UFOs: Lets cut the crap already, page 2

reply to post by IgnoreTheFacts

---

To be honest I REALLY am starting to notice a shift, especially in the last year. I have had a change of heart for over 5 years now due to an experience that hit to close for comfort. Many people still scoff and ridicule those who make claims or are "believers", but alot of them at least the ones in my immediate area do so with what I would call "a bit of caution". Really the evidence is starting to massively mount for "something" to be going on. You cant constantly disprove FAA pilots and military, not to mention NASA footage forever! And what about the ever increasing mass sightings. It used to be about mabee 1 in 10 or 1 in 5 at best would give it a second thought and at least accept it as a possibility. I would have to say that close to half now believe, not to the degree of a conspiracy theorist, but are starting to at least be willing to accept the fact we are not alone. When you have actual scientist come out and say there could be billions of planets in our galaxy alone and that the shear law of numbers puts the odds in favor of believers, then alot of validity is given.
However as much as I would love to say "how great, we are not alone" I am actually very concerned as to how much longer the lid can be put on all this. Im not one who looks at the govt as being some big bad meanie who wont let us know the truth. I believe they are in a very bad position and have been since the 50s. The population is not yet ready for full disclosure and doing so would bring to light things like the "Truman Deal" (read the Dulce Book, its free online) that show the govt really didnt have much of a choice in dealing with "these things". At the same time I firmly believe that the govt its self especially since the 90s is actually leaking info to the public. So much of the NASA and Military footage info could have been completely been wiped, but it is not. There is enough there to at least get people conditioned to at least be thinking about the possibilities, To be honest I have yet to find a single sceptic that has made any legit case as to why on the US Navies own website there are the very poorly "doctored up" pics of massive, obviously unnatural buildings on the dark side of the moon! What about the absolutely gigantic stationary hexagon on Saturn, if it is natural then why is there nothing similar on the Jupiter, or the other outer 2 planets, but that is beside the point. I really look at this shift in sentiment as cause for alarm and not a good thing. If you accept the fact there is ET life "visiting earth" then you probably know that the most common "grey" beings aren't hear for tea. The abductions continue to increase and are never a good thing. I have a very trusted source I will never disclose, but I believe we are being conditioned for something invertible that will probably start in 2010. I saw Sagans name brought up and I only wish he were still alive, not so he could partake in the wonderful future, but so he could be here when the S@#t hits the fan. Because it was him who had the brilliant idea to send a map of where we are, how to get here, and even what our DNA is comprised of. Great idea their GUY!!! As far as the fatalistic view of all of this. We have had time to learn from them and of course we are not on there level technologically, but we have had time to observe there weaknesses and develop weapons and tactics, we must resist the urge to be like native island people who are awed by the first outsiders they see, and realize we have are own strengths. I highly recommend reading the Dulce Book even if you are a sceptic, it is written in a very rational manner, and I guarantee may come in handy some day, the tactics it presents will cut these little pipsqueaks down to size!

reply to post by Xtraeme

---

Very, very good thread. It is sad that the majority of mainstream thought still thinks that ufology is a nonscientific field, when in reality it is as scientific as it can be considering what in fact people in the field are left to analyze. The Condon Report was skeptically bias, but not nearly as bad and intentional as the Robertson Panel was. They are responsible for the stigma on ufology we see today in a lot of peoples minds.

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 knowledge

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 thereby."

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 research.

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 point:

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:

1. Some UFOs may represent misidentifications.
   
2. Some UFOs may represent hoaxes
   
3. Some UFOs may represent psychological phenomenon
   
4. Some UFOs may represent new atmospheric phenomenon.
   
5. Some UFOs may represent new astronomical phenomenon.
   
6. Some UFOs may represent unknown physical aspects of reality.
   
7. Some UFOs may represent unknown crafts.
   
8. Some UFOs may represent non-present day human or non-terrestrial intelligence.
   
9. Some UFOs may represent alien spacecrafts.
   
10. Some UFOs may represent alien space creatures.
    
11. 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 into."

So to say the study of UFOs can't be productive is, well, BS.

[edit on 24-6-2009 by Xtraeme]

reply to post by RokNinja

---

No not all aliens are malevolent, but the ones that we encounter the most (the greys) are very much so. They haven't destroyed us because they use us for there various "needs". We are like cattle to most of the non-humanoids.

reply to post by Dredulous

---

most of those I've encountered (i think there greys but one can never be sure) scare the hell out of me and would agree that they seem that way, however there are a few i meet that are quite the opisite. the problem with judging alien intentions and qualities is that we use our own morals and what we determine as being human. these beings are clearly not human and cannot be judged useing the same ideas of right and wrong when for all we no the concept of moralitiy might not even be familiar to them.




[edit on 23-6-2009 by RokNinja]

Originally posted by Xtraeme
There's a phrase that has gained some currency that I find deeply unscientific. It is Sagan's razor, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof". The fact is that what is extraordinary is a value judgment and has nothing to do with science.

Sagan's Law has everything to do with science. It is the very basis on which science operates.

Strictly speaking, all claims require exactly the same amount of evidence, it’s just that most "ordinary" claims are already backed by extraordinary evidence that you don’t think about. When we say “extraordinary claims”, what we actually mean are claims that do not already have evidence supporting them, or sometimes claims that have extraordinary evidence against them. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence because they usually contradict claims that are backed by extraordinary evidence. The evidence for the extraordinary claim must support the new claim as well as explain why the old claims that are now being abandoned, previously appeared to be correct. The extraordinary evidence must account for the abandoned claim, while also explaining the new one.

Source

Originally posted by Xtraeme
A hypothesis is testable. It works as long as it handles data – as soon as it ceases to do so, it requires modification. That's all.

This is all well and good, but as Phage brought up, how do you test a transient phenomenon?

Originally posted by Xtraeme
However this isn't to say we should rule out fringe subjects as not being worth further investigation and open-minded analysis. Especially when it comes to subjects like UFOs, which possibly represent an area with serious repercussions for humanity.

Most people are probably unaware of the amount of extraordinary evidence required for most scientific claims.

You are right; we shouldn't dismiss fringe subjects for the crime of them being fringe. However, I think in some respect you have a theory in search of evidence; we should study the phenomenon because it is unexplained not because a theory about the phenomenon may have particular repercussions.

Originally posted by Xtraeme
More specifically I see 'UFO' as a series of steps starting first with the observation, followed by the post-analysis (or confirmation of the sighting – with the potential for it to reach a "true" unknown status), the hypothesis, and the eventual identification of the unknown...

But how often are sightings so rigorously investigated? As you state, there are few agencies willing to investigate; this holds true within the UFO research community as well. Far too often are we willing take things at face value or too overlook contradictory evidence.

Originally posted by Xtraeme
By shouting down the study of UFOs Condon was stating that there was nothing new in our skies that is "truly unknown" that could be learned through the anecdotal testimony of the average person...

No offense, but you are twisting Dr. Condon's conclusion. He did not state that there was nothing to be learned from the UFO phenomenon, but out of the cases his committee looked at, there was no new scientific knowledge to be learned. Indeed...

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.

Research efforts are being carried out in these areas by the Department of Defense, the Environmental Science Services Administration, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and by universities and nonprofit research organizations such as the National Center for Atmospheric Research, whose work is sponsored by the National Science Foundation. We commend these efforts. By no means should our lack of enthusiasm for study of UFO reports as such be misconstrued as a recommendation that these important related fields of scientific work not be adequately supported in the future. In an era of major development of air travel, of space exploration, and of military aerospace activities, everything possible should be done to improve our basic understanding of all atmospheric phenomena, and to improve the training of astronauts and aircraft pilots in the recognition and understanding of such phenomena.

Source

reply to post by IgnoreTheFacts

---

Well said and to the OP, my kind compliments. Unfortunately you are right about the average joe and his casual arrogant all knowing smirk. The only way we can change that is by changing the mass climate as you described. And the only way to do that is with large measures such as MSM, as many won't believe it until it comes from them or the POTUS.

Disclosure will be necessary and then some kind of material evidence. It almost has to be entirely socially acceptable for the facts to be really recognized as many are driven socially. Either way, agreed!

reply to post by RokNinja

---

Right I get were you are coming from on a philosophical level, however I have heavily researched the entire phenomenon and had an experience that brought some very dark things to light. There are countless and I mean countless men,but largely young women that are living in absolute shame and fear with nowhere to turn. It is easy to paint all extraterrestrials with a broad stroke on both sides here. Across the board there are virtually no experiences with the greys that have been positive. There are of course other races (some like us) that are benevolent. I would strongly recommend reading the Dulce Book like I keep saying. This book spells it out! And trust me you can follow the trail of evidence in it, but I strongly recommend not doing so (physically)!


[edit on 23-6-2009 by Dredulous]

reply to post by N3krostatic

---

72 percent of Americans believe the government is hiding information on UFOs and 56 percent believe there is alien life so its not about changing attitudes its about providing proof! The only difference between a believer and a skeptic is the skeptic has a higher level of requirements to believe. In the end people if they are believers or skeptics would bother to look at UFOs if deep down they didn't want them to be real.

And i know in my case i hate when people try to muddy the waters making it far more difficult for legitimate cases to be examined.Id say 90 percent of proof people put on the net is garbage its the other 10 percent that interests me.

reply to post by Dredulous

---

I'm definatly going to check that out the Dulce book, (i've only recently started looking into this stuff)

also i'm not in any way defending the actions of the greys, as ther certianly up to no good, but if the entire human race was judged on the actions of a single group (like the Nazi's) then we'd be seen as cruel and malevolent to.

i'd also like to say that only one of the nicer ones was a grey (i think), the other would fall under the reptilian catagoery.

[edit on 23-6-2009 by RokNinja]

reply to post by one4all

---

So you've been abducted? Really? Whats your story? What happened? Did you report it? P2P me if you'd like. I'd like to hear what you have to say.

reply to post by Xtraeme

---

I agree with you! I've been saying this in a nutshell since I joined here and it got to be a mute point. Guess I wasn't getting my point across. I don't think they're UFOs anymore as they are becoming UHCs, Unidentified Hovering Craft. In almost every siting we've seen there's more 'hovering' than 'flying'...which really begins to open a bigger can of worms..

So, I guess my question to you is...

Hasn't MUFON been doing this for the last 10+ years?? Everyone laughed in their face till a self made billionaire put them on their payroll!

UFO Filmed From Avebury Crop Circle, UK With Multiple Witnesses
  Posted 19 days ago with 89 member flags

The Men In Black(OPs) The Aviary & UFOs
  Posted 12 days ago with 83 member flags

The Mysterious Baltic Sea Object : an Update from Peter Lindberg "Ocean Explorers Team"
  Posted 16 days ago with 41 member flags

Did a RAF Tornado crash during a UFO intercept mission in 1997?
  Posted 14 days ago with 39 member flags

What is this comming out of our star?
  Posted 9 days ago with 33 member flags

Huge Unknown Objects orbiting the Sun for months...?
  Posted 8 days ago with 29 member flags

The CIA and the UFO Mythos
  Posted 16 days ago with 26 member flags

UFO Reporting for the 21st Century!
  Posted 12 days ago with 26 member flags

Newest topics, updated in real-time:

Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time: