Science and the failure to investigate Unidentified Aerial Phenomena., page 2
Pages: <<  1    2  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 6 times


reply posted on 8-9-2009 @ 10:20 AM by karl 12
reply to post by yeti101



Thats interesting - can you supply a link or book reference?

I could be wrong but SEPRA (formerly GEPAN) did conduct an extensive scientific study - their conclusion being:


"..there are now sufficient material evidences that some ufos are flying machines driven by an intelligence and having flight characteristics that today's human technology is far from reaching".
www.ufoevidence.org...




There has also been quite a number of scientific papers written on the UFO subject like the one below dealing with E.M. interference effects written by Dr. Richard Haines - perhaps the one common factor in all these studies being that 'pseudosceptics' rarely address them.


56 Pilot Sightings Involving Electromagnetic Effects.

"Reports of anomalous aerial objects (AAO) appearing in the atmosphere continue to be made by pilots of almost every airline and air force of the world in addition to private and experimental test pilots.
This paper presents a review of 56 reports of AAO in which electromagnetic effects (E-M) take place on-board the aircraft when the phenomenon is located nearby but not before it appeared or after it had departed.
Reported E-M effects included radio interference or total failure, radar contact with and without simultaneous visual contact, magnetic and/or gyro-compass deviations, automatic direction finder failure or interference, engine stopping or interruption, dimming cabin lights, transponder failure, and military aircraft weapon system failure.
We're not dealing with mental projections or hallucinations on the part of the witness but with a real physical phenomenon."

Dr. Richard Haines, Psychologist specializing in pilot and astronaut "human factors" research for the Ames NASA Research Center in California-Chief of the Space Human Factors Office.

Link



There are many more examples here - are you truly of the opinion that all this scientific research is just 'propaganda' and theres absolutely no truth to any of the subject matter contained within the reports or congressional hearings?

If so, why?

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


reply posted on 8-9-2009 @ 10:36 AM by karl 12
reply to post by internos



Internos, great post and I'd tend to agree with your comments there -I've got quite a lot of respect for Dr James E. Mcdonald and he makes some very interesting points below about the RB-47 case, the Lakenheath case and incidents at Haneda and Kirtland Air Force Bases.

He also makes some revealing comments about the inadequacy and incompetence of U.S. Government sanctioned studies into the subject:


Science in Default: Twenty-Two Years of Inadequate UFO Investigations

Close examination of the level of investigation and the level of scientific analysis involved in Project Sign (1948-9), Project Grudge (1949- 52), and Project Bluebook (1953 to date), reveals that these were, viewed scientifically, almost meaning less investigations.
Even during occasional periods (e.g., 1952) characterized by fairly active investigation of UFO cases, there was still such slight scientific expertise involved that there was never any real chance that the puzzling phenomena encountered in the most significant UFO cases would be elucidated.
Furthermore, the panels, consultants, contractual studies, etc., that the Air Force has had working on the UFO problem over the past 22 years have, with essentially no exception, brought almost negligible scientific scrutiny into the picture.

The Condon Report, released in January, 1968, after about two years of Air Force-supported study is, in my opinion, quite inadequate.
The sheer bulk of the Report, and the inclusion of much that can only be viewed as "scientific padding", cannot conceal from anyone who studies it closely the salient point that it represents an examination of only a tiny fraction of the most puzzling UFO reports of the past two decades, and that its level of scientific argumentation is wholly unsatisfactory. Furthermore, of the roughly 90 cases that it specifically confronts, over 30 are conceded to be unexplained.
With so large a fraction of unexplained cases (out of a sample that is by no means limited only to the truly puzzling cases, but includes an objectionably large number of obviously trivial cases), it is far from clear how Dr. Condon felt justified in concluding that the study indicated "that further extensive study of UFOs probably cannot be justified in the expectation that science will be advanced thereby."

Link


Cheers.

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


reply posted on 8-9-2009 @ 10:56 AM by karl 12
Originally posted by zaiger
well it begs the question what is a scientist. The definition of scientist is so broad that includes anyone who uses the scientific method. For UFOs it is hard to find "scientists" to proove anything. Due to the very nature of science and how specialized every field of science it just complicates the problem.


Yes, perhaps we need a number of scientific disciplines brought to bear on the objective analysis of the UFO/OVNI subject - Dr J Allen Hynek (Chairman of the Department of Astronomy at Northwestern University) makes some good points in this opening report statement:



The Emerging Picture of the UFO Problem
By Joseph Allen Hynek

Northwestern University
Evanston, Illinois

Presented at the AIAA 13th Aerospace Sciences Meeting Pasadena, Calif., January 20-22, 1975.


This paper intends to present the elements of the UFO problem, today. Truly unidentified reports of events in the air, and close to the ground, exist, events worldwide in origin and appearing to fit a relatively small number of patterns.
The data, amenable to study of an interdisciplinary nature, involving a number of scientific disciplines and probably necessitating new departures in methodology, have been imperfectly studied in the past and have been virtually ignored by science.
An increasing interest in, and open-mindedness about the UFO phenomenon, whatever its cause, on the part of established scientists and the educated public exists, and there has been created a Center for UFO Studies, whose activities are guided by a scientific board of established scientists in their respective disciplines.

The outstanding objective of the attack on the UFO problem is the formulation of a hypothesis - or hypotheses - that encompasses the established parameters of the UFO phenomenon - no matter how far beyond the boundaries of present day science it may have to be.

Link


Cheers.

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



reply posted on 9-9-2009 @ 06:56 AM by karl 12
Originally posted by tmayhew01
Its sad, because when new research points in a different direction than mainstream scientists... scientific theory fly's out the window.


Tmayhew -you make a great point there.

Below are some very revealing quotes made by scientists from the past:



They were sure it couldn't be done


"No possible combination of known substances, known forms of machinery, and known forms of force, can be united in a practical machine by which man shall fly long distances through the air..."
Simon Newcomb (1835-1909), astronomer,
head of the U.S. Naval Observatory




"Men might as well project a voyage to the Moon as attempt to employ steam navigation against the stormy North Atlantic Ocean".
Dr. Dionysus Lardner (1793-1859)
Professor of Natural Philosophy and Astronomy




"There is no hope for the fanciful idea of reaching the Moon because of insurmountable barriers to escaping the Earth's gravity".
Dr. Forest Ray Moulton, University of
Chicago astronomer, 1932.




"Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible".
Lord Kelvin (1824-1907)
British mathematician and physicist




"To place a man in a multi-stage rocket and project him into the controlling gravitational field of the moon where the passengers can make scientific observations, perhaps land alive, and then return to earth--all that constitutes a wild dream worthy of Jules Verne. I am bold enough to say that such a man-made voyage will never occur regardless of all future advances".
Lee DeForest,
American radio pioneer, 1926.




"Rail travel at high speed is not possible because passengers, unable to breathe, would die of asphyxia".
Dr. Dionysus Lardner (1793-1859)
Professor of Natural Philosophy and Astronomy




"What can be more palpably absurd than the prospect held out of locomotives travelling twice as fast as stagecoaches?"
The Quarterly Review, England (March 1825)


Link


Cheers.

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


reply posted on 19-9-2009 @ 10:00 AM by karl 12
Article from the 1968 edition of the scientific review "Electronic Design"


SCIENTISTS ASK THAT UFOS ARE STUDIED SERIOUSLY:

Six famous scientists recommended that the Congress should seriously plan to give its support to an intensive international study of UFOS (unidentified flying objects). They asked in a pressing way that the subject is not condemned in advance, not turned in derision and not overlooked.

The six scientists brought their testimonial to a UFO symposium sponsored by House Committee on Science and Astronautics. These scientists were: Dr. Robert L. Baker Jr of the Computer Sciences Corporation; Dr. Robert L. Hall, professor of sociology at the university of Illinois; Dr. James A. Harder, professor of civil engineering of the University of California with Berkeley; Dr. J. Allen Hynek, adviser of the U.S. Air Force as regards UFOS and astrophysicist in Northwestern University; Dr. James McDonald, senior of physics at the university of Arizona and Dr. Carl Sagan, astronomer in Cornell University.

McDonald spoke about what he learned while studying more than 300 cases of UFOs observations. The number of UFO sightings being accompanied by some form by interference with the ground networks of electrical power distribution convinced him, he said, that UFOS are perfectly real, with a "strong possibility that we are under the monitoring of extraterrestrial intelligences... No service has never studied that, and however", told McDonald, "it could be the answer to all the question about UFOS."

Sagan supported this opinion: "If we are visited by extraterrestrial travelers, it would be crazy that we are not interested". He suggested that more stress is put on programs of interplanetary exploration, to obtain more information.

The scientists were unanimous to recommend that the existing program of investigation of the U.S. Air Force must be left aside in favor of a program whose direction would be entrusted to the National Science Foundation, or to the National Academy of Sciences. Hynek urged that an international study be undertaken on a worldwide scale under the authority of the U.N.

It is expected that the U.S. Air Force will submit during this September the report on its program of investigation on UFOS to the National Academy of Sciences. Last spring, the member of the Chamber of Representatives J. Edward Rousch (representative of Indiana) had recommended that the Congress takes the direction of all research on UFOS.


Science and the UFO phenomenon


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


reply posted on 15-10-2009 @ 07:04 AM by karl 12
Interesting statements made by the Chief Official in charge of Project Bluebook, Captain Edward J. Ruppelt:


Captain Ed Ruppelt:

After the Fort Monmouth, NJ, radar sightings (which started on Sept 10, 1951), the Air Force held a meeting at the Pentagon. General Cabell presided over the meeting, and it was attended by his entire staff plus Lieutenant Cummings, Lieutenant Colonel Rosengarten, and a special representative from Republic Aircraft Corporation. The man from Republic supposedly represented a group of top U.S. industrialists and scientists who thought that there should be a lot more sensible answers coming from the Air Force regarding UFOs.

"Every word of the two-hour meeting was recorded on a wire recorder. The recording was so hot that it was later destroyed, but not before I had heard it several times......it didn't exactly follow the tone of the official Air Force releases--many of the people present at the meeting weren't as convinced that the 'hoax, hallucination, and misidentification' answer was quite as positive as the Grudge Report and subsequent press releases made out."




Also


"The one thing about these briefings that never failed to amaze me, although it happened time and time again, was the interest in UFOs within scientific circles. As soon as the word spread that Project Blue Book was giving official briefings to groups with the proper security clearances, we had no trouble in getting scientists to swap free advice for a briefing. I might add that we briefed only groups who were engaged in government work and who had the proper security clearances solely because we could discuss any government project that might be of help to us in pinning down the UFO. Our briefings weren't just squeezed in either; in many instances we would arrive at a place to find that a whole day had been set aside to talk about UFOs. And never once did I meet anyone who laughed off the whole subject of flying saucers even though publicly these same people had jovially sloughed off the press with answers of 'hallucinations,' 'absurd', or 'a waste of time and money.' They weren't wild-eyed fans but they were certainly interested."

Capt. Edward J. Ruppelt.

www.nicap.org...


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



reply posted on 29-10-2009 @ 08:25 PM by optimus primal
reply to post by karl 12



Fascinating quotes, especially the second. Isn't it sad though that these scientists, of varying fields, must present a face of incredulity to the public in spite of their interest, merely to avoid condemnation and loss of grants? I think that speaks volumes about the way mainstream science treats subjects like this. How can we expect proper investigation when those investigating worry about loss of funding or career? ugh.....sometimes it sickens me.


reply posted on 19-11-2009 @ 04:27 PM by karl 12
Originally posted by optimus primal
Isn't it sad though that these scientists, of varying fields, must present a face of incredulity to the public in spite of their interest, merely to avoid condemnation and loss of grants? I think that speaks volumes about the way mainstream science treats subjects like this. How can we expect proper investigation when those investigating worry about loss of funding or career? ugh.....sometimes it sickens me.



Optimus Primal,thanks for the reply-I think you make some very good points there...I also agree that its a pretty sad state of affairs.

The late Richard Hall did come up with a few interesting proposals about what science could do though:



WHAT SCIENCE COULD DO:

Aside from the potentially fertile fields of study that UFOs offer to scholars in sociology, history, psychology, history and sociology of science, anthropology, and political science, the ways that the physical and biological sciences COULD meaningfully study these reports is limited only by two lacks: lack of imagination and lack of funding. The following suggestions merely scratch the surface:




* Have multidisciplinary teams on standby to go to the scene of a close encounter UFO sighting with reported physical or physiological evidence, systematically gather data, and conduct all appropriate laboratory analyses. Apply forensic science investigative techniques very much like those used at an accident site or crime scene. In the case of physiological effects on witnesses, conduct appropriate medical tests. For vehicles that have experienced E-M effects, make notes on the age and condition of the engine, document the ignition system and lights, and check vehicle for magnetic signature.




* Develop an instrumentation package to transport quickly to areas where UFO sightings persist for a period of time (there are numerous precedents for this). Include sophisticated tracking cameras and special films, diffraction gratings or other light spectrum analyzers, broad-spectrum electromagnetic energy detectors, and tape recorders with sensitive directional microphones for recording sound.




* Compile a computer data base of all cases that meet a certain minimum set of standards geared toward potential evidential value. Conduct statistical analyses of geophysical associations. Systematically study the data relevant to propulsion clues and UFO physics.




* Compile historical evidence on radar-visual UFO sightings, encourage current reporting of radar-visual cases to a central agency, and analyze these cases in terms of known radar imagery and the particular radar set capabilities.




* Compile historical catalogues of all known physical and physiological evidence cases and systematically acquire all extant analysis reports. Encourage current reporting of similar cases to a central agency. This would include E-M effects on vehicles and effects on humans and animals, as well as physical trace evidence.




* Encourage reputable witnesses who are willing to swear an affidavit about their still photographs or motion picture/videotape films, use a selective process to determine which films potentially have probative value, and submit the selected films to expert photoanalysis.




* Establish a refereed scientific journal that will entertain articles reporting on case investigations, physical and physiological evidence, and analysis reports and promote thorough peer review of all scientific studies.

Link

Cheers.

[edit on 02/10/08 by karl 12]
Pages: <<  1    2  >>    ^^TOP^^



Aliens Among Us ...Video
  Posted 10 days ago with 65 member flags
Moon: inexplicable phenomena. Luna Cognita video.
  Posted 18 days ago with 60 member flags
UFOs \'Escort\' Mexican Aircraft - Radar Confirmed.
  Posted 13 days ago with 31 member flags
The Aurora, Texas UFO Incident (1897)
  Posted 4 days ago with 27 member flags
Jacques Vallee: Implications of UFO Phenomena - Thinking Allowed.
  Posted 2 days ago with 23 member flags
UFO above Wadden Sea
  Posted 12 days ago with 14 member flags