It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Oct, 21 2009 @ 07:13 PM

Originally posted by jclmavg
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.

I'll answer your question but it in no way negates what I said above. There are so called pseudo-skeptics. I also am not denying the existence of pathological belief. However, you are attempting to build a straw man in order to prove your point. The word skeptic has been appropriated for many purposes such as the 9/11 Truther movement. They refer to themselves as skeptics. Each and every case needs to be examined with reason. Once again, you are trying to create an association but it is clearly a misrepresentation of the skeptical community at large based on fallacy.

posted on Oct, 22 2009 @ 06:25 AM

Originally posted by Malcram
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?

Malcram thats a very good question.

Regarding evidence,John Alexander makes an interesting point towards the end of this statement:

“The undeniable reality is that there are a substantial number of multi-sensor UFO cases backed by thousands of credible witnesses. In the physical domain there are many photos, videos, radar tracking, satellite sensor reports, landing traces including depressions and anomalous residual radiation, electromagnetic interference, and confirmed physiological effects. Personal observations have been made both day and night, often under excellent visibility with some at close range. Included are reports from multiple independent witnesses to the same event. Psychological testing of some observers has confirmed their mentally competence. Why is none of this considered evidence?

There are over 3000 cases reported by pilots, some of which include interference with flight controls. On numerous occasions air traffic controllers and other radar operators have noted unexplained objects on their scopes. So too have several astronomers and other competent scientists reported their personal observations. Many military officials from several countries have confirmed multi-sensor observations of UFOs. The most senior air defense officers of Russia, Brazil, Belgium and recently a former Chief of Naval Operations in Chile all have stated that UFOs are real. These cases and comments are a miniscule fraction of the total body of evidence.

Of course they do not constitute irrefutable proof. However, to state there is no evidence suggestive of intelligent extraterrestrial life simply belies the facts. Decades in duration and global in nature, there are too many hard sensor data-points and millions of eyewitnesses to ignore. We certainly can debate the significance of specific data and question whether or not it establishes a causal relationship between the observations and extraterrestrial life.However, it is only through ignorance or pomposity that one can say no evidence exists.”

John B. Alexander,Ph.D. -Advisory board for the National Institute for Discovery Science


posted on Oct, 22 2009 @ 06:44 AM
reply to post by yeti101

What cynical nonsense.

If you ever actualy looked into some of the case histories then you'd find that, as well as there being about a thirty percent unexplained rate, there also exists a great many 'official explanations' which are completely contrived and simply don't stand up to scrutiny (Link).

Just posting embittered,wilfully ignorant remarks like that doesn't realy get anyone anywhere.

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

posted on Oct, 22 2009 @ 07:03 AM
reply to post by IsaacKoi

Isaac thanks for the reply,you make some fair points -there are a great many scientific papers dealing with the UFO subject at this link:

I realise you may have read them all before but I found this one interesting:


... and it is positive.

It might seem unbelievable but the UFO phenomenon has not been studied a lot to this day: of course, a large number of private groups and non-profit organisations investigate the subject, and military studies and statements exist.

But only once, a government asked a panel of scientist to study the phenomenon in order to come to some conclusions, and gave at least some means toward that end.

It happened in France, the scientific group is the SEPRA (formerly GEPAN) and the scientific conclusion is that 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.

Of course there is the Condon Report. This report is hardly acceptable as scientific study, as it was funded by the USAF and major scientists who participated in it resigned due to disagreement with the conclusions. These conclusions, as opposed to the huge content of the report, tell nothing about the nature of UFOs, and instead, recommend that scientific study of the UFO phenomenon should be discouraged.

I wholeheartedly agree with the comments made about the
Condon report as there were a great many legitimate questions raised about the motives,agenda and objectivity involved but would
be interested to hear your opinions about the SEPRA conclusion.

posted on Oct, 22 2009 @ 07:40 AM

Originally posted by yeti101
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.

I think Dr James E Mcdonald (who was probably one of the leading atmospherical physicists of his time) tried to raise the issue.

"From time to time in the history of science, situations have arisen in which a problem of ultimately enormous importance went begging for adequate attention simply because that problem appeared to involve phenomena so far outside the current bounds of scientific knowledge that it was not even regarded as a legitimate subject of serious scientific concern.
That is precisely the situation in which the UFO problem now lies. One of the principal results of my own recent intensive study of the UFO enigma is this: I have become convinced that the scientific community, not only in this country but throughout the world, has been casually ignoring as nonsense a matter of extraordinary scientific importance."

Dr James McDonald -Senior physicist at the Institute for Atmospheric Physics and professor in the Department of Meteorology at the University of Arizona

UFO Quotes

He also attempted to inform the public about 'absurdly erroneous' USAF explanations for certain UFO incidents:

"As a result of several trips to project Bluebook,I´ve had an opportunity to examine quite carefully and in detail the types of reports that are made by Bluebook personnel. In most cases,I have found that theres almost no correlation between so-called "evaluations and explanations" that are made by Bluebook and the facts of the case...
There are hundreds of good cases in the Air Force files that should have led to top-level scientific scrutiny of this problem,years ago,yet these cases have been swept under the rug in a most disturbing way by Project Bluebook investigators and their consultants."

Dr James McDonald -Senior physicist at the Institute for Atmospheric Physics and professor in the Department of Meteorology at the University of Arizona

USAF 'Force fit' debunks

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

new topics

top topics
<< 1   >>

log in