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: 2
16
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 21 2010 @ 10:57 PM
link   
reply to post by cripmeister
 


I think this is one of the better ideas that have popped up on ATS.




posted on Apr, 21 2010 @ 11:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by bigern
... 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. ...


Do experienced pilots make better witnesses? Are they better witnesses of UFOs? And do we only take into account reports from pilots who have seen ufos, or should we also take into account the number of experienced pilots who have not reported ufos? If an expert witness reports a ufo, what are the chances that they aren't crazy, deluded, or mistaken?

A lot of questions need to be answered before we can even tell what value should be found in witness testimony. (Or any other kind of evidence.) And I can't think of a way these questions could be answered, since we'd essentially have to work out in advance what percent of UFOs reported by witnesses were "real" ufos, and what percent are cases of misidentification, delusion, fantasy proneness, hysteria, etc... Or am I mistaken in believing that the fundamental problem in UFOlogy is the inability to distinguish the difference between these two contingencies?

[edit on 21-4-2010 by Tearman]



posted on Apr, 21 2010 @ 11:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by cripmeister
Peer-reviewing will make sure that the work is up to scientific standards, great idea.


Unfortunately, most UFO researchers seem very opposed to peer-review.


Originally posted by cripmeister
What kind of people should be involved then? What kind of scientific training should be required?


It should depend on what is being investigated when. Chemists, physics, astronomers, meteorologists would all have a role in the field. Like astrobiology, ufology would be a multidisciplinary field. Any discipline that can contribute should be welcomed.



posted on Apr, 22 2010 @ 12:26 AM
link   
reply to post by DoomsdayRex
 




Unfortunately, most UFO researchers seem very opposed to peer-review.


I think this is a result of people wanting to insert their conclusions into the subject. One guy wants to review it so he can saw it is a reptilian commando another wants to see it because he knows its the TR-3B and another wants in because he knows its a tesla craft.
Everything would be fine as long as people left the "what are they, where do they come from, and what are they doing" at the door.
I think the goal of UFOlogy (as funny as it sounds) should just be a wealth of data on objects that are flying and cannot be identified. Top secret aircraft? aliens? who knows, who cares.



posted on Apr, 22 2010 @ 09:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by zaiger
Everything would be fine as long as people left the "what are they, where do they come from, and what are they doing" at the door.
I think the goal of UFOlogy (as funny as it sounds) should just be a wealth of data on objects that are flying and cannot be identified. Top secret aircraft? aliens? who knows, who cares.


Yes the UFOlogy must stay away from speculation on the origin of the phenomena if it is to be taken seriously. Astronomers for example when asked what came before the Big bang simply say that 'we don't know' and leave it at that.

Book sales and fame have corrupted the subject.



posted on Apr, 22 2010 @ 09:12 AM
link   
reply to post by cripmeister
 


One that the skeptics would endorse?


Well one tiny little flaw is, ETS don't pick people who fit into the militia/black ops and skeptics narrow parameters, well, except perhaps for some humans on that infamous list given to the negative/harvesters.

When people are experiencing this phenomenon they're going to speak up, do understand.
You can't control other people, what they experience, what they share, what the true values are, nor how they assess it and think.

There is no scientific model, because with positive encounters it more about heart, not money, not prestige, not credentials, heart, mind and soul, often found in the grass roots people.

And that is the whole thing, the words of the priveledged scientists who have sold out the human race working for the "PTB" by and large, don't represent humanity, nor may they speak for their experiences. Grass roots people do, and they're the only experiences I'm really interested in hearing.



posted on Apr, 22 2010 @ 09:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by zaiger
Everything would be fine as long as people left the "what are they, where do they come from, and what are they doing" at the door.

Well, why would you be studying UFOs if not to answer these questions? I agree that assumptions/beliefs as to these questions should be left out, but they are, after all, the questions ufologists are trying to answer.

The problem with studying UFOs scientifically is the lack of anything to study. Quick glimpses, blurry photos, and videos of dots of light don't really give you a basis of study. Even the few people who try to gather physical evidence don't have enough of anything to draw conclusions from.

I don't see a way around this issue, myself. If there was anything for the public to examine, it would be. But as there's not, you're kind of dead in the water, and will stay that way until a definite presence is discovered that can actually be studied. Until then, it's all just speculation.



posted on Apr, 22 2010 @ 09:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Unity_99
 


From The dragon in my garage by Carl Sagan


Now, what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all? If there's no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists? Your inability to invalidate my hypothesis is not at all the same thing as proving it true. Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless, whatever value they may have in inspiring us or in exciting our sense of wonder. What I'm asking you to do comes down to believing, in the absence of evidence, on my say-so. The only thing you've really learned from my insistence that there's a dragon in my garage is that something funny is going on inside my head. You'd wonder, if no physical tests apply, what convinced me. The possibility that it was a dream or a hallucination would certainly enter your mind. But then, why am I taking it so seriously? Maybe I need help. At the least, maybe I've seriously underestimated human fallibility. Imagine that, despite none of the tests being successful, you wish to be scrupulously open-minded. So you don't outright reject the notion that there's a fire-breathing dragon in my garage. You merely put it on hold. Present evidence is strongly against it, but if a new body of data emerge you're prepared to examine it and see if it convinces you. Surely it's unfair of me to be offended at not being believed; or to criticize you for being stodgy and unimaginative -- merely because you rendered the Scottish verdict of "not proved."



posted on Apr, 22 2010 @ 09:38 AM
link   
I can only concur with the general consensus; try and rid ufology of its “giggle” factor.

How do you do that, now that semi-religious/pseudo-philosophical/ ersatz-spirituality – that and the entrenched idea of “contactees” - have become some of the first things that everyone thinks of when the word UFO is mentioned?

The simple fact is that we are dealing with a real phenomena - I doubt if the US air force would have considered conducting an in depth study of fairies – that has accumulated an unfair amount of destructive detritus.

We need to have it lifted out of the mire of such unfounded speculation and into the mainstream.

The addition of an association of respected and recognised scientists who are willing to publish their findings under their own names and those of their research departments, independent, non-sensationalistic journalists, a scientifically established and regulated methodology of witness investigation all together under the auspices of a centralised civilian research body that is funded by an independent, impartial financier would only help the cause.



posted on Apr, 22 2010 @ 09:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Unity_99
 


Unity_99 (or whatever you are calling yourself now), I am compelled to say this, and I’m not doing so to derail this thread into an argument about pinging and Norway and seven foot tall aliens; I know that you don’t realize it, but it is your type of approach to ufology that is perpetrating the whole subject’s ridicule factor.

Whilst incredibly evocative and hugely persuasive examples as to the existence of UFOs – in the sense of them being unexplained aerial phenomena - exist, backed up by countless professional individual witness testimonies, can you direct me to one single piece of solid evidence to back up any of your claims?

Just one will do.



posted on Apr, 22 2010 @ 10:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Beamish
under the auspices of a centralised civilian research body that is funded by an independent, impartial financier would only help the cause.


I'm glad to see somebody finally mentioned financing.

I think it's a great idea to do serious research on UFOs, but the research won't do itself, and the people that do it will have to eat.

The way people doing "so-called" research now eat is by selling books with biased stories and interpretations. To eliminate the bias, I think there would need to be funding so the researcher doesn't have to rely on selling sensationalized stories to provide income, which is pretty much what we get now.

So, we got Paul Allen to fund a large part of the Seti project, will he or will someone else fund serious UFO research? That's the million dollar question, figuratively and literally.



posted on Apr, 22 2010 @ 10:08 AM
link   
reply to post by cripmeister
 


Unity_99 gives us a good example of the kind of thinking we cannot allow in the new ufology. It may sound like elitism or censorship, but no other scientific field would allow it. If ufology wishes to be a proper scientific field, it cannot entertain people like Unity_99. The moment we do, we start down the same path that ruined ufology in the first place.



posted on Apr, 22 2010 @ 10:17 AM
link   

While I am not saying eye-witnesses should be dismissed, testimony without corresponding evidence should take a back-seat.


That is an excellent comment on how to correctly apply eye-witness testimony in this field...


As some have said though, without being able to "get our hands" on a sample...it will remain a fringe science at best, and retain the problems such an area has...such as the real crackpots....



posted on Apr, 22 2010 @ 10:40 AM
link   
Excellent thread. Just a few observations here. First, cryptozoology is potentially a legitimate discipline, as is UFOology. After all, Europeans did not believe in the existence of the "hairy men of the mountains" (gorillas) until someone bagged one. There is no scientific reason why there shouldn't be a North American ape. Unfortunately, rather than apply established scientific principles to conclude, for example, that such a large omnivore would share the same ecological niche as bears, they chase after hoaxes to "prove" sightings culled from folklore. (Not all cryptozoologists, but, sadly, many.) Similarly, UFOlogy is rife with hoaxers and credulous "investigators" who are all to happy to use falsehoods to bolster their beliefs. The ultimate goal of UFOlogy should be to use scientific principles to classify reported phenomena in order to build up a database. The obvious hoaxes need to be noted and tracked. One bad lie reduces credibility to zero. Objects that can be identified as natural or man-made phenomena should be classified for future reference. What remains, the unidentifiable, is the interesting part of the study. Reports and evidence should be collated and classified based on points of similarity, not merely by shape or size or color, but also by observing conditions, atmospheric conditions, etc. It is possible that two phenomena that do not "look" alike or "behave" alike can arise from the same conditions. If enough patterns can be found, it is possible that controlled experiments can be performed. Something useful might actually come from this approach.

[edit on 22-4-2010 by DJW001]



posted on Apr, 22 2010 @ 10:49 AM
link   
reply to post by jokei
 



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


Excellent point. Sadly, the cultists have come to use this term as synonymous with "Extra-terrestrial Spacecraft." This is why the more credible UFO organizations use expressions like "aerial phenomena." Perhaps we could coin a new phrase... Unidentified Perceptual Object? Unidentified Aerial Phenomenon?



posted on Apr, 22 2010 @ 11:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by jokei
 



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

Unidentified Aerial Phenomenon?


That's the answer.

www.narcap.org...


The term "Unidentified Aerial Phenomena" or UAP is an attempt to address the fact that not all UAP are described as UFO. Many are simply described as unusual lights. NARCAP feels the term "UAP" more accurately reflects the broad scope of descriptions in aviation reports as well as the possibility that these unusual phenomena may arise from several different sources.


All UFOs are UAPs but not all UAPs are UFOs, here is a 1952 photo of some UAPs that I doubt are UFOs:



And in this photo from Mexico, I KNOW the two "objects" are UAPs and not UFOs:



Well they are UAPs to the photographer/observer, but some of us can identify them. But the point is, there is no "object" involved in many sightings, as in this case, hence the preference for UAP over UFO.



posted on Apr, 22 2010 @ 02:29 PM
link   
For what its worth, I accidentally came across an actual journal just article today...

www.scientificexploration.org...



posted on Apr, 22 2010 @ 03:08 PM
link   
Excellent thought!

A "standard library" is needed of all known phenomena that can be mistaken for UFOs. Everything from weather balloons over Chinese lanterns to ball lightning.

Unfortunately a case these days only deserves further attention if there are multiple independent witnesses. And if it is possible to explain it with a phenomenon from the "standard library" it still must be dismissed.

Valid proof would be:
- Physical evidence made publicly available and validated in at least one reputable laboratory. This includes disclosure by aliens themselves. I want that alien tested in a laboratory before I believe he is real :-)

Interesting but no proof:
- Visual and audio documents. They can all be faked.

Irrelevant would be:
- Anything having to do with channeling, spiritual contact etc. I acknowledge that there is a spiritual side to life and that it is important. I also admit that aliens have a spiritual side. But there are simply too many crazy or dishonest people abusing the subject.
- Disclosure by the government without physical evidence. They might be lying :-)



posted on Apr, 22 2010 @ 04:54 PM
link   
You know I had an idea for a TV show a while back.

It's kinda along the lines of UFO hunters but with quite a few differences.

The show would investigate as if these events where crimes. The show would employ experts in areas of forensics, chemistry etc. (whatever would be needed depending on the cases) This show would take an entirely scientific view of the phenomena (of course with a tiny bit of eye witness banter). Which would include investigating and searching for physical evidence at the "crime scene", study any obtained evidence openly with experts (aka they star child skull would be an example) and refute or strengthen provided / discovered evidences.

My vision of it is for it to be completely objective. Ergo let the evidence speak for itself. Who knows, might find something interesting.

You could call it the CSI: UFO Hunters!

I think it would be a hit, and would be a way to remove this stigmata in a real way not just a hypothetical one. This means it would have to be executed with strict professionalism!

[edit on 22-4-2010 by DaMod]



posted on Apr, 22 2010 @ 05:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by zaiger
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


Actually you got it wrong. Cryptozoology is the study of creatures which are believed to exist (by some) but whose existence has not been scientifically proven.

And sasquatch is an excellent example. One thing that is not in doubt is that the existence of sasquatch is not in doubt. At a minimum, it has a well estabished existence through legend, folklore and eyewitness accounts. This does not prove that their is a physical ape out there so I guess you could say the purpose of cryptozoology is to identify what lies behind these legends and witness accounts.

That is actually very similar to the study of UFOs. Our website recently received an inquiry from a scientist who is a proponent of the belief that some UFOs are actually caused by "earthquake lights", which he believes is a real phenomenom which creates glowing plasmas. But the very existence of "earthquake lights" is still just an unproven hypothesis. The same applies to many of the possible explanations for many UFO sightings, such as the theory that some are caused by craft originating from ET civilizations.

I don't know what you can do to prove the ET hypothesis, short of capturing a craft and flying it into a convention hall full of scientists, but that I guess is the challenge of UFOlogy, to find some way to prove or disprove the various hypothesis on the origin of residual unknowns.


[edit on 22-4-2010 by bluestreak53]



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join