As a PhD research scientist who has extensively investigated the UFO phenomenon for the past 4 years, I have concluded that about 99% of the entire
field—not just sightings—is junk. I have also concluded that visitations to earth have occurred, that they are relatively rare, and that they are
most likely scientific exploration by extraterrestrials. I have concluded that never has the US or any government made contact, retrieved crashed
disks, or created a top secret program to reverse engineer UFOs. Much to the contrary, I think we know nothing. We tried early on to figure it out.
This is not a contested fact. Attempted UFO interceptions and capture have met with zero success. We concluded quite early on that the phenomenon is
real, we have no idea what they are or are doing here, and that they are most likely non-hostile. Since no government body wishes to acknowledge that
real physical objects of unknown origin are intruding freely into our airspace as they please—and we can do absolutely nothing about it—the only
logical path is to ignore and debunk. This has worked quite well for the past 60 years.
The UFO subject is a scientific phenomenon. Unfortunately, over 99% of UFO researchers lack any scientific training, and their often far-fetched
interpretations tend to catch the most attention. Imagine if 99 out of 100 researchers in my field of cell biology had no formal scientific
training...one can be certain that the bulk of the work produced would be invalid, and that this would hence damage or even destroy the legitimacy of
the entire field. This is what has happened to the UFO phenomenon. And because of this, the UFO phenomenon takes care of itself, landing itself
squarely in the ‘paranormal’ section at the bookstore, next to books about ghosts, vampires, and doomsday folklore. Indeed most books on UFOs
should be in this section. But—books written by scientists on this topic should be in the science section of the book store.
During my studies of the UFO topic, I learned that because of the high signal to noise ratio in the data, it is very easy for the curious mind to
drift toward the fringe aspects of the phenomenon. Of course! The fringe stuff is way more interesting! I went down these roads early on with an open
mind. Because of this, I feel I came back out with a better understanding of the phenomenon. I have learned to set very stringent standards for what I
deemed to be evidence. This means focusing on radar-visual cases with multiple observers from different locations of objects exhibiting extraordinary
speeds/accelerations and turns. Sightings by scientists, pilots, military, and air control experts are all I bother with. There are literally hundreds
of these. Not on wikipedia. Not on a single google search result. And as I’ve been disappointed to find—not on ATS. The solid cases do not simply
come to you, and in most cases where they are described, they are nested between fantastic stories of grey aliens eating strawberry ice cream in
underground bases, and alien/human hybrids trying to take over Earth. I would recommend reading through one of the UFO and the National Security
State books by Dolan, The UFO Evidence (Richard Hall), the Condon Report, and the UFO Enigma (Sturrock)—as a start.
My experience is that most 'skeptics' have done only perfunctory investigation of the topic, and typically merely repeat false statements from others.
The classic example of this is their statement concerning the term ‘flying saucer’, which was coined by a journalist describing the famous Kenneth
Arnold sighting. Since Arnolds’ UFOs were not actually disc shaped, the pseudoskeptic will remark about what a coincidence it is that UFOs just
happen to be described often as disk or saucer-shaped, when in fact Arnold observed winged objects. Of course, a cursory look into the literature
shows that there were numerous sightings of disk UFOs dating back to the 1920’s—well in advance of the Arnold case (See Weinstein2001, NARCAP). We
here on ATS all know that, since we actually do a bit of research beyond popular mechanic and Wikipedia.
The most vocal skeptics are not scientists. As a research scientist, I am a trained skeptic. Now, I have looked at the solid cases up and down, and
having ruled out conventional explanations, the simplest explanation is extraterrestrial. Now, the favorite concept of the skeptic is that of
Occam’s Razor; which is that given multiple explanations, the simplest tends to be the correct one. They love to proclaim this statement. Aside from
the fact that the extraterrestrial hypothesis is indeed the simplest explanation in these cases, in the world of real science, Occam’s Razor is an
essentially useless tool. The consensus these days is that the simplest explanation is typically not the correct explanation. Furthermore, most
skeptics approach the problem assuming only current scientific paradigms. The attitude is "it can't be, therefore it isn't". I encounter this even
from some real scientists. I recall once showing a colleague some rather unconventional and unexpected findings, to which she blathered “It is
impossible.” My response: and yet there it is. Start with the data, not the conclusions. Well, we published this in Nature the next year.
So when you hear Michael Schirmer or another pseudoskeptic proclaim “Seems like an awfully long way to travel and not say hi”, you will see an
excellent example of trying to fit the data to the paradigm, rather than the other way around—that is, starting with the data. We do not have any
chunks of UFOs or dead aliens. They will never “land on the White House lawn”. We have tried to shoot them down on scores of occasions; only to be
easily evaded. We have no close up undeniable movie of aliens and landed spacecraft. Footage of flying disks obtained by military pilots has in all
cases been classified and/or destroyed.
Based on the data that we do have, I have made the above conclusions. So have most scientists that have taken more than a cursory look into the
phenomenon (it took me years to dig through the garbage). Until scientists like me get the guts to tell others (I dare not if I want to get tenure),
the phenomenon will remain ‘paranormal’; being lumped with ghosts, god, and other things that go “bump in the night”. I would like to write
more about this because I don’t think I got it all in here, but I just wanted to share my conclusions with the community.
edit on 10-6-2012 by Vandelay Industries because: Paragraph spacing unclear