOs are the extremes of any debate, from the world of science, and UFOlogy. Extremes sell newspapers. Moderate, sensible opinions, don't.

Most scientists I've discussed the matter with accept that people see UFOs. What they usually have a problem with is the alien angle. Even then, it's not that dismissed entirely – many accept that UFOs could be alien, but think it is unlikely.

Secondly -

Scepticism is as important to UFOlogy as any other field because it provides objective methods with which to grade the quality of information. That means people don't waste their time on things that are less important or even detrimental to finding the truth.

Scepticism is an awareness of how easy we, as people, are to get things wrong. It's an attempt to work around that.

Lastly -

I think dividing the world into believers vs. sceptics is unhelpful and that both “sides” are as guilty of that as the other. Everything should be subject to critical thinking.

reply to post by karl 12

---

You seem to be missing my point.

I've seen Greenewald's "findings". I am using his website for my information. He has posted the documents he presents as proof of government lies. I have seen them. It seems I may have more information than you do. The documents shown in the video are illegible and I prefer seeing the actual documents to being told what they contain.

Greenewald claims that the government has disavowed any interest in UFO investigation. I have looked for a source for his claim and have been unable to find one, even on his own website. If you can show me a source I would appreciate it. Unless I can see a document that shows that the Air Force did say that there would be no further government investigation of UFO's after 1969 I will not believe it (for reasons stated earlier). I believe Greenewald intentionally distorted the statement which was actually made. I believe that a deliberate distortion such as this casts a shadow of doubt over his other claims. To continue to ignore this distortion indicates that you need to educate yourself a bit.

Greenewald bases his claim of government lying on their alleged claim of no interest and his subsequent "discovery" that NORAD is the clearinghouse for CIRVIS reports. NORAD is not the Air Force. The fact that the Air Force no longer investigates UFO reports has nothing to do with the fact that NORAD does.

Greenweald claims that NORAD denies that JANAP 146E (not JNF) exists. Maybe they did and maybe they didn't, maybe the person he was talking to simply didn't know what it was (that's what it sounds like to me. I've run across plenty of incompetent bureaucrats.) but it doesn't seem to be too much of a secret. The form can be found on various government websites and a whole bunch of UFO websites. It is nothing more than the instructions for filing a report. How Greenewald can make a smoking gun out of this is beyond me.

NORAD is not required to release classified documents (duh). If you call that lying so be it. I call it good security. I call it a damned good idea. Releasing information about what may be threats to national security is a very bad idea. But, as a matter of fact, unclassified CIRVIS reports have been released and you can find them on the web.

Greenewald seems perfectly willing to distort, exaggerate, and conceal in order to further his own agenda and toot his own horn. He seems to engage in the same behavior he accuses the government of.


[edit on 1/13/2009 by Phage]

reply to post by jackphotohobby

---

Most scientists I've discussed the matter with accept that people see UFOs. What they usually have a problem with is the alien angle. Even then, it's not that dismissed entirely – many accept that UFOs could be alien, but think it is unlikely.


alien angle = life = god conflict..

let go!!!!!!

god and life "as we know it" are NOT the same thing...

To be created is not the same as to BE something who is doing the creating..

thats why we have BOTH .. science says life is possible "ie aliens" then we have that oold time question of what made LIFE.. well that leads to god

one of the same.. but very different things

aliens could be god why? becouse u aitn got a clue what an alien or god is...

stupid i know but hey dont kill me for pointing it out

reply to post by Phage

---

Phage, the irony is he addresses many of the points you raise in the film -you know the one you abjectly refuse to watch.
As for claiming the man is a charlatan or misrepesenting documents he quite clearly shows slides of government literature 'in their own words' -particularly in regard to completely contradictory 'no defense significance'
UFO military reports and NORAD's claims of ignorance.
'Just seeing what you want to see' and
'conveniently ignoring all else that doesn't fit snugly with preconceived opinion' is often a claim levelled at UFO enthusiasts but I suspect the mindset works both ways -especialy when discussing this topic.
Heres the film again for people viewing this thread who may want to form a balanced view:
video.google.co.uk...


[edit on 02/10/08 by karl 12]

reply to post by karl 12

---

I am just asking for one document. The one that Greenewald claims
says that no investigation by any government agency is warranted, that says that there is no likelihood of renewed government involvement in UFO investigation.

Hidden fear is powerful.

If only what you said were true we could all be happy.. of course.. ignoring the self referencing and other fun circular logic involved.

Have you ever heard of abiogenesis? It has been shown through experiments that it is possible for organic compounds to occur naturally, given the right conditions; conditions that were likely 2.4-3 billion years ago here on earth. Therefore maybe you mean to suggest that the word "god" means genetically optimized determinism which would then prove once and for all that there is no god, only science and abiogenesis. There I used some creative self referencing!

1+1 = 10

Hmm... Yes very interesting.

Fact vs. Scepticism...

What are the Facts?:
UFO's
What they are, is not a Fact.

Science?
Not much happening there on this subject.
Why not?
If governments say that UFO's exists, why not investigate it properly?
Quite simple, they know what they are.
Why?
Because every unkown object in airspace will be investigated due to the possible threat they can be.

Scepticism?
Yes that is quite good to have...

Nothing wrong with being sceptical...
The thing is, should it stop someone to consider possibilites that are near impossible by conventional science?
Where would our world be if some of our greatest scientist was sceptical of ideas?

Science today, is nothing more than...
"If i can't do that, No One Can!"
And also, going outside what is considered "mainstream" in science is taboo...
Now, what does this remind me of?
Ah yes, religion.

I'll stop rambling now....

Very interesting disclosure testimony in which USAF Radar controller Michael Smith states that standard USAF operating procedure when you see a UFO on radar screen is to notify NORAD,not to write anything down and to keep it to yourself on a strictly need to know basis.

He also says NORAD informed him to lie to police officers who reporting UFOs by telling them they were not picking any objects up on radar (when in fact they were):
Testimony at 3:46

YouTube Link

Don't know about the true nature of UFOs but theres also
a great many credible reports of USOs (Unidentifed Submerged Objects) which are seen either in (or emerging from) the ocean by ship's captains/crews and submariners.
Like their airbourne counterparts these objects are also captured,plotted,tracked and correllated on (sometimes multiple) sonar screens travelling unheard of speeds-and sometimes at huge depths.

It also seems they garner just as much covert military interest and enforced/imposed secrecy when sailors and submariners attempt to discuss their experiences.

Theres a thread here with many Military/civilian accounts,witness testimonies and US Naval incidents:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Theres a great thread here about the Tehran incident which covers many aspects of the case including ground witnessess,radar confirmation and even the 'jamming' of the two F-4s.
www.abovetopsecret.com...


Cheers

I think its important to remember the terms we define different occurances by.
Regardless of individual opinion , the actual meaning of the term UFO is " An object, which appears to fly, and cannot be identified". By identified I assume it is meant , POSITIVELY (IE without doubt).
Now , since there have been instances where objects which have been airborne , and not indentifiable in any sure way, have been observed, that means that UFO are real. As to what they are? Well thats something for a thread with a more broad ranging title. There you have it .. the only FACT about UFO is that they do exist, and thats the end of it.

TB Thanks for the reply,you're right in what you say but when looking at viable explanations into 'some' UFO reports,many cases seem outlandish and bizarre.

If you take the Tehran UFO incident mentioned above ,the US government's very own DIA report makes for some intruiging reading
(DIA -Defense Intelligence Agency, a military version of the CIA which deals with foreign military intelligence):




www.nicap.org...

Cheers

Quotes about dogmatism and the importance of (and need for) impartiality in Science:

www.055news.it...

"PROOF" is an interesting concept that often seems to get confused...

There are very few things in this world we can "prove"...

For example, most here would probably agree that it's been "proven" the Earth is round...

When asked, you'd point to footage from space, curvature of the horizon, etc. However, that would really just be "evidence" that you're providing... Proof may be thought of as seeing it with your own eyes, so short of taking one up in space....you can't really "prove" the Earth is round, you can only provide good evidence for it...

With this in mind, it can certainly be argued that there is a preponderance of evidence suggesting alien visitation, but "proof" is a term tossed about all too lightly in this subject... The only "proof" for most would be to see a live alien in person with their own eyes...or even possibly in the press, although this too could just be pictoral or video "evidence", no?

reply to post by Gazrok

---

Gazrock, some mighty fine points - although theres no unequivocable proof in the public domain theres certainly exists a great deal of credible government documentary evidence,radar/sonar evidence,circumstantial evidence,ground trace evidence and photographic/video evidence.

I suspect the bottom line to ask true open minded sceptics, beleivers,cynics or debunkers everywhere is whether the UFO/USO subject is actualy worthy of rigorous,impartial scientific study.

There are certainly many reasons to beleive the subject is not illusionary or fictitious and many UFO/USO incidents leave people who think the subject is 'just a lot of silly nonsense' with a lot of explaining to do.

Cheers.

Some interesting accounts from Puerto Rico:
www.abovetopsecret.com...'


[edit on 02/10/08 by karl 12]