It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
"Most scientists have never had the occasion to confront evidence concerning the UFO phenomenon. To a scientist, the main source of hard information (other than his own experiments' observations) is provided by the scientific journals. With rare exceptions, scientific journals do not publish reports of UFO observations. The decision not to publish is made by the editor acting on the advice of reviewers. This process is self-reinforcing: the apparent lack of data confirms the view that there is nothing to the UFO phenomenon, and this view (prejudice) works against the presentation of relevant data."
Peter A. Sturrock, "An Analysis of the Condon Report on the Colorado UFO Project," Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol.1, No.1, 1987
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.
Originally posted by 1llum1n471
What science should do? I'm not disagreeing with what Hall says, but he needs to realize this is not a case of "science" holding back UFO research. What he proposes costs a lot of money.
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.
"What can the UFO community do?"
What can the UFO community do?
Originally posted by yeti101
reply to post by Malcram
its not as if theres nobody in science studying the atmophere, weather, taking samples you know going out and doing real field research. If there were alot of alien spaceships flying about im sure they would notice and tell someone.
The ufo community are the ones making the claims. Time for them to put up or go back to making money from books and dvds like they usaually do
Originally posted by karl 12
Wilfull ignorance and lazy prejudice notwithstanding, Richard Hall makes some very interesting points in the article below assessing what science could do to help identify,attribute and understand the UFO phenomenon:
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. ...
*Compile a computer data base of all cases that meet a certain minimum set of standards geared toward potential evidential value.
*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.
Originally posted by yeti101
Should you not be asking why ufologists dont do any experiments instead prefering to make money from books & dvds?
I would suggest that any scientists in whatever feild they do see ufolgy as a futile excercise. Much like ufologists seem to do.
No, because the topic here is about what science could do to properly address a question of importance to all mankind. Why do you want to change the subject?
why are you here at all? Sport?
Their motivation? I think many of these pseudo-skeptics are not skeptical (in the true sense) at all. They are pathological disbelievers, defenders of orthodoxy. They are defending their worldview, that is what they get out of it.
Originally posted by yeti101
why does skeptics.com or jref exist. Why are there debunkers & skeptics who feel the need to set reality straight for the delusional poeple of the world. What is their motivation and what do they get out of it?
Originally posted by jclmavg
Their motivation? I think many of these pseudo-skeptics are not skeptical (in the true sense) at all. They are pathological disbelievers, defenders of orthodoxy. They are defending their worldview, that is what they get out of it.
Originally posted by yeti101
why does skeptics.com or jref exist. Why are there debunkers & skeptics who feel the need to set reality straight for the delusional poeple of the world. What is their motivation and what do they get out of it?
Pretty much like the humanist atheists who can spend hours arguing on the internet how, in their view, god cannot and does not exist. They are defending their turf, their metaphysical views, and they get upset and defensive when people share different points of view. Every century has them, today they are just more organized.
I don't think the world needs false pretenders to "set reality straight".
Let me turn the question around. Are you saying there is no such thing as a pseudo-skeptic? Last time I looked Truzzi even wrote an article on it.
Originally posted by 1llum1n471
I'm really not sure where to even start with on your argument. Your trying to make this into an argument between faith and disbelief is just fallacious. This is not about defending one's worldview, but rather taking a more rational approach i.e. evidence based