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.
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. ...
Originally posted by cripmeister
Peer-reviewing will make sure that the work is up to scientific standards, great idea.
Originally posted by cripmeister
What kind of people should be involved then? What kind of scientific training should be required?
Unfortunately, most UFO researchers seem very opposed to peer-review.
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.
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.
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."
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.
While I am not saying eye-witnesses should be dismissed, testimony without corresponding evidence should take a back-seat.
Personally, I'd like to see some clarification and consensus on the term UFO.
Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by jokei
Excellent point.
Personally, I'd like to see some clarification and consensus on the term UFO.
Unidentified Aerial Phenomenon?
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.
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