My opinion on UFOs as a research scientist: some are extraterrestrial

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.

reply to post by Vandelay Industries


paragraphs

please

reply to post by Vandelay Industries

A few things to say, one, thanks for your conclusions and work, two, could ya put some space between your paragraphs, it makes for easier reading, and three, naturally I am curious about the results of your studies, and in particular, which cases have amazed you and what specific conclusions did you derive from your research regarding them?
What do you think of the multi dimensional aspect of ET and/or their crafts?

Ya might like my signature thread, UFOS-ATS Veteran too btw.

Peace,
spec

Thanks for sharing, you can still edit and add paragraphs if you want too!

reply to post by Vandelay Industries


Thanks for sharing.

I agree, however I think it is premature to say 'extraterrestrial' just yet. Some unknown intellegence surely, but there isn't that much evidence pointing to aliens, at least that I'm aware of.

reply to post by Vandelay Industries


Dear Vandelay Industries

Very interesting, what made you look into it?

Have you seen anything personally?

Do you think that there will every be official disclosure?

Well presented. However, since data is what matters most, what makes you believe you posses all of the relevant data to draw your conclusion?

reply to post by Vandelay Industries


You say you only bother with sightings by scientists, pilots, military, and air control experts. You also say radar evidence is important and on the whole I agree. When independent observers can corroborate what is going on on the radar screen well then you have a gem of a sighting report!

I have always thought there is a psychological side to the UFO phenomenon. Abduction reports for instance seldom leave much in the way of evidence, but for the victim this doesn't make the experience any less real. This can be true of 'normal' sightings in that some seem personal in nature to the observer.

Does this mean people are crazy? Well maybe, but I tend to think the mind is involved on some level whether it be straight up hallucinations or someone/something is messing with us.

Do you agree there is more to this than just nuts and bolts craft on scientific expeditions?

Given the advances in US stealth tech, what is to say ET craft might not be able to totally avoid radar detection.

Are there any high profile sightings or cases that you believe to be extraterrestrial?

reply to post by roadgravel


Is there any need for them to? If they're not attacking and can completely out maneuver us there seems little point. Which also leads me to believe its the perfect cover for any new toys governments of the world may want to test out.

No need for a cloaking device, people will just assume its a flying saucer.

I've had some scientific training (BS Bio, MD) and even some lab research experience.

The skeptics are indeed as monotoned as the fringe ufo 'researchers' and only a few folks

do their homework. Actually think Stanton Friedman does good groundwork, but has narrowed

his focus so much around Roswell and all its offshoots that he is in danger of becoming irrelevant.

Roswell will never become irrelevant though. Ken Arnold's original description during that key year

started the media ball rolling forever.

The UFO's were "skipping like saucers on water" (paraphrasing)

and were a pecular boomerang shape with undulating leading edge and central red dome. If you

start connecting the dots, some very very curious thing come up without having to stakeout Groom

Lake for weeks to see an amorphous "dot" on your poor resolution youtube video.

WW2 seems to be a defining event for our modern age on so many levels. If one researches the Vril,

and related Thule society, up through the SS's Wonderwaffen projects to operation paperclip in the US

culminating in our moonlanding, not to mention the current state of German / other international

corporations, there is recurring malignant thread leading up to our - almost predetermined ?? -

financial crisis. Ufo's are just one part of the puzzle, both earthly, and ET variety.

According to Herman Oberth "we had help, from them." We have to believe him on some level.

Government secrets are the most tightly kept; we can't talk about many problems in our 40 person

hospital department for fear of reprisal, so why would you expect any high level clearance

government scientist to do the same?

Hence, the field has been left to rumor by mostly unscientifically trained experts.

Only time will tell.

As a scientist i think ou have ignored some if not much of the data.......
There are some things ou cannot learn in four ears of surfing the net, and haunting the bookstores......

Firtsly, have ou personall seen anything that spurred our research?
If so whats your current opinion now?
(i say this because as a researcher i have had personal sighting that came after ,many ears of studying the available info....This changed m paradime considerably...)
However i went up and down back and forth after it happened for a year or more....

Secondly, there are radar, witnessed, and personally experienced events which all chalk up to nothing on earth.....what have ou to say to these?
The Alaska sighting by JAL flight capt terahuchi? sic co piot, engineer, ground control radar two separate aircraft and mil radar as well....saw this walnut shaped, aircraft carrier sized craft or its signature.
ealpsed time 45 min i think....

Theres lots more to discuss dont go away yet....

You may be just too scared to set foot down the rabbit hole.....come on in the waters fine!

so why are you going over the internet copy pasting your stuff proffesor?


busy studying greys anatomy?

if you catch my drift

As a PhD research scientist who has extensively investigated the UFO phenomenon for the past 4 years, I have concluded that about 95% of the entire field—not just sightings—are false. However, I have also concluded that visitations to earth have occurred. I also 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, we know nothing. We concluded quite early on that the phenomenon is real, we have no idea what they are or are doing here, but 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 9 out of 10 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 garbage. During my studies of this topic, I learned that because of the high signal to noise ratio in the data, I had to set very stringent standards for what I deemed real. 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. Continued below...

click

reply to post by Vandelay Industries

I have concluded that never has the US or any government made contact, retrieved crashed disks

Not true.
Germany found the first and only' triangle space ship 'back in the late 1800s and finally dug it out in 1917...with out that event happening, 91% of all your high tech machines and science knowledge would be obsolete in your evolved matrix of today.

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.

The misquoted statement of Kenneth Arnold broke the matrix of truth, to the matrix of looking for a saucer, as the saucer has been a complete lie to the populace for some time.

Attempted UFO interceptions and capture have met with zero success

In 1991 your government captured a probe, they than planted cameras and other devices hoping they can follow where this probe goes.
When the probe was called back it docked inside a massive ship, but than was expelled and what they claim self destructed in mid air, dispersing green and orange like substance from underneath.

After looking at the 3.3-second video, they concluded a couple of things.
1. The probe docked into a triangular shape aircraft.
2. They concluded that this ship has three engines underneath with unbelievable force and energy coming from all three engines.

In 1995 in a secret meeting ,it was discussed that the 3 engines at the bottom of that ship has the same energy as 4 nuclear bombs ,therefore passing a bill that it could never ever be shot down.

reply to post by Vandelay Industries

All talk and no data?
You would do yourself and ATS a big favor by offering something measurable or replicable to back up your "study."

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.

Please provide us a handful of examples/cases (date, location, description, reference or citation) for the 1% you "concluded" are extraterrestrial visitations.

As all scientists know, repeatability and fasification are the keys to testing the validity of any hypothesis/conclusion; and, a "study" is not subject to review without citation and specifics.
Or, is all this just your opinion?

I'm inclined to accept the theory that the phenomenon is real, but, as Vallee and others have pointed out, much of what has been "observed" is the result of manipulation and deception.

I've reported sightings before, and seen things that I cannot explain, but that does not lead me to suggest that 1% of all observations are extraterrestrial. What are the facts that support your "conclusion" that they are?

Please give us a bit of detail, just a bit.

jw

reply to post by Vandelay Industries


This is all very interesting...but you have stated nothing new that really couldn't be posted by anyone else. Why not just discuss a case from the 1 percent of the real ones? I would be interested to see how that goes.

look at all these people reading the post and replying


without reading the whole topic

I found it an interesting read and was going to follow up with some questions, but after reviewing some other replies... I think coming back later and checking in again after a time might be best. Good luck to the OP, and here's a flamesuit. You might need it.

reply to post by Vandelay Industries


Great narrative.

However, I have to disagree . . . in some respects.

I believe Jacques Vallee and Stanton Friedman are quality folks. They have reached different conclusions.

I forget the guy's name . . . have listened to him in person and read his stuff on the net etc. He's responsible for the 3,000+ trace landing case investigations done in a very scientifically and forensicly structured fashion by a quality team of researchers.

Then, I have my own close relative's input, who saw the craft routinely in his highly classified job in Nev. BTW, my relative insisted that we have craft now, of our own . . . partly that we were shown how to build by the critters and partly that we back-engineered from crashed craft. Knowing him as I do as well as something about his job back then, I must conclude that he's more correct on that issue than your conclusions are.

That would be true without ALL the other extensive evidence on such scores.

I've also talked extensively with Guy Malone

www.ancientofdays.net...

and

www.alienresistance.org...

and believe that the high level panel of ancient languages, ancient texts, archeology etc. experts he assembled did a very credible job in assessing the situation and concluding that the critters are most likely fallen angels. He has 400+ case studies documenting that the Name of Jesus and the spiritual warfare prayerfully applied 'Blood of Jesus' in declarations in abduction events--particularly by autentic Christians--will stop them cold.

Regardless, I'm utterly convinced that they are helping the globalists set up the Biblically predicted evil, tyrannical global government.

We may well see the proof of that sooner than any of us would like.

I think scientist Dr Jacques Vallee is quite right after 10 years of his own serious study of the phenomena, that they are evil spiritual entities coming from a spiritual DIMENSION.

Anyway--it's great seeing a solid scientist assert something different than so many glib folks with little studied knowledge about the topic.