Nothing like a good brainstorming session
Originally posted by azurecara
Ok, here we go along with the hypotheticals (she cracks her knuckles)
Let's assume we could collate all relevant information. All reported UFO reports, alien encounters, etc. into a database and then streamline the
information. Would this not help raise more relevant questions?
That's the hope! A good question might be, what questions have organizations like CFI, NUFORC, NARCAP, CUFOS, MUFON, FUFOR, etc formed by analyzing
their massive databases? Why have none of them found compelling patterns that have allowed us to more accurately predict the occurrences of this
phenomenon? Does that suggest, perhaps, what we're witnessing is not earthbound or at the very least that it's not a natural occurrence? Does that
not inherently make it astronomic in nature?
From the few patterns that have arisen (greater number of observations at dusk / dawn, common for UFO sightings to happen over water, a plethora of
sightings at nuclear facilities), why haven't we conducted more tests to try to confirm these correlations or exploit these properties to induce the
If this was to be taken seriously it would have to be an international effort - and I would seriously like to collate all sightings with
location information, frequency of reports, etc.
Would an international effort inherently require government involvement or could it be performed by academia or an independent organization?
How can we automate the detection of this phenomenon?
I would like to being to see patterns emerging.
Because patterns begin to suggest the probability of a genuine phenomena. Begins to establish it as an actual reality, rather than urban legend or
What if the reason for randomness is that we're witnessing many different things? How do we then filter down to make sure we're not intermingling
observations of different phenomenon with another? Does that not imply we need to start committing to various theories and attempting to find ways to
filter out other theories to confirm one particular hypothesis? Is it not fair to say that science only tests one hypothesis at a time? Why should the
study of UFO sightings be any different?
If we added every sighting, or report, then you would have to factor in irrelevant sightings, misinterpreted physical phenomena, etc.
What would be the purpose of recording irrelevant and fallacious sightings? To better identify other false positives in the future?
You would also have to factor in the variable factor of truth. Thus it would have to be somewhat anonymous - and no fame or money factor
involved to eliminate this as a motivating factor - or at the very least reduce it.
Depending on a persons standing in society coming forward is more damaging than it is beneficial. That said would it be worth evaluating the
relationship between what a person has to gain versus what it is they have to lose? If the person has more to lose, does that not strengthen the case?
As for reporting the findings. Well to truly and utterly convince me, (that would be your any average person), you would have to get the
Scientific community on board. Mainstream it. Give it credibility. Present the information received and given with a healthy open minded approach and
with the focus on investigation rather than witch-hunt.
To give it credibility, to what extent would the scientific community have to participate
Would the world's population find it sufficiently compelling if scientists only
investigated the best cases to rise to the top of such a system
or, in the public's eye, would that suggest the subject isn't fully worth
Would genuine interest by the press (not offbeat / humorous editorials) give the subject credibility?
How does one let the evidence lead you to conclusions with no frame of reference?
Is it fair to say that evidence leads a person to a conclusion when it's something that can be repeatedly tested? If so, since the UFO phenomenon is
seemingly random, we need induction to help arrive at imperfect conclusions which will then hopefully give us enough insight to produce deductive
tests to get more details on the phenomenon.
How do you achieve a truly unbiased approach to this kind of research?
How many subjects are truly unbiased? Is string theory
embraced by all physicists
? How unbiased are mathematicians when trying to
solve an "unsolvable" problem
What if there are non-physical elements to this research? Or elements outside our scientific expertise? Evidence collected that we cannot
reconcile? eg sightings involving craft that appear to defy our Laws of Physics?
Isn't it sciences greatest objective to probe and understand the unknown? Why should science be afraid to tackle hard problems? If something is
observed, and the observation can be confirmed as an unknown, then doesn't it compel those of us who are scientists to try to lay down a framework to
analyze the problem? And if we do find a phenomenon that contradicts our current scientific laws, isn't it part of the scientific method to
reevaluate what we know?
Here's a good question. When we had an international phenomena recently, the world (western world perhaps) got together to form an
international forum of scientific research to produce a report on it. What was it? Climate change. Why can't we do that with Other international
phenomena? Especially one which denotes the possibility of a threat i.e. like climate change?
Isn't it true that there are many scientists who do not recognize climate change as an actual phenomenon? What causes people to disagree on the very
nature of something occurring? What is it that causes the disconnect between two groups such that they can't even come to agreement on "what is" or
"what isn't" happening? Is it because the data they're looking at is different? Or is it because they have different biases? Or a combination of
[edit on 7-4-2009 by Xtraeme]