'Do Your Homework Before Entering UFO Fray'

page: 1
35
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
+20 more 
posted on Nov, 29 2012 @ 08:08 AM
link   

"The definitive resolution of the UFO enigma will not come about unless and until the problem is subjected to open and extensive scientific study by the normal procedures of established science. This requires a change in attitude primarily on the part of scientists and administrators in universities."

Dr. Peter A. Sturrock, Professor of Space Science and Astrophysics and Deputy Director of the Center for Space Sciences and Astrophysics at Stanford University:

Rockefeller Briefing Document



Stanford Professor of Astrophysics Dr Peter A. Sturrock is a pretty well established and well respected scientist in the UFO field and has been involved with some great research over the years with his colleague Dr.Jacques Vallee and billionaire philanthropist Laurance Rockefeller - he also conducted some great work exposing the Condon report and revealed the 'huge disconnecton' between Dr Condon’s conclusions and the actual reports of the scientists who conducted the research (also how many of his final summaries were 'variously misleading, false or inaccurate').

In response to a debunking article published in APS Physics News, he provides some good advice in the letter below and presents six recommendations to physicists invited to take part in a discussion about the UFO phenomenon - perhaps the first one is the most relevant.



'Do Your Homework Before Entering UFO Fray'




The August/September 2002 issue of APS NEWS contains an interesting article by Lawrence Krauss that deals, in part, with his experience in participating in a debate on the problem posed by so-called UFO sightings. Since I have studied this problem for 30 years, I can perhaps offer supplementary advice coming from a different perspective.

Here are my recommendations to physicists invited to take part in such a discussion:



1. Either stay away completely or do your homework first. This is a very complex subject, and "doing your homework" will not be quick, easy or painless.


2. Do not imagine that training in physics provides you with any relevant credentials that enable you to pontificate on the problem. Expertise in forensic science would be another matter.


3. Read the Condon report from cover to cover preferably from back to front so that you can better judge the extent to which Condon's conclusions and recommendations follow from the work of his staff. (E.U. Condon, D.S. Gillmor, Scientific Study of UFOs, Bantam Books, 1969)


4. Learn something about the history of the subject. An excellent summary of the early days of the controversy can be found in The UFO Controversy in America by D.M. Jacobs (Indiana University Press, 1975).


5. You might also wish to learn what a nongovernmental scientific review panel had to say about the subject by perusing my own book, The UFO Enigma: A New Review of the Physical Evidence (Warner Books, 1999).


6. Finally, bear in mind that although most scientists treat this subject as a joke, the public does not, and we would do well to treat their concerns with respect.


APS Physics



There are also two relevant statements below made by Dr Sturrock where he brings up the subject of deeply embedded prejudice within the mainstream scientific community and the fact that many scientists have 'never had the occasion to confront evidence concerning the UFO phenomenon' - he also calls for the subject to be subjected to open and extensive scientific study.



"Most scientists have never had the occasion to confront evidence concerning the UFO phenomenon. To a scientist, the main source of hard information (other than his own experiments' observations) is provided by the scientific journals. With rare exceptions, scientific journals do not publish reports of UFO observations. The decision not to publish is made by the editor acting on the advice of reviewers. This process is self-reinforcing: the apparent lack of data confirms the view that there is nothing to the UFO phenomenon, and this view (prejudice) works against the presentation of relevant data."
Peter A. Sturrock, "An Analysis of the Condon Report on the Colorado UFO Project," Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol.1, No.1, 1987


"The definitive resolution of the UFO enigma will not come about unless and until the problem is subjected to open and extensive scientific study by the normal procedures of established science.
In their public statements (but not necessarily in their private statements), scientists express a generally negative attitude towards the UFO problem, and it is interesting to try to understand this attitude. Most scientists have never had the occasion to confront evidence concerning the UFO phenomenon.”
Dr. Peter A. Sturrock, Professor of Space Science and Astrophysics and Deputy Director of the Center for Space Sciences and Astrophysics at Stanford University (Survey of American Astronomical Society)



Don't know how many folks agree with Dr Sturrock but there's also a few statements and links in this thread explaining how the statistical conclusions of the Condon report should 'arouse sufficient scientific curiosity to continue UFO study' - there's also plenty of reasons to be highly skeptical of official unexplained report percentages and serious questions raised about the objectivity and active agenda of government sponsored investigations into the UFO subject.


Links:

Memoirs of a Dissident Scientist - Peter A. Sturrock
SCIENCE and the UFO CONTROVERSY




posted on Nov, 29 2012 @ 08:57 AM
link   
reply to post by karl 12
 





6. Finally, bear in mind that although most scientists treat this subject as a joke, the public does not, and we would do well to treat their concerns with respect.



Best thought I've heard in years.



posted on Nov, 29 2012 @ 09:41 AM
link   
reply to post by karl 12
 





there's also plenty of reasons to be highly skeptical of official unexplained report percentages and serious questions raised about the objectivity and active agenda of government sponsored investigations into the UFO subject.


To me, ^ this is why we can expect no help from the scientific community.

Most scientific endeavors are funded and controlled by the government, which means the science community is at the mercy of a bureaucracy that has already been paid off or silenced because of "national security."

Plus, the government will try and pass of Project Blue Book as their scientific study into UFOs ...... and it all turned out exactly how we knew it would.... a big lie.
edit on 29-11-2012 by dplum517 because: typo



posted on Nov, 29 2012 @ 09:47 AM
link   
reply to post by karl 12
 


UFO's, and other strange stuff originally brought me here to ATS. Even though I rarely stray when replying from the forums that I am familier with.

So many links to look at concerning UFO's and other things...is that considered research, or just a curious mind?

I believe that we are not alone, but am always looking for proof.
edit on 29-11-2012 by TDawgRex because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 29 2012 @ 11:56 AM
link   
Another great and important post Karl 12.

Especially the advice to read up on the history and the deep thinking from such folks as Vallee, Sturrock, Haines, Sanderson, Hynek, Hill, Hall, Hastings, Feindt, Druffel, Chalker, Schroeder et al....and of course all the early studies, Sign, Grudge, Blue Book, Condon, McDonald's testimony before Congress--all this material is mandatory for the 'Ufology 101' course.

Prerequisites would include critical thinking and logic, statistics, a strong science background, especially in the biological branches, mythology, anthropology, Jungian psychology, familiarity with psychiatric and sleep disorders, everything we know about perception, just mention a few.

Dang, the more I study, the farther behind I get (sigh).



posted on Nov, 29 2012 @ 12:13 PM
link   
reply to post by TDawgRex
 





So many links to look at concerning UFO's and other things...is that considered research, or just a curious mind?


I'd say it starts out as a curious mind.

And if you pursue that curiosity then it will slowly develop into research.

A few links will lead you too some names and authors which might take you down to your local library or perhaps the Amazon store if it has enough credibility.

Then, all that turns into you actually looking up at the sky and observing.

Eventually you start to collect information and organize it to your liking.

At this point.... you have done just as much research as someone would do for a High School/College research project.



posted on Nov, 29 2012 @ 12:38 PM
link   
reply to post by dplum517
 


Yep, that's the way I look at it myself. Life interupts my search.

But I am always looking up at the sky and have seen many unexplained things. I just didn't have a camera on hand to record them.

Like I said, I want to believe, but feel like a newb concerning this subject, so I observe and read.



posted on Nov, 29 2012 @ 01:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by dplum517
reply to post by karl 12
 





there's also plenty of reasons to be highly skeptical of official unexplained report percentages and serious questions raised about the objectivity and active agenda of government sponsored investigations into the UFO subject.


To me, ^ this is why we can expect no help from the scientific community.

Most scientific endeavors are funded and controlled by the government, which means the science community is at the mercy of a bureaucracy that has already been paid off or silenced because of "national security."

Plus, the government will try and pass of Project Blue Book as their scientific study into UFOs ...... and it all turned out exactly how we knew it would.... a big lie.
edit on 29-11-2012 by dplum517 because: typo


So the private sector doesn't do any scientific research? What are you basing your assumption on that the government funds 'most' scientific endeavors?



posted on Nov, 29 2012 @ 01:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by gguyx
Another great and important post Karl 12.

Especially the advice to read up on the history and the deep thinking from such folks as Vallee, Sturrock, Haines, Sanderson, Hynek, Hill, Hall, Hastings, Feindt, Druffel, Chalker, Schroeder et al....and of course all the early studies, Sign, Grudge, Blue Book, Condon, McDonald's testimony before Congress--all this material is mandatory for the 'Ufology 101' course.

Prerequisites would include critical thinking and logic, statistics, a strong science background, especially in the biological branches, mythology, anthropology, Jungian psychology, familiarity with psychiatric and sleep disorders, everything we know about perception, just mention a few.

Dang, the more I study, the farther behind I get (sigh).



I know the feeling and I couldn't have stated it better. Especially the points of your second paragraph.



posted on Nov, 29 2012 @ 01:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Slave2Fate
 





So the private sector doesn't do any scientific research? What are you basing your assumption on that the government funds 'most' scientific endeavors?


Of course the private sector does scientific research. But most of that is driven by profits. What profit would come from a group of scientists looking to study UFOs on a large scale?

I was more so referring to government funded studies like the ones done at Universities.

-Like Monsanto giving grants to the University of Illinois and it's Agriculture department. We can say .... Monsanto is a private company, this is true, but many executives are also members of the Department of Agriculture or the FDA.... so they are indeed in bed with each other.

-Also, look at how many grants have been given to the University of Colorado to study things like the Atmosphere and Plane Trails.

-We can also say that all the science done at JPL in the skunk works is on behalf of the government....even though it's a private company. All that science is under the blanket of a security clearance.

So lets say we get a private group of scientists to study UFOs on behalf of the public and is funded by us, the public. At a certain point..... the study group would run into road blocks setup by government agencies.
edit on 29-11-2012 by dplum517 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 29 2012 @ 03:20 PM
link   
reply to post by karl 12
 


I notice your thread hasn't gotten that much attention.... you know why?

You're probably telling people something they don't want to hear...especially on the debunker side of things.

A few members who frequent this forum could stand to take this advice.... *cough cough* ..Drucsilla



posted on Nov, 29 2012 @ 04:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by dplum517
reply to post by karl 12
 


I notice your thread hasn't gotten that much attention.... you know why?

You're probably telling people something they don't want to hear...especially on the debunker side of things.

A few members who frequent this forum could stand to take this advice.... *cough cough* ..Drucsilla


What's there to talk about really? More words to support a hypothesis that has an irrationally high ratio of words to evidence to begin with? Not my cup of tea thanks, I'll keep my eyes open for something a little more tangible.



posted on Nov, 29 2012 @ 04:52 PM
link   
Nice thread, karl12.

Scientific study--is that the study of existing reports, all of which have unanswered questions that weren’t investigated when the investigating was good? In the case of the Mariana film nobody asked the F-94 pilots if they had their lights on, in the Phoenix Lights case nobody filed FOIA requests for FAA and weather radar data, in the O’Hare case people were taking photos but nobody took charge and established a chain of evidence. It’s like that for virtually every case, even those considered extremely well documented. So if scientific study is a matter of studying previous cases, the issue of missing bits of data comes up very quickly. This happens not only in the UFO field. The blueprints for the Apollo hardware no longer exist, which means that a project that requires a high level of detail would entail a lot of conjecture. Three sources (the manufacturer, the Smithsonian, and Wikipedia) give different sets of dimensions for SpaceShipOne, which still exists. Which source, if any, is correct? A project to study almost anything in great detail would soon reveal a lack of sufficient data for proper scientific study. In order to proceed, one would expect to have to bring the object into the laboratory for detailed measurements, assays, performance tests, etc.

I am working on a system for gathering hard data on UFOs. It’s not up and running yet. That aside, in sighting cases even today some of the most important pieces of information are missing. Suppose you have a sighting that just came in today with multiple (some excellent) witnesses on the ground. Will investigators ask all the right questions? Will they go out and survey each location where a witness stood, asking him/her to point to the spot in the sky where the object was seen, then compile a map? Will they file FOIA requests for FAA and weather radar data? Will any physical trace evidence be subjected to proper laboratory tests? Do all that with the next 1,000 cases and then you can attempt a scientific study of those cases. The best studies of existing cases so far haven’t gotten the mainstream media screaming for disclosure but instead are pretty much shrugged off. Astrophysicist Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson gave an answer on TV of what would make scientists pay attention: "Next time you're abducted, steal an ashtray."

Then there’s the infamous UFO Curse, by Philip J. Klass

No matter how long you live, you will never know any more about UFOs than you know today. You will never know any more about what UFOs really are or where they come from. You will never know any more about what the U.S. Government really knows about UFOs than you know today. As you lie on your own deathbed you will be as mystified about UFOs as you are today. And you will remember this curse.


edit on 29-11-2012 by xpoq47 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 29 2012 @ 05:12 PM
link   
reply to post by karl 12
 


I've posted this before I think,but here was a man that studied UFO's and when he presented his evidence to a peer review was not only not laughed at,but they took the subject very seriously.
en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Nov, 29 2012 @ 05:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Slave2Fate
I'll keep my eyes open for something a little more tangible.


This is the most important thing you can do. It's really hard to convince someone the phenomena is real when they haven't seen it for themselves. Once you do see it, you'll know something incredibly strange is going on. But if you aren't actively seeking personal proof, odds are you will never be convinced, because it doesn't seem like the phenomena wants to Disclose itself in a mainstream way, and so the "proof" most people are looking for may never come about.



posted on Nov, 29 2012 @ 08:46 PM
link   
The reason most scientists and physicists stay away from UFO research is because they fear of being ostracized by the scientific community. You can thank our government for the stigma connected to UFO sightings, since they started the campaign a long time ago of labeling people who witnessed or had incidents related to UFO's as crazy. This has been going on since the Roswell incident and Project Blue Book. Is it just a coincidence that reporters will always smirk or joke when a sighting has taken place? They have no facts to accept witness reports as just plain nonsense, yet they will continually report it with tongue and cheek.

Ask any pilot if they feel comfortable about reporting unidentified objects to the FAA. They fear their jobs would be in jeopardy if they reported such things. The Phoenix lights is another example of how a mass sighting was quickly ridiculed by the governor of that state, but later he relinquishes his comments stating that he was never satisfied with the governments explanation that they were high altitude flares.



posted on Nov, 29 2012 @ 09:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by OMsk3ptic

Originally posted by Slave2Fate
I'll keep my eyes open for something a little more tangible.


This is the most important thing you can do. It's really hard to convince someone the phenomena is real when they haven't seen it for themselves. Once you do see it, you'll know something incredibly strange is going on. But if you aren't actively seeking personal proof, odds are you will never be convinced, because it doesn't seem like the phenomena wants to Disclose itself in a mainstream way, and so the "proof" most people are looking for may never come about.


Yea, and once youve beheld it you have the luxurious condition of seeing all info pro and con from under the lamp of reality.



posted on Nov, 29 2012 @ 11:52 PM
link   
Great thread I wish there were more scientists like this man, and it is true that the scientific community and the government largly ignore the publics concern for UFOs. I know this for a fact, because when talking to people at school many of them believe that we are not alone and wish to know the answer. If only a member of ATS with a lot of money would be kind enough to fund a private project lol. Good job.



posted on Nov, 29 2012 @ 11:56 PM
link   
Same here. Life does interrupt my search so all I can do is watch and read. The problem is that scientists should always be looking and now a days they're not.



posted on Nov, 30 2012 @ 12:10 AM
link   
reply to post by karl 12
 


Lol anything from Rockefeller is cabal #. Come on everyone on sites like this surely know they are real sick of these posts





top topics
 
35
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join