I didn't say it before, but I really do appreciate debate on this subject. So thank you Phage!
Originally posted by Phage
We find that there are important areas of atmospheric optics, including radio wave propagation, and of atmospheric electricity in which present
knowledge is quite incomplete. These topics came to our attention in connection with the interpretation of some UFO reports, but they are also of
fundamental scientific interest, and they are relevant to practical problems related to the improvement of safety of military and civilian flying.
This goes hand in hand with your example of sprites. The report does not say there are no unusual aerial phenomena, it says that the Condon study
of UFOs had not yielded any scientific knowledge. This is a true statement.
I don't like to split-hairs, but it says, quite explicitly,
Our general conclusion is that nothing has come from the study of UFOs in the past 21 years that has added to scientific
It doesn't say the Condon study of UFOs it says the "study of UFOs."
Though you're right the statement is correct if you factor in the "21 years" part.
However, what did come from the anecdotal record taking of UFO reports was an entirely new atmospheric phenomenon and it only took atmospheric science
a little over 100 years to prove the observation.
So I beg to differ with the claim that "further extensive study of UFOs probably cannot be justified in the expectation that science will be advanced
How can a transitory phenomenon be studied? It can be analyzed but once all the data is looked at that's pretty much the end of it. Probable
explanations can be made. Speculations can be made. But when all is said and done, unless a positive conclusion can be reached there is no "answer".
A finding of "unknown" is not knowledge, it is a lack of knowledge. Where do you go with it. This is what is meant by "fruitful lines" of
This is an argument for rapid-response, software to aid in rapid-response, and an argument for designing a platform that can utilize all sensory
hardware the world-over to pull in more data when unknowns do crop-up.
I've put together a proposal
to deal with this
very issue, but sadly it seems no one wants to fund it despite Condon's oh-so-clear directive stating that, "any scientist with adequate training
and credentials who does come up with a clearly defined, specific proposal for study should be supported."
There has been ample opportunity for UFO phenomena to be studied. The Condon report encourages true scientific study. It also makes this
It has been argued that this lack of contribution to science is due to the fact that very little scientific effort has been put on the subject. We
do not agree. We feel that the reason that there has been very little scientific study of the subject is that those scientists who are most directly
concerned, astronomers, atmospheric physicists, chemists, and psychologists, having had ample opportunity to look into the matter, have
individually decided that UFO phenomena do not offer a fruitful field in which to look for major scientific discoveries.
First of all the Condon reports statement here is completely incorrect. Again all you have to do is look at those who actively opposed the study of
UFOs and who promoted it. I can rattle off a list of probably 40-50 people (just during that time period) with stellar credentials who thought the
subject was worth further study. Hell I've already listed 20+ Ph.D's in my original post.
(Drs. Mirarchi, La Paz, Hynek, Thayer, Shough, J. E. McDonald, S. Friedman, R. Leo Sprinkle, Garry C. Henderson, Roger N. Shepard, Robert Hall,
James Harder, Robert M. L. Baker, Frank Salisbury, Seymour Hess, Charles B. Moore, Al Cameron, Robert M. Wood, Eugene Epstein, Gordon MacDonald,
Robert Wilson, etc)
So this doesn't fly.
It is exactly those who are most qualify to study the phenomena who have concluded that there is not much to be gained.
During that time period, I can count on one hand the people who actively opposed
the study of UFOs. Menzel, Klass, Sagan, & Condon.
Please provide me other credentialed scientists who held the view that the study of UFOs were unlikely to provide useful data.
Also who's most qualified is very subjective.
The AFSAB rightly assumed UFOs represent many different things. This is one of the reasons they encouraged an interdisciplinary panel of optical /
radar physicists, astronomers, psychologists, etc to study the cases because they were correctly looking at the study of UFOs like so:
- Some UFOs may represent misidentifications.
- Some UFOs may represent hoaxes
- Some UFOs may represent psychological phenomenon
- Some UFOs may represent new atmospheric phenomenon.
- Some UFOs may represent new astronomical phenomenon.
- Some UFOs may represent unknown physical aspects of reality.
- Some UFOs may represent unknown crafts.
- Some UFOs may represent non-present day human or non-terrestrial intelligence.
- Some UFOs may represent alien spacecrafts.
- Some UFOs may represent alien space creatures.
- Some UFOs may represent inter-dimensional crafts / creatures.
Not necessarily because there is nothing to be learned but because there is not much to sink their teeth into. In the end, the Condon report
leaves the decision about what to research to the researchers, where it should be.
At least we're in agreement that something can be learned!
Sure, it leaves the decision to the researcher to decide, but it also takes a formal position that "nothing has come from the study of UFOs in the
past 21 years" and "further extensive study of UFOs probably cannot be justified in the expectation that science will be advanced thereby."
Discouraging funding and professional scientific interest.
Thankfully we can now demonstrate the anecdotal note-taking of witness testimony has resulted in the advancement of science.
Furthermore there is a system that has been proposed in the past, and now in the present that can provide data for researchers "to sink their teeth
So to say the study of UFOs can't be productive is, well, BS.
[edit on 24-6-2009 by Xtraeme]