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.

 

NCCC Professor Wants UFOs Studied.

page: 2
8
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 14 2010 @ 11:03 AM
link   

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.



Redajin, thanks for the reply and I certainly agree with your comments there.

I think a lot of people have a healthy interest in the subject and believe it deserves serious attention - even if a person just looks at the Police reports over the years then I think it's pretty apparent something is going on.

Perhaps one of the major factors that stops objective analysis (and discussion) about the UFO subject is fear of ridicule - I don't know if you've seen it before but Terry Hansen makes some very interesting comments below about how the Robertson panel used it as a 'standard propaganda technique' to condition the masses.





Cheers.




posted on Apr, 14 2010 @ 11:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by grantbeed
Another link here -

www.telegraph.co.uk...



Grantbeed, thanks for posting the link and coming from a major British broadsheet newspaper it does look a bit more notable. NASA astrophysicist Bernard Haisch has also made a few interesting statements about science and the UFO subject in the past - here's a good one where he talks about scientists not studying relevant information.




"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."
Bernard Haisch



I think he may have a point about many mainstream academics being completely unaware of some of the published reports involving scientists and engineers -here are two interesting ones from the late 1960's:









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"


Link










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".


Link


Cheers.






reply to post by cripmeister
 


Cripmeister, no probs bud -thanks for the post.



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 11:56 AM
link   
Nine scientists report UFOs whilst aboard the Japanese research vessel the 'Kaiyou-Maru' - incident reported in the Japanese edition of 'Scientific American' magazine:


See 5:25




posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 12:07 PM
link   
We interviewed Professor Philip Haseley, and his interview will be broadcast tonight on Paratopia.

Enjoy.

~Jeff



posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 12:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by jritzmann
We interviewed Professor Philip Haseley, and his interview will be broadcast tonight on Paratopia.


Jeff, thanks for the post -will certainly give that one a listen.



posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 06:49 PM
link   
paratopia.podbean.com...

Paratopia interviews the professor who teaches ufology....

And THEN paratopia INVOKES abovetopsecret about why Emma Woods has not been raised yet....

"too much work" paratopia says

or there's too many E.T.H. believers here --

Oops sorry Jeff - didn't see you posting here. haha.




[edit on 17-4-2010 by drew hempel]



posted on Apr, 18 2010 @ 12:59 PM
link   
reply to post by drew hempel
 


Drew, what are your opinions on the objects involved in cases like the Coyne incident, the Tehran incident, the Bariloche incident, the Portage County incident, the RB-47 incident etc.. - do you think they were all man made aircraft?

Also, if we had the technology to make flying objects which executed right angle turns in the 1950's - why don't you think anyone's ever heard of it these days?

Cheers.

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



posted on Apr, 18 2010 @ 06:43 PM
link   
Interesting report linked from the Rockefeller briefing document which makes some good points about the UFO subject and deeply embedded misconceptions within mainstream science:





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.

Link



posted on Apr, 18 2010 @ 07:25 PM
link   
reply to post by karl 12
 


Karl you'll have to give links for those UFO sightings. I'm familiar with some in rough details -- but otherwise I'd need more information. Still check out this amazing Henry Stevens radio interview:

www.talkstudio.com...

He's done excellent research on the man-made UFOs.



posted on Apr, 19 2010 @ 12:01 PM
link   
reply to post by drew hempel
 


Drew, thanks for the interview and I'm sure some of the objects being reported as UFOs are man made aircraft but to me, with other cases the explanation just doesn't seem plausible.

Here are the relevant ATS threads for those incidents I mentioned:


The 1976 Tehran, F-4 Phantom Chases UFO Case


The RB-47 UFO Encounter | 1957


*Above BlueBook* - Ohio UFO Chase , Portage County April 17, 1966


The Coyne incident, Mansfield, Ohio, 1973


UFOs over Argentina ~ The Bariloche Incident.


Cheers.



posted on Apr, 19 2010 @ 09:41 PM
link   
reply to post by karl 12
 


My impression of the Tehran case after reading through that thread, and I've heard of it before, is that it was a plasma ball. Plasma will cause interference with systems and can do bizarre maneuvers -- tracking, disappearing, etc.



posted on Apr, 19 2010 @ 09:45 PM
link   
reply to post by karl 12
 


Yeah I've read of the second case all ready -- again plasma ball -- the plasma will attach to an airplane -- thereby playing "cat and mouse" with the craft.



posted on Apr, 19 2010 @ 09:48 PM
link   
reply to post by karl 12
 


I would say the Ohio to Pennsylvania "chase" was a military craft. You've got radiation and the Air Force organizing a cover-up. Classic secret craft.



posted on Apr, 19 2010 @ 09:58 PM
link   
reply to post by karl 12
 


The Coyne incidence smacks of secret military craft. They zeroed in on the other craft -- you got the red, green and white lights.



posted on Apr, 19 2010 @ 10:01 PM
link   
reply to post by karl 12
 


Argentina also smacks of secret military craft. It's no accident that Joseph P. Farrell focuses on Argentina for the continuation of Nazi ufo technology.



posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 06:05 AM
link   
Drew, thanks for the quick response - would it be alright to share your opinions on the relevant threads so they can be explored more thoroughly?

Cheers.



posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 06:35 AM
link   
so, does anybody have any ideas about how to conduct a comprehensive scientific study of the phenomenon or are we just going to see the same old people gabbing away at UFO conventions, selling DVD's , bragging about exclusive photos, etc.

what do you guys think? not about the personalities involved, but about the subject itself. is it possible to conduct a truly scientific study of UFOs? and if yes, how do you think should the study be implemented?



posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 09:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by toreishi
so, does anybody have any ideas about how to conduct a comprehensive scientific study of the phenomenon..



Toreishi, have you read through the thread?

There are already comprehensive scientific studies out there - here's an interesting one by NARCAP:



FIFTY-SIX AIRCRAFT PILOT SIGHTlNGS INVOLVING
ELECTROMAGNETIC EFFECTS

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.


Link









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?



It's a shame but the chief scientific advisor to the main government 'investigation' into the UFO subject tried desperately to get the military to adopt more objective, analytical, scientific techiniques...but was completely ignored:




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.


Link

Cheers.



posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 10:06 AM
link   

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?


You'd have to assemble a multi-discipline team, and one which had no real opinion on the enigma, but are simply observing and cataloging what they study.

The bigger problem is to get the phenomena to cooperate so there's direct observation. I personally believe it can be done, but, it's going to have to take a leap of confidence to abandon old theories like the ETH to get any real work done. You start from square one.

I'm involved in organizing a project that may or may not come to fruition, that brings together several multi-discipline professionals to study evidence gathered by a diligent on-site team.

But one has to keep in kind that this enigma is elusive in the extreme, and any attempt to qualify it has been consistently met with dead ends.

That's just how it works. It's not going to let us get a handle on it. But, until we try, we won't know.



posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 10:20 AM
link   
reply to post by karl 12
 


Karl12 I'm always "anti-copyright" -- fair use -- no permission needed! haha.

I've got a blog with my FREE online interviews, articles, masters thesis, etc.

naturalresonancerevolution.blogspot.com...



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join