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.

 

The Emerging Picture of the UFO Problem - J. Allen Hynek, 1975

page: 2
12
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 13 2012 @ 01:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Orkojoker

Originally posted by The Shrike

As much as I may have admired Hynek, he didn't stand out to me as much as Jacques Vallee who treated the UFO "problem" in a more informative and entertaining way. The following sentence by Hynek says it all: "And we cannot expect them to know this unless we present data to them properly, and thus provide motivation to study the subject."

Therein lies the real UFO problem, that the subjec cannot be studied. What would be the scientific criteria for studying UFOs? You can't bring one into a laboratory. You can't study them in the field. There can't be any motivation if there is nothing to study. All we have on UFOs are reports, both oral and written, photos, films, videos and those do not have any scientific interest 'cause scientists would not be able to come to any conclusions different from what is available presently.



I'm not sure I completely agree with your assessment (welcome back, by the way), or I would at least not state it in such categorical terms. It's not accurate to say that the subject cannot be studied. Indeed, it has been studied. What we cannot study, at least directly, are the objects (or whatever they are) themselves. The material that we do have, as you note - reports, photos, films and the like, along with what physical traces have or may become available - lends itself quite well to analysis of various kinds. To be sure, we're not talking about experimental physics here, but to imply that there is no knowledge to be gleaned from the available data is rather closed-minded in my opinion.

Perhaps the most important bit of information to try to discern at the outset is not what UFOs are, but rather if they are. The scientific community is certainly not convinced that they exist, but neither has it made much of an effort to find out whether or not they do. There is a prevailing assumption that Science "knows" that there is no signal amidst the noise with regard to UFOs. In fact, Science knows no such thing and has really not even asked the question. The situation has not changed appreciably since Dr. James McDonald said in 1969:


I believe science is in default for having failed to mount any truly adequate studies of this problem, a problem that has aroused such strong and widespread public concern during the past two decades.

Science in Default: Twenty-Two Years of Inadequate UFO Investigations


...I think we can make that six decades now.
edit on 10-10-2012 by Orkojoker because: (no reason given)


When I state(d) that the subject can not be studied by scientists, I meant to be past what is available ( reports, both oral and written, photos, films, videos) and really meant the "hardware". There is nothing that scientists can do with what is available and I don't consider that in my lifetime they will have access to the "hardware".

It really doesn't matter if some individuals, regardless of education or position, do not accept the reality of UFOs; I do and that's all that matters to me. Also, I understand their attitude because only those who have experienced UFOs (mostly daylight sightings that cannot be questioned when details prove them to be other than human constructs) can accept them as real. I didn't accept UFOs as real until I had my first sighting with 5 more to follow. Reality is reality. Until you experience UFOs in your reality you are going to even deny their existence and no matter what is offered as "evidence" it's the experience that makes your jump over the hurdle easy.

Scientists are not to be blamed for their blasé attitude, it's the nature of [u[their reality. Being skeptical is natural. Being a believer is "unnatural" for believing is an act of the mind based on stimuli not in the physical world.




posted on Oct, 13 2012 @ 02:47 AM
link   
reply to post by The Shrike
 
I tend to agree with what you wrote. It's evidently possible for some people to be immersed in the reports and still feel certain that all UFOs are explainable by current knowledge. It puzzles me how that can be and yet they would probably wonder the same thing about us...

Having the experience of a good sighting that cannot be explained to our satisfaction removes the doubt. I mean, it doesn't blind a person to the high probability that nearly all sightings are very much explainable, but it does focus attention on the fact that some are enigmatic.

I've seen a light making very fast, exotic manoeuvres that crossed the entire night sky in around 4 seconds. However, I'm envious of folk like Michael Swords and Jacques Vallee who were drawn to ufology after seeing solid craft.



posted on Oct, 13 2012 @ 11:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kandinsky
reply to post by The Shrike
 
I tend to agree with what you wrote. It's evidently possible for some people to be immersed in the reports and still feel certain that all UFOs are explainable by current knowledge. It puzzles me how that can be and yet they would probably wonder the same thing about us...

Having the experience of a good sighting that cannot be explained to our satisfaction removes the doubt. I mean, it doesn't blind a person to the high probability that nearly all sightings are very much explainable, but it does focus attention on the fact that some are enigmatic.

I've seen a light making very fast, exotic manoeuvres that crossed the entire night sky in around 4 seconds. However, I'm envious of folk like Michael Swords and Jacques Vallee who were drawn to ufology after seeing solid craft.


In my opinion, most average Joes on the street are not detail minded when it comes to witnessing what they may consider a UFO if it's at too far a distance and detail is not evident. Normal, human aircraft can usually be identified (talking about daylight sightings for night sightings are problematic) except, again, when they are too distant. I wear Polarized sunglasses and when I tilt my head at a certain angle the sky darkens and any flying object, including birds, really stand out. The first visible things are the wings/tail so it's not paid attention to. But missing those details you stare. Few wear Polarized sunglasses so what they see could be an aircraft with hidden details due to glare.

At night, only unusual behavior makes you stare otherwise normal aircraft is not paid that much attention to. Like you I've also witnessed lights making extremely fast maneuvers. Mine were "disguised" as stars! Stationary then 0 to thousands of mph! For a few seconds after such a sighting you are left befuddled.



posted on Oct, 17 2012 @ 01:54 AM
link   
 



Originally posted by Orkojoker

I'm not sure I completely agree with your assessment (welcome back, by the way), or I would at least not state it in such categorical terms. It's not accurate to say that the subject cannot be studied. Indeed, it has been studied. What we cannot study, at least directly, are the objects (or whatever they are) themselves. The material that we do have, as you note - reports, photos, films and the like, along with what physical traces have or may be come available - lends itself quite well to analysis of various kinds. To be sure, we're not talking about experimental physics here, but to imply that there is no knowledge to be gleaned from the available data is rather closed-minded in my opinion.


Yes, but those type of analysis are limited to 2-dimensional photographs or videos and are inconclusive. A report is limited to a witness(es) and their interpretation or the interviewer. Again, inconclusive. Very few scientists are going to look at this inconclusive evidence and say that it's a good possibility it could come from an alien source, without something physical that could be studied. Why should it be any less than that? This is an extraordinary claim of an alien race visiting us from another world. You can't explain away an object in the sky making strange movements, so simply by saying it's possible that it's alien based. You're minimizing the actual enormity of that claim by giving a matter-of-fact type of suggestion about it. You're in effect, eliminating any need for answers to how, if, why or what. You're taking for granted too many things that haven't been proven yet. The least of which is intelligent alien life outside of our own solar system. Is that really a proper, logical approach? The whole suggestion that aliens could be here, is turned into something simple and trite by all of these claims, yet it's not. It's no wonder the scientific community scoffs at it.


Perhaps the most important bit of information to try to discern at the outset is not what UFOs are, but rather if they are. The scientific community is certainly not convinced that they exist, but neither has it made much of an effort to find out whether or not they do. There is a prevailing assumption that Science "knows" that there is no signal amidst the noise with regard to UFOs. In fact, Science knows no such thing and has really not even asked the question.


What do you believe can be gained by a new group of scientists studying this today? It will be the same type of evidence that was studied 40+ years ago. Photos, videos and stories. Hynek, who was an astrophysicist and fully capable of understanding what is physically possible and what is not, came up with what conclusion and answer? There was no actual answer and we're left with assumptions and theories. Just as we would if studies were carried out today. The big difference today is that anyone can fake a realistic looking photograph or video and they're many times more reports than there were years ago. It becomes even more difficult to figure out. Without something physical, you're still left in the dark as to an answer. A scientific study suggesting something could possibly be alien, only validates how the believers feel and does nothing to show facts for the non-believers.



posted on Oct, 17 2012 @ 06:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ectoplasm8

Yes, but those type of analysis are limited to 2-dimensional photographs or videos and are inconclusive.


I see no reason to demand a certainty of rock-solid conclusions before we agree to put any effort toward analysis of whatever evidence we can scrape together. The Condon Report had some pretty thorough and interesting analysis and even some (less-than-conclusive) conclusions that warrant a look. For example, regarding the McMinnville photos:


To the extent that the photometric analysis is reliable, (and the measurements appear to be consistent), the photographs indicate an object with a bright shiny surface at considerable distance and on the order of tens of meters in diameter. While it would be exaggerating to say that we have positively ruled out a fabrication, it appears significant that the simplest, most direct interpretation of the photographs confirms precisely what the witnesses said they saw. Yet, the fact that the object appears beneath the same part of the overhead wire in both photos can be used as an argument favoring a suspended model.

Conclusion:

This is one of the few UFO reports in which all factors investigated, geometric, psychological, and physical appear to be consistent with the assertion that an extraordinary flying object, silvery, metallic, disk-shaped, tens of meters in diameter, and evidently artificial, flew within sight of two witnesses. It cannot be said that the evidence positively rules out a fabrication, although there are some physical factors such as the accuracy of certain photometric measures of the original negatives which argue against a fabrication.



source



posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 07:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ectoplasm8

 



Originally posted by Orkojoker

I'm not sure I completely agree with your assessment (welcome back, by the way), or I would at least not state it in such categorical terms. It's not accurate to say that the subject cannot be studied. Indeed, it has been studied. What we cannot study, at least directly, are the objects (or whatever they are) themselves. The material that we do have, as you note - reports, photos, films and the like, along with what physical traces have or may be come available - lends itself quite well to analysis of various kinds. To be sure, we're not talking about experimental physics here, but to imply that there is no knowledge to be gleaned from the available data is rather closed-minded in my opinion.


Yes, but those type of analysis are limited to 2-dimensional photographs or videos and are inconclusive. A report is limited to a witness(es) and their interpretation or the interviewer. Again, inconclusive. Very few scientists are going to look at this inconclusive evidence and say that it's a good possibility it could come from an alien source, without something physical that could be studied. Why should it be any less than that? This is an extraordinary claim of an alien race visiting us from another world. You can't explain away an object in the sky making strange movements, so simply by saying it's possible that it's alien based. You're minimizing the actual enormity of that claim by giving a matter-of-fact type of suggestion about it. You're in effect, eliminating any need for answers to how, if, why or what. You're taking for granted too many things that haven't been proven yet. The least of which is intelligent alien life outside of our own solar system. Is that really a proper, logical approach? The whole suggestion that aliens could be here, is turned into something simple and trite by all of these claims, yet it's not. It's no wonder the scientific community scoffs at it.


Perhaps the most important bit of information to try to discern at the outset is not what UFOs are, but rather if they are. The scientific community is certainly not convinced that they exist, but neither has it made much of an effort to find out whether or not they do. There is a prevailing assumption that Science "knows" that there is no signal amidst the noise with regard to UFOs. In fact, Science knows no such thing and has really not even asked the question.


What do you believe can be gained by a new group of scientists studying this today? It will be the same type of evidence that was studied 40+ years ago. Photos, videos and stories. Hynek, who was an astrophysicist and fully capable of understanding what is physically possible and what is not, came up with what conclusion and answer? There was no actual answer and we're left with assumptions and theories. Just as we would if studies were carried out today. The big difference today is that anyone can fake a realistic looking photograph or video and they're many times more reports than there were years ago. It becomes even more difficult to figure out. Without something physical, you're still left in the dark as to an answer. A scientific study suggesting something could possibly be alien, only validates how the believers feel and does nothing to show facts for the non-believers.


Excellent reply and I could not have said it better ("subliminal" compliment to myself .
). It's reassuring to see that the ALIENS & UFOS forum still has some clear thinking members.



posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 07:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Orkojoker

Originally posted by Ectoplasm8

Yes, but those type of analysis are limited to 2-dimensional photographs or videos and are inconclusive.


I see no reason to demand a certainty of rock-solid conclusions before we agree to put any effort toward analysis of whatever evidence we can scrape together. The Condon Report had some pretty thorough and interesting analysis and even some (less-than-conclusive) conclusions that warrant a look. For example, regarding the McMinnville photos:


To the extent that the photometric analysis is reliable, (and the measurements appear to be consistent), the photographs indicate an object with a bright shiny surface at considerable distance and on the order of tens of meters in diameter. While it would be exaggerating to say that we have positively ruled out a fabrication, it appears significant that the simplest, most direct interpretation of the photographs confirms precisely what the witnesses said they saw. Yet, the fact that the object appears beneath the same part of the overhead wire in both photos can be used as an argument favoring a suspended model.

Conclusion:

This is one of the few UFO reports in which all factors investigated, geometric, psychological, and physical appear to be consistent with the assertion that an extraordinary flying object, silvery, metallic, disk-shaped, tens of meters in diameter, and evidently artificial, flew within sight of two witnesses. It cannot be said that the evidence positively rules out a fabrication, although there are some physical factors such as the accuracy of certain photometric measures of the original negatives which argue against a fabrication.



source


So? The bottom line is that the scales tipped in favor of a real object. This is what I mean when I say that we don't need authorities to tell us what we already know and knew then. A photo analysis doesn't really add weight to a foregone conclusion. If instead of favoring a real object the photo analysis favored a fabrication, it would have joined all of the other fabrications and life would have moved on, as it did. Sure, there will always be those who require an authority figure to tell them what they think it is. But you still have nothing to take to the bank, or a lab.

edit on 18-10-2012 by The Shrike because: To correct comment.



posted on Oct, 21 2012 @ 02:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Orkojoker
 



Originally posted by The Shrike

Excellent reply and I could not have said it better ("subliminal" compliment to myself .
). It's reassuring to see that the ALIENS & UFOS forum still has some clear thinking members.


Thanks. Doesn't seem to be a lot of grounded logical thinking here.


Originally posted by Orkojoker
I see no reason to demand a certainty of rock-solid conclusions before we agree to put any effort toward analysis of whatever evidence we can scrape together.


I'm not saying you shouldn't analyze it. I'm pointing out there's a limit to how far it can be analyzed and that won't be enough to draw a conclusion. So it will ALWAYS be inconclusive. Which it should be, since there hasn't been a shred of proof of superior intelligent alien beings inside or even outside of our atmosphere. If there was proof that we were visited, say 100 years ago, then you can realistically say an unidentified object in a photograph or video could possibly be alien.


The Condon Report had some pretty thorough and interesting analysis and even some (less-than-conclusive) conclusions that warrant a look. For example, regarding the McMinnville photos:


I guess UFOs back then needed antennas on top to communicate with their home base? You never see "UFOs" today with antennas. Obviously they figured out how to communicate without large antennas in the last 50 years. Back then they also seemed to love the limelight with all those close-up shots. You don't see that anymore.


When I look at that photograph, that's what I see. Someone tossing an object in the sky and taking a photograph. Or someone hanging an object from a wire and taking a photograph. The chances that it's a hoax far outweigh an actual spacecraft. That's just a fact. You may be, but I'm not impressed by an analysis saying it could be a spacecraft by a "scientific" report or study. It doesn't make it anymore of a fact.



posted on Oct, 22 2012 @ 08:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ectoplasm8
I'm pointing out there's a limit to how far it can be analyzed and that won't be enough to draw a conclusion. So it will ALWAYS be inconclusive. Which it should be, since there hasn't been a shred of proof of superior intelligent alien beings inside or even outside of our atmosphere.


You're absolutely right, Ectoplasm8. Not a shred. It's interesting that you should feel the need to bring up "alien beings" in your replies to me. If you look at the multiple posts I've written in this thread, you'll notice that I haven't made that claim even once. In fact, much of what I've posted emphasizes the fact that we don't know what these things are. You've done a great job, however, refuting a position that was never taken. Nice work.



posted on Oct, 23 2012 @ 01:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Orkojoker
 



Originally posted by Orkojoker

Originally posted by Ectoplasm8
I'm pointing out there's a limit to how far it can be analyzed and that won't be enough to draw a conclusion. So it will ALWAYS be inconclusive. Which it should be, since there hasn't been a shred of proof of superior intelligent alien beings inside or even outside of our atmosphere.


You're absolutely right, Ectoplasm8. Not a shred. It's interesting that you should feel the need to bring up "alien beings" in your replies to me. If you look at the multiple posts I've written in this thread, you'll notice that I haven't made that claim even once. In fact, much of what I've posted emphasizes the fact that we don't know what these things are. You've done a great job, however, refuting a position that was never taken. Nice work.


Sarcasm, cute. You support the Extraterrestrial hypothesis (ETH):


The hypothesis that some unidentified flying objects (UFOs) are best explained as being extraterrestrial life or non-human aliens from other planets occupying physical spacecraft visiting Earth.


source

So you're saying that's not your belief anymore? If it is, it does have a connection to this thread and every other thread or post you make a comment in regarding UFOs. I am confused by you saying you "don't know what these things are", but then can go on to say you support the ETH. You're assuming about an assumption? I don't follow that type of thinking. But, that does seem to go inline with a lot of the UFO methodology. Not many facts are needed, only assumptions. So I guess you're entitled to compound assumptions on top of each other to have them come out as you want them in the UFO world.



posted on Oct, 23 2012 @ 08:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ectoplasm8

You support the Extraterrestrial hypothesis (ETH):


The hypothesis that some unidentified flying objects (UFOs) are best explained as being extraterrestrial life or non-human aliens from other planets occupying physical spacecraft visiting Earth.


source

So you're saying that's not your belief anymore? If it is, it does have a connection to this thread and every other thread or post you make a comment in regarding UFOs. I am confused by you saying you "don't know what these things are", but then can go on to say you support the ETH.


I guess you could say I "support" the ETH in the sense that I don't immediately dismiss it as ridiculous or impossible. It is one possible explanation for some of the reports, but I wouldn't say that I believe it to be true or even to be the best explanation. Frankly, I don't know what the best explanation might be. Everyone's thinking is not as black-and-white as you try to make it out to be. Intellectual honesty requires me to admit that I don't know what UFOs are. I'm not sure why that confuses you.
edit on 23-10-2012 by Orkojoker because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 23 2012 @ 08:29 AM
link   
reply to post by The Shrike
 




Until you experience UFOs in your reality you are going to even deny their existence and no matter what is offered as "evidence" it's the experience that makes your jump over the hurdle easy.


Lots of scientists that use the same multi dimensional "map" many of us have found while searching for UFO's.

We should be looking at cases like McKinnon and Jared LL to try and understand why people schiz out and lose their error correction algorithms at such low noise levels.




top topics



 
12
<< 1   >>

log in

join