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.

 

What science could do.

page: 1
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 20 2009 @ 02:58 PM
link   
Perhaps the biggest problem scientists have in regard to the study of the UFO subject is summed up in the quote below..



"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 With rare exceptions, scientific journals do not publish reports of UFO observations.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




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. 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



Does anyone agree/disagree?

There have been several very interesting scientific papers on the UFO subject by such people as Richard Haines and Dr James E. Mcdonald and its got to be said there still remains a great many unexplained (and truly puzzling) UFO incidents out there.

Perhaps (something like) this approach is sorely needed and long overdue.

Cheers.

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




posted on Oct, 20 2009 @ 03:19 PM
link   
This would be great if it could happen publicly.

I think that there is an agency that studies UFO landings, UFO encounters, cattle mutilations, etc...unfortunately, I don't said agency publishes any of their findings for civilian study.

If you read into things, at a lot of sites where there are UFO sightings, cattle mutilations, crop circles, etc...there are usually black, unmarked helicopters seen, nearly silent...that right there is probably the follow-up team.



posted on Oct, 20 2009 @ 03:50 PM
link   
S&F once again Karl you have put together a pretty good post, you always give us a nice break from the typical banter i see here



posted on Oct, 20 2009 @ 04:51 PM
link   
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. I say it should be "What the UFO community should do". It's not that hard to form a non-profit with the sole purpose of funding the type of research teams that Hall wants. It's easy to pass the buck off to someone else or "science" but the fact remains that this will come down to finances.



posted on Oct, 20 2009 @ 05:19 PM
link   
1) Investigatory teams. Excellent. As long as the personnel are trained in and follow proper techniques. The problem here is making a definitive connection between an observed phenomenon and any trace evidence.

2) Yes. Please. Multiple cameras would allow true determination of distance, size, and speeds.

3) A database is a good idea but may be problematic from the standpoint of classification of various phenomena associated with UFOs. A lot of reports involve subjective observations and conclusions which display a bewildering range.

4) A systematic study of radar-visual observations would be good but could be difficult to implement in particular with historical incidents. Future incidents could be included with #1, or #2.

5) Photos and video don't seem to be very productive as far as determining exactly what is being photographed or filmed.

6) Yes. The single most productive suggestion. Combine it with #2 and you might come up with something.



posted on Oct, 20 2009 @ 05:24 PM
link   
It is sorely need and long overdue but I think Hall nailed it with the lack of funding and lack of imagination comment.

"What can the UFO community do?"

Well I think the UFO community does a lot - it has things like MUFON and NUFORC and ATS and even Sturrock's Society for Scientific Exploration, but for the most part the problem is this stuff only gets peer-reviewed by other people in the UFO community.

It's like an in-house science and I think most people that take a look inside find there really is something legitimate to it - but the problem is getting people to join the club - we need to come up with a really cool "members only" jacket or get Megan Fox to be our spokeswoman or something.



posted on Oct, 21 2009 @ 05:26 AM
link   

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.



Did you read the article?

It states what science could do - not should do.

It also addresses the funding aspect in the first sentence.



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.


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



posted on Oct, 21 2009 @ 06:13 AM
link   
reply to post by mc_squared
 



"What can the UFO community do?"


The single most important thing the UFO community can do is police itself better in order to facilitate a mature environment that might help to foster serious investigation.

The UFO community has done so much damage to itself that it is beyond repair at this time. Just read through these and other forums on any given day and you will see straight away what need to be done. There is a reason newscasters laugh and scientists don't bother with this subject, and the reason is the community itself.



posted on Oct, 21 2009 @ 06:44 AM
link   


What can the UFO community do?


stop whining thats its everyone elses fault they cant come up with any decent evidence. That would be a good start.



posted on Oct, 21 2009 @ 07:12 AM
link   
I'm confused by the few dismissive comments insisting that "the UFO community" should be investigating and funding this and not "passing the buck" to scientists.

I'm sorry but isn't the question of whether or not we are alone in the universe and are perhaps being visited by one or more ET civilizations 'important' enough that we should expect our scientific establishment to address the issue seriously?

Why is it the job of "the UFO community" - which is ridiculed and mocked - to swim against the tide of laziness and prejudice and jump through unreasonable hoops to carry out the investigations and provide the evidence to a sneering and dismissive scientific community? That is, if they even bother to examine the findings of independent UFO researchers at all.

Why is it the job of "the UFO community" to carry out scientific investigations to try to answer one of the most important questions facing mankind?

If it's not the job of the 'establishment', scientific and political, to answer such questions for us then something is very wrong, IMO.

And yes, I know, great discoveries and great leaps in scientific understanding have often come from independent research and investigation outside of the 'mainstream' of science, but that doesn't mean that this situation is right, or 'as it should be'. IMO, it just tells us that something has been wrong with the scientific establishment for a long time.

[edit on 21-10-2009 by Malcram]



posted on Oct, 21 2009 @ 07:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Malcram
 


its not as if theres nobody in science studying the atmosphere, 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 usually do

[edit on 21-10-2009 by yeti101]



posted on Oct, 21 2009 @ 07:19 AM
link   

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



You mean just like pilots and radar operators? Who often under pressure not to report their sightings, but still often do.


I don't think your response addresses the issues I raised fairly at all or those of the OP, which proposes targeted, appropriate scientific investigation.


[edit on 21-10-2009 by Malcram]



posted on Oct, 21 2009 @ 07:22 AM
link   

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:


An interesting article by Dick Hall.

His recent death is a considerable loss to ufology.



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


Why marginalise those areas - even many skeptics (including Klass) were prepared to support some funding for research in those areas?

Why focus only on encouraging physical scientists to become involved in issues relating to UFO reports?

Perhaps other scientists would be prepared to look at this area, and fear ridicule less, if it was pointed out that some other fields have examined issues relating to ufology?

Unfortunately, few UFO books or websites collate (or even mention) the various studies and articles from those other fields...



, 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.


Fear of ridicule seems to be a significant factor (even if the amount of ridicule is in fact lower than many scientists fear).



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. ...


Various attempts have already been made. Did anything productive really emerge from any such attempts?




*Compile a computer data base of all cases that meet a certain minimum set of standards geared toward potential evidential value.


Has anything useful emerged from consideration of CUFOS's huge UFOCAT database? Larry Hatch's large *U* Database? Any of the other dozens of existing UFO databases?

I have been collecting UFO databases for a few years - few of them have been subjected to any analysis. Indeed, most have been forgotten about completely...




*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.


Several UFO journal already claim to be "refereed" and "scientific".

All the best,

Isaac

[edit on 21-10-2009 by IsaacKoi]



posted on Oct, 21 2009 @ 07:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Malcram
 


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. In short they want to spend their short time on this earth more productively.



[edit on 21-10-2009 by yeti101]



posted on Oct, 21 2009 @ 07:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by yeti101
Should you not be asking why ufologists dont do any experiments instead prefering to make money from books & dvds?


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?



I would suggest that any scientists in whatever feild they do see ufolgy as a futile excercise. Much like ufologists seem to do.


You seem to see the subject of ufology as a "futile exercise" and a waste of everyones time and attention, in which case, why are you here at all? Sport?

[edit on 21-10-2009 by Malcram]



posted on Oct, 21 2009 @ 07:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Malcram
 



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?

I dont think ufos are of any importance to mankind whatsoever.


why are you here at all? Sport?


my answer used to be becuase i wanted to be proved wrong but im even passed that. But you raise an interesting question one which i have been thinking about lately. Why are the rational drawn to stories of the irrational and spend time trying to show people how wrong/ irrational they are.

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?

I'm still thinking about that.

[edit on 21-10-2009 by yeti101]



posted on Oct, 21 2009 @ 05:21 PM
link   
reply to post by karl 12
 


Yes, I did read it but it's a bit hard to gloss over those facts and build an argument. It seemed to me that it was merely throwing the ball in the courts of science. There is a need to present factual evidence that will help the UFO community be taken more seriously by scientific community or corporations that could utilize any technology garnered from UFOs or ETs.

One of my points was that the UFO community can throw funding at this problem. With so many contactees, abductees, believers, and interested souls such as myself, a sizable non-profit could be created that would be able to invest in multi-faceted scientific investigation teams such as what was suggested. This would far beyond MUFON and other small time organizations that have missed opportunities.



posted on Oct, 21 2009 @ 06:07 PM
link   

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?
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.

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".



posted on Oct, 21 2009 @ 06:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by jclmavg

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?
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.

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".


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



posted on Oct, 21 2009 @ 06:52 PM
link   

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
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.

I think some self-professed skeptics fit the bill completely. Are you denying pathological disbelief exists and that certain positions are not taken on an emotional level and cognitive dissonance cannot and does not play a role in these matters?

In short, when someone proclaims they are a "skeptic" it is to be assumed - without question, no doubt! - that they are rational, unbiased, scientific, free of fallacious reasoning and willing to consider all options?

Gimme a break here.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join