It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Redajin
Wwe need to be more up into their faces about this. we need to make it all to clear that this needs to be seriously looked into. for to long have this subject been the butt-end of jokes and jeers.
Originally posted by grantbeed
Another link here -
"Any scientist who has not read a few serious books and articles presenting actual UFO evidence should out of intellectual honesty refrain from making scientific pronouncements. To look at the evidence and go away unconvinced is one thing. To not look at the evidence and be convinced against it nonetheless is another. That is not science."
Symposium on Unidentified Flying Objects -Committee on Science and Astronautics - US House of Representatives,1968.
"Today the House Committee on Science and Astronautics conducts a very special session, a symposium on the subject of unidentified flying objects; the name of which is a reminder to us of our ignorance on this subject and a challenge to acquire more knowledge thereof. We approach the question of unidentified flying objects as purely a scientific problem, one of unanswered questions. Certainly the rigid and exacting discipline of science should be marshaled to explore the nature of phenomena which reliable citizens continue to report"
UFOs: A NEW LOOK - A Special Report by the The National Investigations Committee on Aerial Phenomena (NICAP)
"One of the most significant developments since 1964 has been the increasing concern over the UFO problem demonstrated by professional scientists and engineers. The growing involvement of scientists insisting on a careful review of the evidence decreases the likelihood that the problem could or would be buried or glossed over in the future before a proper evaluation is made".
THE SCIENCE OF UFOs: FACTS VS. STEREOTYPES
Stereotypes die hard. The myth among scientists that UFOs are a "nonsense problem" without any substance was firmly established more than 50 years ago and persists until this day.
Among the deeply embedded misconceptions of scientists are:
*UFOs are nothing but vague fleeting lights seen at night,
*No trained or experienced observers have reported truly puzzling UFOs,
*UFOs are prosaic objects or phenomena that are converted into spaceships by "believers,"
*A religious-like "will to believe" in salvation from the outside drives the entire UFO phenomenon, and
*Nothing of substance has been reported that science could investigate even if it wanted to.
These notions all are demonstrably false. They are "psychological road-blocks" that need to be cleared away so that discovery of UFOs can proceed.
Originally posted by toreishi
so, does anybody have any ideas about how to conduct a comprehensive scientific study of the phenomenon..
FIFTY-SIX AIRCRAFT PILOT SIGHTlNGS INVOLVING
Richard F. Haines, Ph.D.
"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.
Originally posted by toreishi
Is it possible to conduct a truly scientific study of UFOs? and if yes, how do you think should the study be implemented?
Severe Scientific criticism of Project Bluebook - suggested changes in protocol completely ignored:
In September 1968, Hynek received a letter from Colonel Raymond Sleeper of the Foreign Technology Division. Sleeper noted that Hynek had publicly accused Blue Book of shoddy science, and further asked Hynek to offer advice on how Blue Book could improve its scientific methodology.
Hynek was to later declare that Sleeper's letter was "the first time in my 20 year association with the air force as scientific consultant that I had been officially asked for criticism and advice regarding the UFO problem."
Hynek wrote a detailed response, dated October 7, 1968, suggesting several areas where Blue Book could improve. In part, he wrote:
A.... neither of the two missions of Blue Book [determining if UFOs are a threat to national security and using scientific data gathered by Blue Book] are being adequately executed.
B.The staff of Blue Book, both in numbers and in scientific training, is grossly inadequate...
C.Blue Book suffers … in that it is a closed system ... there is virtually no scientific dialogue between Blue Book and the outside scientific world...
D.The statistical methods employed by Blue Book are nothing less than a travesty.
E.There has been a lack of attention to significant UFO cases ... and too much time spent on routine cases ... and on peripheral public relations tasks. Concentration could be on two or three potentially scientific significant cases per month [instead of being] spread thin over 40 to 70 cases per month.
F.The information input to Blue Book is grossly inadequate. An impossible load is placed on Blue Book by the almost consistent failure of UFO officers at local air bases to transmit adequate information...
G.The basic attitude and approach within Blue Book is illogical and unscientific...
H.Inadequate use had been made of the Project scientific consultant [Hynek himself]. Only cases that the project monitor deems worthwhile are brought to his attention. His scope of operation ... has been consistently thwarted ... He often learns of interesting cases only a month or two after the receipt of the report at Blue Book.
Despite Sleeper's request for criticism, none of Hynek's commentary resulted in any substantial changes in Blue Book.
Originally posted by toreishi
is it possible to conduct a truly scientific study of UFOs? and if yes, how do you think should the study be implemented?