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.

 

[Experiment] Let's rebuild UFOlogy from scratch

page: 1
16
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 21 2010 @ 12:23 PM
link   
In this thread I would like to discuss the dos and don'ts if we had the chance to rebuild UFOlogy from scratch. The goal of this experiment is to try and come up with ways to make this version of UFOlogy qualify as a scientific discipline. There are a lot of questions that need to be addressed.

Here are some of my basic ideas. What should the focus be? what should qualify as evidence? and what scientific fields need to be involved? Maybe we should leave the stigma associated with current UFOlogy out of the discussion.

What are your suggestions?




posted on Apr, 21 2010 @ 12:42 PM
link   
reply to post by cripmeister
 

S&F
I think it would be a good idea. I think it would be easy UFOlogy should deal with UFOs. The focus should be on the evidence videos, pictures, any proof of them landing or crashing and any docs related.
All the evidence should be viewed on a case by case basis and things could be lumped into catagories. like
Identified
Possibly identified
Things that current technology and natural phenomena could not duplicate.

All the alien and new-age type stuff should be left out as they are not really based on any evidence. That is to say saying an object is something that current technology and natural phenomena could not duplicate comes from an alien is no more logical than saying it is the product of a unicorn.
Bottom line is UFOlogy got crazy because people went further and further away from looking at UFOs. Today it is turning into people just grabbing every video they can in an effort to back up their belief system like every ufo is a secret plane or a spirit light orb. It just has to stay objective.
Like a biologist, thy study living things in an effort to find out how it all works, if it was made by evolution or god really does not matter and would not change what he is studying.

[edit on 21-4-2010 by zaiger]



posted on Apr, 21 2010 @ 12:54 PM
link   
The problem is, as I see it, that creating a field of study dedicated to an unidentified, unproven anything will create its own stigma and bias... UFOlogy, cryptozoology, parapsychology etc.. They all presuppose the existence of phenomena that can not be described or explained by conventional science.



posted on Apr, 21 2010 @ 01:22 PM
link   
reply to post by draknoir2
 




The problem is, as I see it, that creating a field of study dedicated to an unidentified, unproven anything will create its own stigma and bias


Not true at all. UFOs are a real phenomena there are things in the sky which can not be identified. It only becomes strange and unusual becuase of the preconceived ideas that people inject into ufology. UFOlogy is the study of UFOs, not the study of aliens, light orbs, space brothers or military aircraft. Let the others draw whatever conclusions they want from the study of ufos.



UFOlogy, cryptozoology, parapsychology etc.. They all presuppose the existence of phenomena that can not be described or explained by conventional science.


The UFO is a real phenomenoa where something like crytozoology focuses on creatures that do not exist.

[edit on 21-4-2010 by zaiger]



posted on Apr, 21 2010 @ 01:31 PM
link   
Hey, great idea if not for general (public) consumption then a measure of what we as a web-community can all agree upon.

Personally, I'd like to see some clarification and consensus on the term UFO.



posted on Apr, 21 2010 @ 01:33 PM
link   
reply to post by zaiger
 


Agree with your post. The fact that Ufology gets thrown into the whole "Paranormal Studies" field is just a big turn off. Not only to myself but to many out there who might be a little more open to a scientific field of study...


Nothing worse than ordering/buying a mag or journal or something because it contains some scientific research on a particular ufo case, only to have the cover plastered with pics of bigfoot or a story about Elvis' alien hybrid love child...

[edit on 21-4-2010 by Toxicsurf]



posted on Apr, 21 2010 @ 01:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by zaiger


The UFO is a real phenomenoa where something like crytozoology focuses on creatures that do not exist.

[edit on 21-4-2010 by zaiger]


How is this in any way a fair statement? Cryptozoology relies upon the same standards of evidence as UFOlogy... photos, videos, credible eyewitness testimony... if anything it has been more successful as a field of study, as previously unknown or thought extinct species have come to light. My point is that this sort of thing is already covered by extant disciplines of science that do not suffer the same PR trouble.

To be honest, I'm not sure how to get around the problem. I would like to see the scientific community give all of the fringe sciences a fair shake. Things seem to be gradually changing, though as the new generation of scientists replaces the old.



posted on Apr, 21 2010 @ 01:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Toxicsurf

or a story about Elvis' alien hybrid love child...

[edit on 21-4-2010 by Toxicsurf]


Nothing compared to some of the claims made by members of this board.



posted on Apr, 21 2010 @ 01:56 PM
link   
reply to post by draknoir2
 




Cryptozoology relies upon the same standards of evidence as UFOlogy... photos, videos, credible eyewitness testimony...


Not really cryptozoology looks for creatures that do not exist like big foot and the loc ness monster. Whenever a new animal is discovered and keep in mind new animals are discoverd by biologists and people in related fields, then they use it as "proof" that there could be a bigfoot or locness monster.
www.cryptozoology.com...
chupabara and monsters



posted on Apr, 21 2010 @ 02:00 PM
link   
Some would say that UFOlogy searches for alien craft that do not exist. Would that be a fair assertion?


No, it would not.

Cryptozoology: Term coined by zoologist Bernard Heuvelmans to characterize the study of "hidden animals."

Ufology - the study of unidentified flying objects



posted on Apr, 21 2010 @ 02:01 PM
link   
reply to post by cripmeister
 


There needs to be a rigid and narrow scientific focus. It needs to concentrate on hard evidence, instead of delving into the realms of anecdotes, supposition and conspiracy theory. Only that which can be tested and studied should be considered. While I am not saying eye-witnesses should be dismissed, testimony without corresponding evidence should take a back-seat.

It will need a peer-review process. It will need a consensus, an agreement to hold to rigid and rigorous standards.



posted on Apr, 21 2010 @ 02:03 PM
link   
Rewrite the bible, so that it dosent mention "god" and "angels" but instead give the real version of it.. I mean, lets say that the things there is in the bible is facts. Then there is much bigger chances that this was actually aliens, not angels! I dont think if aliens, wanted to make a book about themself, that they would call themself "aliens in their UFO's".



posted on Apr, 21 2010 @ 02:03 PM
link   
reply to post by draknoir2
 




Some would say that UFOlogy searches for alien craft that do not exist. Would that be a fair assertion?


Sad but that would be true right now which is the purpose of the idea stated in this thread. "lets rebuild UFOlogy from scratch". Many of the biggest names in UFOlogy are whack jobs. Like steven greer did the whole DP thing but now he charges people 1,000 dollars to go out into the desert and look at the sky. Just like the cryptozoology turned into "lets go find MONSTERS!!!"



reply to post by ypperst
 


Do you really have to drag the bible into this? CiR is that way----->>>

[edit on 21-4-2010 by zaiger]



posted on Apr, 21 2010 @ 02:06 PM
link   
reply to post by DoomsdayRex
 


Exactly i think witness acounts should really be tossed unless they can back up another sighting that there is proof of.



posted on Apr, 21 2010 @ 02:29 PM
link   
The problem with your proposal is that UFOlogy is almost impossible to treat in a scientific manner, because so many aspects of it are outside of the knowledge base of science as we know and understand it.

If current scientific thinking was able to explain the mystery, then, ipso facto, it would.

You would be better served beginning with ancient history, bible tales, fairy stories and folklore - we are not talking about a modern phenomena.

and dont fall into the trap of assuming there are 'aliens' who have travelled from 'another planet' in their 'space ships'. Although this IS a possibility, it doesnt explain a great part of this ages old mystery.



posted on Apr, 21 2010 @ 02:43 PM
link   
The single problem that most people overlook is the essential nature of UFOs...here one moment, gone the next. Rarely in the same place twice. Add to that all the questions about the credibility of witnesses, agendas and the ever-present probability of misidentifications. Hard data is elusive...

Guys like Dr. Richard Haines of NARCAP are doing serious research and presenting objective reports. His Paracast Interview is very interesting. Haines isn't alone, others have a high standard of evidence too.

On ATS, we've got a few guys worth paying attention to. Xtraeme has a lot of good ideas and his threads are often objective and thoughtful. A lesser known member I've recently noticed is Superiorraw and his thread Camcorder & Skywatching Questions. He's spending time and money on the chance of seeing something and inviting others to join him. People like this are very cool. Check out NGCHunter's overlooked thread...A new search for artificial objects at stable Lagrangian points (amateur SETA).

A large part of Ufology is like a blind person trying to hit a moving target with a dart...lots of effort and a lot of 'friendly fire.'


I don't think Ufology needs to be rebuilt. Ignore the BS merchants. We all need to pay more attention to the people with the good ideas who take it seriously.

Edit to add: JKrog posted on NGChunter's thread...has 'member is offline' ever seemed so...?

[edit on 21-4-2010 by Kandinsky]



posted on Apr, 21 2010 @ 07:19 PM
link   
@zaiger. I agree, the focus should be on UFOs only. Aliens, abductions and conspiracy theories should be ignored. Another important thing is how to deal with witnesses. I think key witnesses should undergo a brief physical and mental examination. To maintain objectivity investigators researchers shouldn't be allowed to fraternize with witnesses. Anonymous witnesses and so called whistle-blowers should be ignored as their credibility can't be investigated.

@DoomsdayRex. Peer-reviewing will make sure that the work is up to scientific standards, great idea.

What kind of people should be involved then? What kind of scientific training should be required?

[edit on 21-4-2010 by cripmeister]



posted on Apr, 21 2010 @ 07:59 PM
link   
I disagree that eyewitness testimony should be put on the back burner, though it would certainly need it's own place away from the real work of getting down to what exactly a ufo is. The eyewitnesses would need to be judged on a scale of lets say one to five with a one being the guy who sees something he's convinced is out of the ordinary up to a five which would be something like a pilot with decades of experience and thousands of hours of flight time under his belt.

Misidentifications and hoaxes would be taken just as seriously though and maybe even have a ratings system of their own. You would need to have a group of well trained people to wade through the mounds of bs for the genuinely compelling cases to add to the scientists work load. If the subject was taken seriously enough the idea of exploring the mind of a hoaxer might very well be of interest to psychologists which could in turn add a little credibility to Ufology.



posted on Apr, 21 2010 @ 10:18 PM
link   
reply to post by cripmeister
 




What kind of people should be involved then? What kind of scientific training should be required?


Just good critical thinking skills.



posted on Apr, 21 2010 @ 10:52 PM
link   
reply to post by zaiger
 


That's a good start. I think people with expertise in human psychology, perception, meteorology and photography would have to be involved. Let's say we have a UFOlogy department at a university. The department could have a permanent staff of field researchers and call on specialists from other departments to aid in the research. That way the workload would be divided between many departments.

Am I the only one who finds this interesting or is everyone else busy with bats, geese and skinned squirrels?



new topics

top topics



 
16
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join