[Experiment] Let's rebuild UFOlogy from scratch

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

No, with UFOs, you can still compile basic data. And from that basic data, you can start to sift through and see if there are any patterns or trends.

Jacques Vallee, who is a computer scientist, did this a while back and came up with some very interesting observations. The most important one, he felt, was that when the physical appearance and chronological occurrence of UFOs were mapped out, they resembled a typical "teaching curve." If you want to teach a rat to play the piano, you do it in a very particular way, using rewards and punishments at certain precise intervals, giving the rat a chance to learn, incorporate what it has learned, and then learn more.

What Valle basically found was that UFOs often appear to have characteristics that are just slightly ahead of what we're able to do ourselves, and that they show up in waves just after we've had a chance to study them, get used to them, and try to emulate them. And when they show up again, they're just a little more advanced. Like they're teaching us how we should develop our technology to try and keep up with them.

It's an interesting idea. The biggest problem with it was that if UFO creators know us at all, they'd understand that the best way to teach us would not be like a rat, but more like a college student. That is, show us how we can benefit from doing things their way, and give us the basic means to do it. We'll figure it out from there. We're very motivated like that.

That's why I personally tend to think that a lot of UFOs are a kind of unintentional "bleed through" from the future, resulting from people consciously and unconsciously thinking about the future. Since reality appears to be an interaction between space and time and consciousness, maybe these things are created out of some kind of potential reality by people thinking about them. That's a hard thing to prove, though. Maybe impossible. But it would help explain why UFOs are always a little bit ahead of us technologically. It's because they are us, or a potential version of us, pulled back in time for a moment for us to see and photograph.

In any event, maybe it's time to update Vallee's database and see if there have been any changes in the patterns or trends. That's a real scientific thing to do.

reply to post by subject x

Well, why would you be studying UFOs if not to answer these questions?

As i am seeing it that is kind of the problem that mindset there. Sure it would be nice to find out what they all are but chances are it is not going to happen. That is why i think it needs to get back to basics. First get a large ammount of cases that have gone through extensive review and can not be identified by anyone. Then once we have all of that data get people together to find out what and where they come from, but that is a loooooong way down the road.

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.

And that is why ufology is the joke it is today.

Originally posted by DaMod
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.

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!

That's a good idea. UFO hunters was way too biased. There was another series called "UFO files" (I just watched all the UFO files episodes), and while not quite as forensic in nature as the show you propose, it was a big improvement over UFO hunters in terms of being more objective and less biased. But I also wonder if its objectivity might have made it less popular, as some people don't really want their favorite UFO cases debunked.

Wiki says UFO Hunters was a spinoff of UFO files and further claims that it used a forensic approach:

en.wikipedia.org...

UFO Hunters is an American documentary television series that premiered on January 30, 2008 on The History Channel and ran for three seasons. It is a spin-off series of UFO Files and is produced by Motion Picture Production Inc.

The show follows numerous forensic investigations (referred to as "cases" in the beginning of each episode) led by William J. Birnes and his team of experts: researcher and scuba diver Pat Uskert, mechanical engineer and MIT researcher Ted Acworth, and investigative biologist Jeff Tomlinson. In the second season, Tomlinson departed.

I don't know, the investigations didn't seem all that forensic to me, maybe a little bit but they could have done a lot more.

I think that the wackos make it more interesting and prevent it from becoming one big nerdy sausage party.

Although critical thinking would help.

[edit on 23/4/2010 by Tryptych]

Originally posted by Tryptych
I think that the wackos make it more interesting and prevent it from becoming one big nerdy sausage party.

Although critical thinking would help.

[edit on 23/4/2010 by Tryptych]

The wackos hold science back in every way, shape and form. Never once has profound scientific insight come from some nut rambling about how he knows all about something with no evidence to back his claims up.

If you want to *seriously* study UFOs, there is only one method. It is known as the scientific method. It is rigorous and it quickly weeds out stupidity and falsehoods. Sure, 95%+ of UFO cases would be quickly dismissed and proven to be hoaxes / easily explainable when submitted to the scientific method for analysis - but what are you after? Truth or a nice story?

I mean, you can call serious scientists nerds if you want, but no other method is going to produce accurate models consistently. At best you'll get the occasional partial truth for every few dozen bull# theories otherwise.

I welcome this thread, star and flag!!!

I think what need is a common structure, from which we can base a scientific working group on UFO's.

The group would have a core set of values for studying UFO's and be built up of scientists/engineers who could provide a rational conclusion or opinion on specific cases. (I think we are generally coming to a good consensus of the values within this thread!)

The next thing you would need is a focus. Looking at issues case by case and drawing on the strengths of the individuals within the group to try and answer or explain them. Peer reviewing each others ideas.

The majority of this could be done over the web.

The group could then publish their findings in a journal article and upload it to the web. Possibly making videos of their findings and uploading then to YouTube, etc.

I think that we have the people who could do this within ATS and I think we could, together make a positive contribution to the study of UFO's.

I've thought about doing something like this for a while and would love to be involved with something along these lines. We need to do something rather than just talk about it.

I do agree that the approachs used currently will never answer the key questions. It doesn't matter how many eye-witnesses you have and how much data from eye witness reports you have to analyze. This will never prove anything about the origin of the phenomenom/phenomena which I think is the key question.

You have to form a hypothesis such as "ETs are entering the earths atmosphere in spacecraft they have built", and then build the technology to detect these incursions, making sure you have the ability to distinguish those which are meteors or human manufactured space junk reentering the earths atmosphere.

Many years ago, Peter Davenport of NUFORC proposed such a system which relied on some fairly simple and low cost technology, which relied on detecting radio signals bounced off the ion trails formed by meteors. He posited that ET craft, if any exist would have similar trails of ionization and that using an array of receivers it would be possible to track meteors (and ET craft) entering the earth's atmosphere. You could presumeably distinguish meteors from craft using propulsion forces by their flight paths - meteors behaving as bodies with momentum, entering a gaseous atmosphere and being subjected to graviational and friction forces.

I think the only way such a proposal would go forward would be if the reasearch was funded by someone with deep pockets, and if the project was done in total secrecy. Why the need for secrecy?

Because this would replicate the work already done by NORAD and of course if anyone tried to elbow in on "their turf", this would be declared a threat to national security and the people running the project would either be thrown in jail or simply killed off by the CIA if they thought they would not succeed in trumping up charges that would lead to conviction.

I know this might sound paranoid, but that is pretty much how I view the liklihood that the "military industrial complex" is ever going to let us in on their UFO secrets.

reply to post by bluestreak53


As the point here is to discuss how to construct a UFOlogy that would qualify as a scientific field any talk of ETs (or any other explanation) defeats the purpose. Proposed explanations can only enter the field after sufficient scientific evidence is found that can support them.

About the evidence. What should the hierarchy look like? What should be dismissed right away?

Originally posted by bluestreak53


You have to form a hypothesis such as "ETs are entering the earths atmosphere in spacecraft they have built", and then build the technology to detect these incursions, making sure you have the ability to distinguish those which are meteors or human manufactured space junk reentering the earths atmosphere.

Already off to a bad start. Such a "hypothesis" is based on many false assumptions and pure speculation and conjecture. This is why, as a field of study, UFOlogy is not taken seriously.

Unlike the old ufology, the new ufology cannot live in the past.

It seems every new generation that comes into ufology lives displaced in time. They are re-living 1947 and every major sighting or case since. There is an inordinate focus on cases such as Roswell where nothing new can be learned but keep us fettered to the past at the expense of the future.

Originally posted by cripmeister
reply to post by bluestreak53

 

As the point here is to discuss how to construct a UFOlogy that would qualify as a scientific field any talk of ETs (or any other explanation) defeats the purpose. Proposed explanations can only enter the field after sufficient scientific evidence is found that can support them.

Absolute nonsense! What do you think is the scientific explanation is all about? It is the testing of hypothsis. The key question about UFOs is what is the origin of the unexplained sightings. To answer the question you need to form hypothesis and find means to test the hypothesis. THAT is how you obtain evidence. Note that I agree that the hypothesis that some UFOs may originate from ETs is simply that, a hypothesis, and there would absolutely be no reason to perform any investigation of the hypothesis, if it were already a proven fact.

If you took the approach you seem to be advocating, there would never be any such thing as scientific inquiry as scientific inquiry totally relies on the testing of possible explanations for the unsolved mysteries of the world.

reply to post by bluestreak53


You can't build a hypothesis before you have collected evidence that supports the hypothesis in some way. This is fundamental to the scientific method.

As this is about starting from scratch one can't start out with any preconceived notions.

Originally posted by draknoir2

Originally posted by bluestreak53


You have to form a hypothesis such as "ETs are entering the earths atmosphere in spacecraft they have built", and then build the technology to detect these incursions, making sure you have the ability to distinguish those which are meteors or human manufactured space junk reentering the earths atmosphere.

Already off to a bad start. Such a "hypothesis" is based on many false assumptions and pure speculation and conjecture. This is why, as a field of study, UFOlogy is not taken seriously.

Really? So what hypothesis do you have that are not based on "false assumptions and pure speculatioin and conjecture"?

If scientists took that attitude there would be no need to go to Mars because it is "pure speculation and conjecture" that there is anything to learn by going there. Without speculation and conjecture, there is nothing to test. You are just forever going back into the existing pool of the known. Science is about the probing of the unknown and making it the known.

I suppose you could spend an eternity going through all the sightings and trying to figure out all those which might be explained by known phenomena, such as stars and airplanes, but that is exactly all that UFOlogy has really done for the past 50 years. And it has lead nowhere.

Originally posted by cripmeister
reply to post by bluestreak53

 

You can't build a hypothesis before you have collected evidence that supports the hypothesis in some way. This is fundamental to the scientific method.

As this is about starting from scratch one can't start out with any preconceived notions.

Really? You are saying there is "no evidence" that some UFOs may have an ET origin? That simply reflects your bias. Of course it is a possibility and therefore is one that has to be ruled out by more than simple dismissal.

So what hypothesis do you have that you want tested? Without a hypothesis, you really have no reason to go begin any scientific inquiry because you have no idea you are going so you really have no idea what you are even looking for.

reply to post by bluestreak53


The point is a UFO is simply an aerial phenomenon that has not, as yet, been explained. Therefore it is necessary to find examples of aerial phenomena that cannot be explained. Until there is a reliable set of data to suggest that such phenomena even exist, there is no point in forming an hypothesis to account for them.

One of the problems with UFOlogy, is that it might not be a scientific field by definition. I am saying that all other scientific fields are the study of "something".

Geology is the study of rocks.
Meteorology is the study of weather.
Botany is the study of plants.
Archaeology is the study of human artifacts.

UFOs is the study of what? Planets and Stars? Thats covered by astronomy. Birds and insects? Thats covered by biology.
Gas plasmas such as lightning? Isn't that covered by physics?

So really I would say that perhaps UFOlogy should be killed and replaced by studies which are more fitted to scientific inquiry by definition.

After all, the study of plasmas is already covered by physics.
The search for evidence of ET life is already ongoing as a sub-field within astronomy. How about search for evidence of ET artifacts in our solar system? I'm sure that most people on this forum agree that there is a possibility of intelligent life beyound our solar system and this does imply the possibiltyy that past civilizations have visited our solar system and left artifacts. I think that such a study is arguably a science, even though it is based on the "unproven conjecture" that life may exist elsewhere in the universe.

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by bluestreak53

 

The point is a UFO is simply an aerial phenomenon that has not, as yet, been explained. Therefore it is necessary to find examples of aerial phenomena that cannot be explained. Until there is a reliable set of data to suggest that such phenomena even exist, there is no point in forming an hypothesis to account for them.

Not to belabor a point, but...

We already know that there are aerial phenomena that haven't been explained. That doesn't mean they cannot be explained. If we "believe" that it cannot be explained then why study it?

I do appreciate the rest of your point, but that is really just an arguement that you don't agree there is really anything unexplained, so I think all you have said is that your version of UFOlogy is the search for something unknown out there to investigate.

For many witnesses and researchers, that is simply not the case. They KNOW that there is something unexplained. I myself would never bother with this field if I had not seen something to convince me that there is something "unexplained" that can best be called a UFO for lack of better terminology.

reply to post by bluestreak53


You have a good point there, maybe UFOlogy has no place in science because of the reasons you stated. Now everything in science doesn't rely on formulating hypothesis but there must always be something to study. Again I agree with you that the areas UFOlogy studies is already covered in physics, psychology etc.

How can we study an unknown something?

Originally posted by cripmeister
reply to post by bluestreak53

 

How can we study an unknown something?

I think because it is not about something, it is about everything, from channelling to fringe religion. From natural disasters and sasquatch to government conspiracy. From camera artifacts to CGI hoaxing.
If its science, it is the "Sienfeld" of sciences, and is sometimes funny but never taken seriously, because it is the science which is the study of nothing and everything.

To me, ufology is not a science and probably there is little to be done to "make it so". I view what I do as member of a UFO organization as more like documentation of "folk history".

But as I said, to be a science, it needs to be a study of something that is defineable, not the study of something that is by definition "not definable".

I don't think it needs to be completely rebuilt, it just needs to return to what it once was. What we need are fewer people like Sitchin and Hoagland and more people like Hynek and Vallee. The way I see it most researchers today draw unfounded conclusions from the data they have and so you get so many disparate claims. Whereas in the early days it was approached from a scientific angle and the conclusions that serious researchers were making were supported by the data they had. However, it seems that once the Space Brothers fad started research started to take a dive, and while serious researchers were still out there more focus was being given to people like George Adamski. Then with the release of Communion the focus completely shifted away from observable data and moved to the existence of ETs based on anecdotal evidence. So, today people are making claims based on other claims that have never been scientifically verified and as long as this continues we're going to move farther and farther from the truth. We simply need to go back to the days of simply looking at the evidence that can be directly observed and forget most of the claims that have been made for the past 50 or so years.