Firestorm: Dr. McDonald's Fight for UFO Science

page: 2
26
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 11:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by karl 12
reply to post by Jocko Flocko
 


Jocko, happy reading matey -here's part of Dr Mcdonald's statement to the United Nations and I think he makes some very good points.





STATEMENT ON THE INTERNATIONAL SCIENTIFIC ASPECTS OF THE PROBLEM OF THE UNIDENTIFIED FLYING OBJECTS, PRESENTED ON JUNE 7, 1967 TO THE GROUP OF THE OUTER SPACE AFFAIRS OF THE UNITED NATIONS ORGANIZATION, BY JAMES E. MC DONALD, PROFESSOR AT THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA.

Link


Cheers.




Jocko, here´s the link for that missing quote until I figure out how the new ´extract limit´ works - Cheers dude




posted on Nov, 19 2010 @ 04:43 AM
link   
Great report by Dr Jimbo Mcdonald about the lack of rigorous, objective study into the UFO subject.



SCIENCE IN DEFAULT:
22 YEARS OF INADEQUATE UFO INVESTIGATIONS



James E. McDonald, Institute of Atmospheric Physics
University of Arizona, Tucson


(Material presented at the Symposium on UFOs,
134th Meeting, AAAS, Boston, Dec, 27, 1969)


Link



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 03:01 PM
link   
Some very interesting reading about Dr James McDonald, the USAF and the CIA:




Unknown to CIA officials, Dr. James E. McDonald, a noted atmospheric physicist from the University of Arizona, had already seen the Durant report on the Robertson panel proceedings at Wright-Patterson on 6 June 1966. When McDonald returned to Wright-Patterson on 30 June to copy the report, however, the Air Force refused to let him see it again, stating that it was a CIA classified document. Emerging as a UFO authority, McDonald publicly claimed that the CIA was behind the Air Force secrecy policies and coverup. He demanded the release of the full Robertson panel report and the Durant report..


link



posted on Feb, 13 2011 @ 09:29 AM
link   
Rare footage of Dr James Mcdonald discussing the UFO subject - see 5:30





posted on Feb, 13 2011 @ 06:31 PM
link   
reply to post by karl 12
 


Getting the science community to do an indepth UFO study now woiuld be very difficult, not because science is averse to aliens, far from it, but because the UFO field has been diluted with such crap, such foolishness, such unchecked nonsense that any association with it would be adverse to ones reputation.
Besides, in my experience when UFO enthusiasts say they want a UFO study they mean they want science to say UFOs are alien space ships and are real. If they say anything else they merely get accused of being part of the cover up or disinformation etc.



posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 04:23 AM
link   
reply to post by NavalFC
 



Hi NavalFC, whatever UFOs actualy are I think there is plenty of evidence for their existence and study - a good example would be the technical reports compiled by NARCAP - they can be found at this link and there's a good news article below from the Herald Tribune concerning their latest one:



If you’ve been too lazy to check out the National Aviation Reporting Center on Anomalous Phenomena’s extensive Project Sphere report, here’s an example of the level of detail:






Dominique Weinstein belongs to the French National Center for Space Studies’ UFO study, GEIPAN. He analyzed 300 cases of unidentified aerial phenomena (UAP) activity reported across the world by military and civilian pilots from 1947-2007. In support of NARCAP founder Richard Haines’ contention that these encounters pose flight-safety hazards, Weinstein addresses 39 incidents, or 14 percent, involving electromagnetic effects.

Specificly, 15 planes lost some form of UHF/VHF radio communication; nine had their magnetic compasses screwed up, including one that showed two compasses pointing in opposite directions; seven automatic radiocompasses went haywire; six planes experienced engine problems; five reported varying levels of weapons-system failure; and three logged general electrical issues. In all but two cases, the effects were temporary, as systems returned to normal when the UAP left the vicinity.

Eighty seven percent of these encounters occurred at cruising altitude. Radar data confirmation, or lack thereof, was available for 146 reports. Eighty one of those incidents generated radar data, with 15 reflecting both ground and air radar coverage.


link




There are also some appropriate statements regarding mainstream science and the UFO subject below with some good points being made by Brad Sparks:





"Cut through the ridicule and search for factual information in most of the skeptical commentary and one is usually left with nothing. This is not surprising. After all, how can one rationally object to a call for scientific examination of evidence?"
Astrophysicist Bernard Haisch




"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




"The opposite conclusion could have been drawn from The Condon Report's content, namely, that a phenomenon with such a high ratio of unexplained cases (about 30 percent) should arouse sufficient scientific curiosity to continue its study.
From a scientific and engineering standpoint, it is unacceptable to simply ignore substantial numbers of unexplained observations... the only promising approach is a continuing moderate-level effort with emphasis on improved data collection by objective means... involving available remote sensing capabilities and certain software changes."
Ronald D Story - American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics UFO Subcommittee -New York: Doubleday, 1980




Google Video Link


Cheers.
edit on 02/10/08 by karl 12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 10:07 AM
link   
reply to post by karl 12
 


I find it really strange, that many people in the UFO-forum lead their attention to often very questionable youtube-vids, while the always well researched threads of Karl 12 rarely get the attention (and the stars & flags) they deserve. So I want to take this opportunity and thank you, Karl, for your tireless efforts to deliver facts to this field full of rumors, legends and hoaxes, that are able to clear the waters!

So once more, thank you very much Karl, and keep up the good work!!!
edit on 14/2/11 by Peloquin because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 01:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Peloquin
 


Peloquin, appreciate the comments mate and you're not wrong about there being a lot of crap to wade through when it comes to the UFO subject, sometimes it almost seems like certain people like to muddy the waters on purpose.

I don't know if you watched it but there's another good segment to the Westall documentary below describing Dr James Mcdonald's work on the case (see 0:05) and the subsequent ridicule he received whilst addressing the U.S Congress (see 3:55).





Cheers.



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 02:16 PM
link   
reply to post by karl 12
 


Honor to whom honor is due!



Regarding Dr. McDonald:

Wouldn't, what was done to him, today be called character assasination?

And not just that... I don't know the circumstances that finally led to his suicide, but it isn't hard to imagine, that the repression he experienced played a significant role in it.

A shame... but I think, that such a character (and maybe literally) assasination didn't happen for the first time. Remember USs first secretary of Defense, James Forrestal? He also commited suicide, under quite questionable circumstances...

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 08:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Peloquin

A shame... but I think, that such a character (and maybe literally) assasination didn't happen for the first time. Remember USs first secretary of Defense, James Forrestal? He also commited suicide, under quite questionable circumstances...

en.wikipedia.org...



Thanks for the reply Peloquin and I certainly agree with your comments about Dr James Mcdonald - how he got treated was an absolute disgrace and a lot it seems to be down to infamous UFO debunker Phillip Klass who apparently mounted 'an extended, concerted campaign against McDonald':




In late 1967, McDonald secured a modest grant from the Office of Naval Research in order to study cloud formations in Australia. While in Australia, McDonald conducted some UFO research on his own time. Klass mounted an extended, concerted campaign against McDonald, arguing that he had squandered government funds. The ONR responded by announcing that they knew of McDonald's UFO interests and had no objections to his personal hobbies. The University of Arizona came to McDonald's defense, announcing that McDonald's UFO research was done on his own time, and had no adverse impact on his regular teaching and research duties at the university.

Klass then demonstrated that McDonald was spending at least small sums of government research funds on UFO research, and the ONR, apparently fearing controversy, decided to no longer fund McDonald's cloud research.


link




As for James Forrestal, that may also have just been a tragic incident but Richard Dolan certainly makes some intriguing points about his death in the book 'UFOs and the National Security State' - there's also some interesting reading here about it.

It may also have nothing to do with the thread but I certainly don't think government agencies are above murdering people they find 'troublesome' (covertly or not) - this article makes mention of U.S. Congress uncovering a CIA gun which gives people an 'untraceable heart attack' - that was way back in 1975 so God knows what they're using nowadays.







A CIA secret weapon used for assassination shoots a small poison dart to cause a heart attack, as explained in Congressional testimony in the short video below.

The dart from this secret CIA weapon can penetrate clothing and leave nothing but a tiny red dot on the skin. On penetration of the deadly dart, the individual targeted for assassination may feel as if bitten by a mosquito, or they may not feel anything at all. The poisonous dart completely disintegrates upon entering the target.

The lethal poison then rapidly enters the bloodstream causing a heart attack. Once the damage is done, the poison denatures quickly, so that an autopsy is very unlikely to detect that the heart attack resulted from anything other than natural causes. Sounds like the perfect James Bond weapon, doesn't it? Yet this is all verifiable in Congressional testimony.


link


Cheers.
edit on 02/10/08 by karl 12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 12 2011 @ 05:23 AM
link   
The entire collection of publications by Dr James Edward McDonald in PDF format:

files



This one's a winner.




UFOs: Greatest Scientific Problem of Our Times?, presented at the annual meeting
of the Am. Soc. Newspaper Eds. (Washington, DC, Apr. 22,1967),

link



posted on Mar, 12 2011 @ 11:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by karl 12
The entire collection of publications by Dr James Edward McDonald in PDF format:

files

...This one's a winner.





Very nice find Karl!


My favorite quote of his from what I have read so far:

"Although I was already familiar with much UFO history when I began to examine Bloecher's (1947) material, I was startled to see the large number of reports of high-speed unconventional objects that flooded into press offices throughout the country in that early period, far more than I had ever guessed."



I also found his tour schedule very interesting, including the Navy (once again) group(s):

McDonald's UFO Tour Schedule


edit on 12-3-2011 by A51Watcher because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 1 2011 @ 09:46 AM
link   
reply to post by A51Watcher
 


Hey A51Watcher, thanks for the reply - he certainly was an excellent researcher and also did a lot of great work debunking the debunkers and revealing just how threadbare and contrived many of the 'official' UFO explanations actualy are (link) - apparently he was also an 'outstanding nuisance' to Blubook personnel..





"I recall that at the time Dr. McDonald was regarded by Blue Book personnel as an outstanding nuisance. This was partly because he was interested in a scientific study of the “true” UFOs (those that completely defied simple natural explanation) and partly because he was so outspoken."

Dr J. Allen Hynek


link



There are some good points made in this vid about 'force fit' debunks and an unknown object over Kirtland AFB in 1957 - Dr Hynek and Dr Mcdonald are also featured and it's explained how many of the Bluebook evaluations are completely inadequate.





Cheers.
edit on 02/10/08 by karl 12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 05:03 AM
link   
Another mighty fine video from Orkojoker - 'Science in Default: Twenty-Two Years of Inadequate UFO Investigations'





Science in Default was a lecture delivered by University of Arizona atmospheric physicist Dr. James E. McDonald during a symposium of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in 1969.

A transcript of McDonald's remarks can be read at the link below:


www.narcap.org...



posted on Dec, 4 2011 @ 09:37 AM
link   
Apt quote to the United Nations from Dr James E. Mcdonald:



Statement on International Scientific Aspects of the Problem of the Unidentified Flying Objects, submitted on June 7, 1967 to the Outer Space Affairs Group, United Nations Organization :



"Regardless of what ultimate explanation is found for the UFO phenomena, the present scientific neglect and ridicule must be replaced by scientific concern and intensive study. My recommendation to the Outer Space Affairs Group is that it seek all possible means of securing worldwide attention to this problem. The first need is for erasing the ridicule that is quite clearly suppressing open reporting of sightings of unconventional objects in the air and on the ground. ... Secondly, the existence of an already-available sensing system in the form of radar facilities must be recognized as exceedingly fortunate. At present, most radar sightings of UFOs are not getting into scientific hands, largely because most radar equipment is operated by military groups who, in almost all countries of the world, tend to ignore inexplicable high-speed radar target reports or else to withhold them from scientific attention.

A wide range of electromagnetic disturbances accompanying close passage or hovering of the UFOs is now on record throughout the world -- despite this record not yet being admitted into what one would ordinarily call the "scientific record". Disturbance of internal-combustion engines coincident with close passage of disc-like or cylindrical unconventional objects is on record in at least several hundred instances. Often the disturbances are accompanied by broad-spectrum electromagnetic noise picked up on radio devices. In many instances compasses, both on ships and in aircraft, have been disturbed. Magnetometers and even watches have been affected. All these reports point to some kind of electromagnetic noise or electromagnetic side-effects that offer promise for design of new sensing devices, which will only be developed when competent engineers and physicists take seriously the rapidly growing body of reports of close-range, low-altitude sightings. "


UFOs and the United Nations - James McDonald



edit on 02/10/08 by karl 12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 09:31 AM
link   
Newspaper articles regarding the 1968 U.S. Congressional UFO Hearings with Dr Mcdonald discussing the 1965 Eastern Seaboard sightings:



“House Science Committee Seriously Studies UFOs”


”Whatever they are, the six scientists at a symposium sponsored by the House Science Committee agreed it is time to stop laughing off the ‘hard core’ group of unexplained UFOs and start long-term, government-backed programs to understand them.

Those appearing at the symposium included Dr. J. Allen Hynek, director of the Northwestern University’s Dearborn Observatory; Dr. James E. McDonald, senior physicist with the Institute of Atmospheric Physics at the University of Arizona and Dr. Robert M. L. Baker, Jr. from the Computer Sciences Corp., El Segundo, Calif.

He (Dr. James E. McDonald) also said many UFO sightings were reported up and down the Eastern Seaboard around the time of the Northeastern power blackout late in 1965 – precipitated by a power pulse the cause of which has never been identified.”


Newspaper Article 1

Article 2
edit on 02/10/08 by karl 12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 09:09 AM
link   
Major Donald Keyhoe archive publication discussing Dr James E. Mcdonald´s AIAA paper

PDF File



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 08:27 AM
link   
Letter concerning the UFO investigations carried out by the Office of Naval Research sent by Dr James Mcdonald in his attempt to find out more information on the 1952 Navy UFO project:


The Office of Naval Intelligence and UFOs



posted on Feb, 25 2012 @ 07:14 AM
link   
Great article - 'Want to understand UFOs?'






Dr. James McDonald brought more depth science and more intensity to the work than any other human. As he was an atmospheric physicist of some repute, he had both skill and contacts to lay to rest many, many erroneous "explanations" for cases..


link



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 03:46 AM
link   
Articles concerning the research of Dr James Mcdonald, the 'conclusions' of the Condon report and UFO 'debunkers':


Part 1—The Condon Committee Con Job

Part 2—Occam’s Rusty Razor

Part 3—Deep Denial Disguised as Rational Skepticism


link





new topics
 
26
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join