'Do Your Homework Before Entering UFO Fray'

page: 3
35
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 2 2012 @ 10:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by karl 12

reply to post by booNyzarC
 

Hola Boonster, how the Dickens are you mate - good to see you on ATS.


Don't know if you've seen this cheeky clip but thought Dr Hynek did a good job of summing up the Condon report.

Video

Cheers.


Thanks karl, I'm doing well, and thanks for the video link. I hadn't seen that particular interview before, though I'm familiar with Hynek's opinions about the Condon report. Hykek did go through different 'phases' throughout his career, and seemed to take an honest and dedicated approach to the subject. Ultimately though, I think he reached the conclusion the phenomenon was unlikely to consist in nuts and bolts craft, and that we should start looking closer to home for answers instead of trying to shoehorn the ETH as an answer.

It is notable that he ended up visiting Hessdalen near the end of his life, where scientific research into atmospheric plasmas which exhibit many of the same characteristics reported by UFO witnesses was taking place. I think he may have been on the verge of discovering and understanding one of the more likely 'closer to home' answers for the UFO enigma in general.

Cheers Karl. Take care my friend.




posted on Dec, 2 2012 @ 11:00 AM
link   
Nice thread there Karl


UFO's have been a huge interest for as long as I can remember and the UFO/Alien forum is the main reason I finally decided to join ATS. I read anything i can find on UFOs be it documents or personal accounts. I also love to watch documentaries on the topic as well. I think many are explainable and then there are those that just aren't as easily explained no matter what.

I agree with this guy. I tend to get frustrated with people who want to debate UFOs/aliens esp when they have never done any research into the topic. How can you have an argument or debate with someone who hasn't even looked into the topic or done their "homework." It's pretty hard because no matter what you show them they will deny it and call it fantasy or a lie or a chinese lantern for that matter. I have learned to just not deal with those people anymore. No sense in wasting my breath when they won't even try. I am not trying to convince anyone but don't come into a topic you know zero about and call me crazy when I've spent years researching the topic. It's kind of insulting.

Many skeptics discredit UFO researchers because they don't have fancy credentials or a fancy title after their name or they dismiss them as delusional or crazy. Well to me someone who has spent years on the subject researching it is someone I'd rather listen to than someone with some fancy title and no research on the topic.

I also enjoy former military, NASA and aerospace workers because they have interesting stories and experiences. I dont discredit them because coming out and saying you saw a UFO in public takes a lot of guts and many have suffered consequences for doing so. Do I think some make it up? Yes but I think the majority are being honest and just want to share their experiences. I think the ones who are "charlatans" as people call them on here ruin it for those who are serious UFO researchers.

Thanks for this thread! I will have to look into this guys work some more. I like how he thinks from what I've read so far.





posted on Dec, 2 2012 @ 11:09 AM
link   
Then, again, there's the actual witnessing and experiencing that takes place during an abduction, while being wide awake.

On the other hand, we have some scientists concentrating on finding other dimensions. Now why would these nuclear scientists even toy with the thought that other dimensions exist?

Quote: High-energy experiments could prise open the inconspicuous dimensions just enough to allow particles to move between the normal 3D world and other dimensions. This could be manifest in the sudden disappearance of a particle into a hidden dimension, or the unexpected appearance of a particle in an experiment. Who knows where such a discovery could lead!

public.web.cern.ch...



posted on Dec, 2 2012 @ 11:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Thunda
reply to post by Ectoplasm8
 


I think you are attempting to play down Hyneks beliefs towards the existence and origins of the UFO phenomenon.
...
Finally he introduced a third hypothesis. "I hold it entirely possible," he said, "that a technology exists, which encompasses both the physical and the psychic, the material and the mental. There are stars that are millions of years older than the sun. There may be a civilization that is millions of years more advanced than man's. We have gone from Kitty Hawk to the moon in some seventy years, but it's possible that a million-year-old civilization may know something that we don't ... I hypothesize an 'M&M' technology encompassing the mental and material realms. The psychic realms, so mysterious to us today, may be an ordinary part of an advanced technology."

Hardly the views of someone who had written off the possibility of ET involvement in the UFO phenomenon.


Ectoplasm's avatar of Feynman reminded me of something. When I was an undergrad, Feynman gave a lecture that seemed (to me) to imply that thought/computation - regardless of the machinery - has physical properties. So there is an example of Hynek's idea connecting mental and material.

I've been thinking about this question of how the U.S. government would study UFOs (if Obama would ask me). I think UFOs are too far beyond our understanding of reality to study today. That's why ufology seems to be going nowhere. So I think the CIA made the right choice when they stepped back from any attempt to understand the cause of UFO reports and focused on marginalizing the topic. (Of course the Robertson Panel is an example of scientists making policy on UFOs without doing their homework. I'm currently reading "UFOs and Government" by Swords and Powell and there is a great chapter on that topic.)

So it doesn't matter if scientists do their homework on UFOs. Let them laugh at believers like me and go back to their particle accelerators. But eventually some skeptical physicist will figure out a solution for basic physics and realize that it also solves UFOs.



posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 12:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by WeRpeons
The reason most scientists and physicists stay away from UFO research is because they fear of being ostracized by the scientific community.


Well, then there's also the problem of acquiring reliable data, or making any useful testable hypotheses based on known theoretical principles. In other words, everything related to actually doing science.

Research, in its normal form, isn't really possible.



posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 06:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ectoplasm8

You cite these quotes making a point that the subject needs to be taken seriously and studied,


Yes, indeed I do.

The UFO subject should be taken very seriously and the widespread (and conditioned?) belief that 'UFOs are just a silly nonsense' is complete bullsh*t (IMHO).

Do you think the UFO subject is just a silly nonsense?

Here's a relevant report from NICAP's Richard Hall discussing deeply embedded misconceptions within mainstream science - he also helped compile the UFO Evidence Report found HERE.




THE SCIENCE OF UFOs: FACTS VS. STEREOTYPES


Stereotypes die hard. The myth among scientists that UFOs are a "nonsense problem" without any substance was firmly established more than 50 years ago and persists until this day.


Among the deeply embedded misconceptions of scientists are:


*UFOs are nothing but vague fleeting lights seen at night,


*No trained or experienced observers have reported truly puzzling UFOs,


*UFOs are prosaic objects or phenomena that are converted into spaceships by "believers,"


*A religious-like "will to believe" in salvation from the outside drives the entire UFO phenomenon, and


*Nothing of substance has been reported that science could investigate even if it wanted to.


These notions all are demonstrably false. They are "psychological road-blocks" that need to be cleared away so that discovery of UFOs can proceed. The cases used as illustrations in this report are chosen partly to refute the stereotypes and partly to show the recurring patterns and observational details, with special emphasis on the numerous areas of potential scientific research that would be possible if UFOs were accepted as a real phenomenon and funding were available.


Link




Originally posted by Ectoplasm8

yet at the same time showing the phenomena has in fact has been studied. Studied by qualified scientists in the field of astronomy, astrophysics, physics, etc.


If you're referring to U.S. Government sponsored UFO studies then do you not think there are some pretty good reasons to believe they weren't very scientific (or objective) in the first place?

Bluebook UFO figures have been described as 'a travesty on the branch of mathematics known as statistics' and quite a number of their explanations for UFO incidents are an absolute joke; the Roberson panel weren't even given access to many of the truly puzzling cases and only took five days to arrive at their conclusions (which were already premeditated by the CIA one year before) and the Chief Scientist of the Condon report never investigated a single UFO case and wrote the summary and conclusions section without even bothering to read the contents of his own report.

Despite this official actual unknown UFO reports are pretty high (about 30%) and came from 'competent observers which contained reasonable amounts of data' - it's also been stated that 'the better the quality of the sighting report, the more likely it was unexplainable' and that 'UNKNOWNS were observed for longer than KNOWNS' - it also now also looks like that about 30 or 40 per cent of Bluebook cases (about 4,000) may have been 'miscategorized' by the USAF as 'identified' and the true number of credible cases grossly underestimated.



Originally posted by Ectoplasm8

To what conclusion though?


SEPRA (formerly GEPAN) conducted a pretty interesting and extensive scientific study on the UFO subject, their conclusion being:



"..there are now sufficient material evidences that some ufos are flying machines driven by an intelligence and having flight characteristics that today's human technology is far from reaching".


link


..but if you're after unequivocable proof as to the true nature of UFOs then (as of yet) there is none.

The scientific method is the best tool we have though - I wonder what alternative do you think we should use?



Originally posted by Ectoplasm8

there is no conclusion because a lack of physical evidence that can be studied. You can pull every scientists off their job to study UFOs and you will get the same conclusion. Assumptions and hypothesis. Until that one piece of physical evidence shows up, it will always be an assumption.


As far as evaluations go, do you think the term 'inconclusive' is unusual in scientific investigation?

A friend posted on another board that if non human tech is flying around in our skies then 'good honest research will eventually determine that' so what do you find so objectionable about ongoing objective research?

Cheers.



posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 11:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thunda
reply to post by Ectoplasm8
 


I think you are attempting to play down Hyneks beliefs towards the existence and origins of the UFO phenomenon.

In the linked video, he completely slates the Condon report, calling it a 'travesty on science', and pointing out that not only did Condon not personally investigate 1 case, but wrote the summary ignoring the 1/4 of the studied cases coming back as unexplained.


His comment about the Condon Report was to the lack study of the actual phenomenon, not the source of that phenomenon.


Yes, he did indeed say the quotes you highlight, but he also said "There is sufficient evidence to defend both the ETI and the EDI hypothesis." and, as evidence for the ETI (extraterrestrial intelligence) he mentioned, as examples, the radar cases as good evidence of something solid, and the physical-trace cases. Then he turned to defending the EDI (extradimensional intelligence) hypothesis.

Besides the aspect of materialization and dematerialization he cited the "poltergeist" phenomenon experienced by some people after a close encounter; the photographs of UFOs, some times on only one frame, not seen by the witnesses; the changing form right before the witnesses' eyes; the puzzling question of telepathic communication; or that in close encounters of the third kind the creatures seem to be at home in earth's gravity and atmosphere; the sudden stillness in the presence of the craft; levitation of cars or persons; the development by some of psychic abilities after an encounter. "Do we have two aspects of one phenomenon or two different sets of phenomena?" Hynek asked

Finally he introduced a third hypothesis. "I hold it entirely possible," he said, "that a technology exists, which encompasses both the physical and the psychic, the material and the mental. There are stars that are millions of years older than the sun. There may be a civilization that is millions of years more advanced than man's. We have gone from Kitty Hawk to the moon in some seventy years, but it's possible that a million-year-old civilization may know something that we don't ... I hypothesize an 'M&M' technology encompassing the mental and material realms. The psychic realms, so mysterious to us today, may be an ordinary part of an advanced technology."

Hardly the views of someone who had written off the possibility of ET involvement in the UFO phenomenon.


You make the mistake that many here do in reference to Hynek. They selectively quote what fits into their way of thinking, from years before, without taking in account the totality of his views after 60+ years of study. Like I mentioned, in 1983 at a MUFON symposium a few years before his death, he expressed his renewed views of the UFO phenomenon related to alien involvement. He however kept the view that the phenomenon of UFOs themselves should be seriously studied.

In a TV interview with Tom Synder in the early 80's, he states:
"In the public eye, UFOs are synonymous with little green men from outer space. That's putting the cart before the horse. What we are studying at the Center for UFOs Studies in Evanston are the properties of a phenomenon."
Clearly, his focus was on the unidentified objects and not if they were alien.
In the same interview, Synder goes on to say: "Part of the problem with the whole perception business with UFOs is... Number one, you said we're putting the cart before the horse..rather than indentify what the objects are, we're trying to guess what's inside the objects." To which Hynek agrees.

Video

If people are going to use Hynek quotes as part of their support system as far as alien involvement, they need to understand the entirety of his belief and not just pull selected quotes from 30+ years ago. My main point is that I find it silly using someone like Hynek, as validity to a belief that UFOs are intelligently controlled by aliens. All you're quoting are assumptions by someone that has studied the phenomenon through videos/photos/interviews to his best ability still without a conclusive result. Posting quotes doesn't make the point anymore valid in lieu of the proof that's needed. So, I don't understand the continuous need to do so.



posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 02:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by mbkennel

Research, in its normal form, isn't really possible.


There already exists quite a bit of scientific research into the UFO phenomenon - Martin Shough has conducted some great work on the radar confirmation aspects of the Minot Air Force Base UFO incident in 1968,


link


a scientific analysis of the radar data from the Stephenville UFO Incident is linked in Kandinsky's thread here..


link


.and NARCAP's Richard Haines has also conducted scientific research on electromagnetic interference effects experienced the same time UFOs have been witnessed near aircraft.


link


When it comes to scientific speculation, NASA aerodynamicist Paul Hill has done some great work here and James M. McCampbell's book 'Ufology' is definitely worth a look.


link


Information is still classified about the Tehran incident from 1976 but apparently the Pentagon thought the case was a classic which "met all the criteria necessary for a valid study of the UFO phenomenon" (too bad we'll never find out if they conducted one).


link


Cheers.



posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 08:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ectoplasm8
You make the mistake that many here do in reference to Hynek. They selectively quote what fits into their way of thinking, from years before, without taking in account the totality of his views after 60+ years of study. Like I mentioned, in 1983 at a MUFON symposium a few years before his death, he expressed his renewed views of the UFO phenomenon related to alien involvement. He however kept the view that the phenomenon of UFOs themselves should be seriously studied.

In a TV interview with Tom Synder in the early 80's, he states:
"In the public eye, UFOs are synonymous with little green men from outer space. That's putting the cart before the horse. What we are studying at the Center for UFOs Studies in Evanston are the properties of a phenomenon."
Clearly, his focus was on the unidentified objects and not if they were alien.
In the same interview, Synder goes on to say: "Part of the problem with the whole perception business with UFOs is... Number one, you said we're putting the cart before the horse..rather than indentify what the objects are, we're trying to guess what's inside the objects." To which Hynek agrees.
Video

If people are going to use Hynek quotes as part of their support system as far as alien involvement, they need to understand the entirety of his belief and not just pull selected quotes from 30+ years ago. My main point is that I find it silly using someone like Hynek, as validity to a belief that UFOs are intelligently controlled by aliens. All you're quoting are assumptions by someone that has studied the phenomenon through videos/photos/interviews to his best ability still without a conclusive result. Posting quotes doesn't make the point anymore valid in lieu of the proof that's needed. So, I don't understand the continuous need to do so.


You appear to have missed the point of Hynek's comment in the Tom Synder interview. It should be clear that what Hynek was trying to achieve in that interview was to preempt the deeply embedded psychosocial prejudice that automatically links UFOs with aliens. You see this same psychological pattern / compulsion with many "skeptics" on this board. Whenever the topic of UFOs comes up, they immediately disregard it by sneaking in this idea of aliens. Hynek was acutely aware of this type of thinking, especially in regard to the negative impact it has on the social perception of the study of UFOs.

Listen to Hynek's quote again and take note that he never said that aliens were not linked to UFOs (nor did he say that they were linked to UFOs). He did, however, advise against putting "the cart before the horse". In other words, he's expressing his views on the meta-thinking that takes place regarding the subject, and certainly not making a comment about his final views as to whether or not UFOs and aliens are linked. And there is certainly no proof in this interview that he had suddenly changed his fundamental views on that subject. If that's your understanding, then I would suggest that you're projecting your own desired views onto what he is saying. Again, notice that he's not saying that UFOs and aliens are not linked, just that in order to study UFOs, one need not at this point talk about aliens.

On the other hand, Hynek's "The Case Against E.T." talk does make clear his strongest counter-arguments to the ETH, which is what you'd simply expect from a careful thinker and a true skeptic - always carefully weighing both sides of the argument, and attempting to create the strongest possible argument from either side prior to weighing them against one another.

So in "The Case Against E.T.," Hynek is providing a series of concerns that the ETH will have to deal with (and note that he's not even addressing the EDH) - things like the astronomical distances traversed to and from the closest neighboring star system, their apparent ability to instantaneously cloak themselves and the bizarre behavior of the alleged occupants. I hope you can see that these are hardly intractable problems for the ETH, and one would be very surprised if he would have viewed them as such. What he is doing is cataloging the counterarguments to the ETH. He is not stating that he does not believe the ETH.

In short, be careful not to interpret Hynek's quotes as indicating that he didn't believe in the ETH or EDH. He was simply raising the standard issues that the ETH would have to deal with. There is no reason to believe that he thought either the ETH or the EDH were totally implausible. These comments that you are pointing out were not the comments of a man who had given up on the ETH. They were the comments of a man who wanted people to think clearly about the UFO phenomenon.



posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 05:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Brighter

Originally posted by Ectoplasm8
You make the mistake that many here do in reference to Hynek. They selectively quote what fits into their way of thinking, from years before, without taking in account the totality of his views after 60+ years of study. Like I mentioned, in 1983 at a MUFON symposium a few years before his death, he expressed his renewed views of the UFO phenomenon related to alien involvement. He however kept the view that the phenomenon of UFOs themselves should be seriously studied.

In a TV interview with Tom Synder in the early 80's, he states:
"In the public eye, UFOs are synonymous with little green men from outer space. That's putting the cart before the horse. What we are studying at the Center for UFOs Studies in Evanston are the properties of a phenomenon."
Clearly, his focus was on the unidentified objects and not if they were alien.
In the same interview, Synder goes on to say: "Part of the problem with the whole perception business with UFOs is... Number one, you said we're putting the cart before the horse..rather than indentify what the objects are, we're trying to guess what's inside the objects." To which Hynek agrees.
Video

If people are going to use Hynek quotes as part of their support system as far as alien involvement, they need to understand the entirety of his belief and not just pull selected quotes from 30+ years ago. My main point is that I find it silly using someone like Hynek, as validity to a belief that UFOs are intelligently controlled by aliens. All you're quoting are assumptions by someone that has studied the phenomenon through videos/photos/interviews to his best ability still without a conclusive result. Posting quotes doesn't make the point anymore valid in lieu of the proof that's needed. So, I don't understand the continuous need to do so.


You appear to have missed the point of Hynek's comment in the Tom Synder interview. It should be clear that what Hynek was trying to achieve in that interview was to preempt the deeply embedded psychosocial prejudice that automatically links UFOs with aliens. You see this same psychological pattern / compulsion with many "skeptics" on this board. Whenever the topic of UFOs comes up, they immediately disregard it by sneaking in this idea of aliens. Hynek was acutely aware of this type of thinking, especially in regard to the negative impact it has on the social perception of the study of UFOs.

Listen to Hynek's quote again and take note that he never said that aliens were not linked to UFOs (nor did he say that they were linked to UFOs). He did, however, advise against putting "the cart before the horse". In other words, he's expressing his views on the meta-thinking that takes place regarding the subject, and certainly not making a comment about his final views as to whether or not UFOs and aliens are linked. And there is certainly no proof in this interview that he had suddenly changed his fundamental views on that subject. If that's your understanding, then I would suggest that you're projecting your own desired views onto what he is saying. Again, notice that he's not saying that UFOs and aliens are not linked, just that in order to study UFOs, one need not at this point talk about aliens.

On the other hand, Hynek's "The Case Against E.T." talk does make clear his strongest counter-arguments to the ETH, which is what you'd simply expect from a careful thinker and a true skeptic - always carefully weighing both sides of the argument, and attempting to create the strongest possible argument from either side prior to weighing them against one another.

So in "The Case Against E.T.," Hynek is providing a series of concerns that the ETH will have to deal with (and note that he's not even addressing the EDH) - things like the astronomical distances traversed to and from the closest neighboring star system, their apparent ability to instantaneously cloak themselves and the bizarre behavior of the alleged occupants. I hope you can see that these are hardly intractable problems for the ETH, and one would be very surprised if he would have viewed them as such. What he is doing is cataloging the counterarguments to the ETH. He is not stating that he does not believe the ETH.

In short, be careful not to interpret Hynek's quotes as indicating that he didn't believe in the ETH or EDH. He was simply raising the standard issues that the ETH would have to deal with. There is no reason to believe that he thought either the ETH or the EDH were totally implausible. These comments that you are pointing out were not the comments of a man who had given up on the ETH. They were the comments of a man who wanted people to think clearly about the UFO phenomenon.


Hynek didn't give an ambivalent speech where you could misinterpret what he said. He retracted his earlier statements by not only stating so, but giving actual point by point reasons. Completely different than his initial views that he had years ago. He did this in front of what more than likely were a group of people that believe in alien involvement. So, he obviously was making a point with his statement. The Tom Synder interview just verbally confirms that he no longer considered what was inside, but what the phenomenon actually is. Combining the two, you can see his belief had changed. You're choosing to interpet what he said into what fits into most members view of ET/UFOs by trying to combine his past quotes with his most recent and assuming what he meant. I'm going purely off what he said before he died.

The bottom line is, that it doesn't matter if Hynek, or any scientist, gives their opinion on what is piloting "UFOs". They could study every single case that has been reported and come up with a hypothesis. It doesn't make that hypothesis any more of a realistic answer than if you or I gave our opinion. It doesn't because of the fact in the decades of reports, not a single piece of evidence has surfaced and confirmed to be from an alien source. So all of these "professional" or "scientific" quotes that people repeatedly post here show nothing more than another persons opinion. It's silly to think it gives more validity to the case of alien involvement with UFOs.



posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 11:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ectoplasm8
Hynek didn't give an ambivalent speech where you could misinterpret what he said. He retracted his earlier statements by not only stating so, but giving actual point by point reasons. Completely different than his initial views that he had years ago. He did this in front of what more than likely were a group of people that believe in alien involvement. So, he obviously was making a point with his statement. The Tom Synder interview just verbally confirms that he no longer considered what was inside, but what the phenomenon actually is. Combining the two, you can see his belief had changed. You're choosing to interpet what he said into what fits into most members view of ET/UFOs by trying to combine his past quotes with his most recent and assuming what he meant. I'm going purely off what he said before he died.


I actually ran out of time this morning and couldn't finish my thought.

What I wanted to point out was that this skepticism of Hynek's regarding the ETH was actually part of his more general turn towards the IDH/EDH, as Thunda suggested. As you know, Hynek in his later years co-authored, along with Vallee, "The Edge of Reality," in which they espouse the IDH/EDH. So although you seem to want to believe that Hynek had somehow thrown out the idea of these craft being controlled by non-human intelligences (by focusing solely on his later skepticism of the ETH), one can see how his skepticism of the ETH is what leads him to the IDH/EDH.

And to reiterate, I don't think that Hynek's skepticism of the ETH suggests that he had completely disregarded the idea (as you seem to think). In fact, if he were alive today and endowed with our current perspective, there is reason to believe that he would have responded to his own objections to the ETH along the same lines as Michael Swords does on pp. 575-582 of his "Ufology: What Have We Learned?".

Looking back at your reply to Thunda, it appears as though you're completely ignoring Hynek's investment in the IDH/EDH. You're accusing Thunda of selectively quoting Hynek in order to fit a belief. But by all accounts, and anyone can see this, you continually ignore the fact that Hynek was a proponent of the IDH/EDH. One could easily argue that this is because you're trying to ignore one of Hynek's core beliefs in order to fit your own.


Originally posted by Ectoplasm8
The bottom line is, that it doesn't matter if Hynek, or any scientist, gives their opinion on what is piloting "UFOs". They could study every single case that has been reported and come up with a hypothesis. It doesn't make that hypothesis any more of a realistic answer than if you or I gave our opinion. It doesn't because of the fact in the decades of reports, not a single piece of evidence has surfaced and confirmed to be from an alien source. So all of these "professional" or "scientific" quotes that people repeatedly post here show nothing more than another persons opinion. It's silly to think it gives more validity to the case of alien involvement with UFOs.


Actually, it does matter. There seems to be this feel-good belief nowadays that everyone's opinion is just as good as the other. Unfortunately, it's not true. Some people are born with greater abilities than others, have had a better education, better training, exposure, etc. And if anyone on earth at the time was in a position to expound on the possible origins of UFOs, then Hynek would be at the top of the list.

You point out that "not a single piece of evidence has surfaced and confirmed to be from an alien source". This is of course true, but you seem to want to imply that this means that the entire line of inquiry is pointless. But this is precisely the kind of black and white thinking that I've mentioned elsewhere that seems to be a staple of "popular skepticism". But a true skeptic wouldn't give up so easily. Given the reality of UFOs, and given the lack of absolute, confirmed evidence regarding their origin, instead of stopping the inquiry there (which would strongly imply a prejudice towards either an alien or mundane origin), it is necessary to seriously consider possible explanations that are compatible with the general characteristics of UFOs. There is admittedly a large set of possible explanations that are compatible with our knowledge of UFOs, but that doesn't stop us from making conscious and careful initial assumptions that slowly whittle down that initially large set. This is a realm of plausibilities, not confirmed realities, yet this is all we have recourse to, as rational people unfettered by cultural or intellectual biases, at this point in time.
edit on 4-12-2012 by Brighter because: (no reason given)
edit on 4-12-2012 by Brighter because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 6 2012 @ 12:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Brighter
 



Originally posted by Brighter

I actually ran out of time this morning and couldn't finish my thought.

What I wanted to point out was that this skepticism of Hynek's regarding the ETH was actually part of his more general turn towards the IDH/EDH, as Thunda suggested. As you know, Hynek in his later years co-authored, along with Vallee, "The Edge of Reality," in which they espouse the IDH/EDH. So although you seem to want to believe that Hynek had somehow thrown out the idea of these craft being controlled by non-human intelligences (by focusing solely on his later skepticism of the ETH), one can see how his skepticism of the ETH is what leads him to the IDH/EDH.

And to reiterate, I don't think that Hynek's skepticism of the ETH suggests that he had completely disregarded the idea (as you seem to think). In fact, if he were alive today and endowed with our current perspective, there is reason to believe that he would have responded to his own objections to the ETH along the same lines as Michael Swords does on pp. 575-582 of his "Ufology: What Have We Learned?".

Looking back at your reply to Thunda, it appears as though you're completely ignoring Hynek's investment in the IDH/EDH. You're accusing Thunda of selectively quoting Hynek in order to fit a belief. But by all accounts, and anyone can see this, you continually ignore the fact that Hynek was a proponent of the IDH/EDH. One could easily argue that this is because you're trying to ignore one of Hynek's core beliefs in order to fit your own.


Base your understanding solely on what he said and not on what you think he meant. I'm dealing what he actually said, in fact. But, assuming does(and has to) go along with the ET/UFO belief, so I can see why believers would respond to this in the same way.

As far as Hyneks IDH or EDH, I'm not ignoring it, just responding to his latest comments from the 1983 article I posted. What "Thunda" quotes is from a speech he gave in 1977 at the International UFO Congress, not from his "The Case Agains E.T" speech. The book you mentioned, "The Edge of Reality" was published in 1976. Neither of those are relevant to what I'm speaking of. As I said, later in his life, in the early to mid 80s, he had clearly moved on from assuming what was "piloting them" into what "they" actually were. His "Putting the cart before the horse" comment from Synder's show not only applies to his ETH, but to IDH and EDH as well. In fact, if assuming is a form of deduction for believers, look at his point 5 in the MUFON JOURNAL comment, he states that:
"The apparent isolation of the UFO phenomenon in space and time, what Hynek calls 'Cheshire Cat Effect', after the character in 'Alice in Wonderland' who appeared sometimes as only a smile or a tail, and sometimes not at all 'The UFO appears spontaneously" said Hynek,'remains visible for a short while, and then like that remarkable cat, is gone... but where to? The UFO seems to have dual existence: physical at one moment, non-physical at the next."
These points are against a hypothesis and one could "assume" he was commenting directly to this IDH or EDH.



Actually, it does matter. There seems to be this feel-good belief nowadays that everyone's opinion is just as good as the other. Unfortunately, it's not true. Some people are born with greater abilities than others, have had a better education, better training, exposure, etc. And if anyone on earth at the time was in a position to expound on the possible origins of UFOs, then Hynek would be at the top of the list.

How much further along could Hynek come to a conclusion, compared to say, someone with just a high school education or less? Would he comment the movements of case X defied the laws of physics? Isn't that just a common sense assumption by any lay person seeing something move unnaturally in the sky? Does it make the point any stronger or any more real because someone with a doctorate confirmed it? Maybe to someone that's impressed with levels of education. But, in the real world it doesn't make it any more of a fact. Whatever level of expertise you want to stamp on a hypothesis, it's still JUST a hypothesis. If you want to go beyond that hypothesis to something real, you need a tangible fact.


You point out that "not a single piece of evidence has surfaced and confirmed to be from an alien source". This is of course true, but you seem to want to imply that this means that the entire line of inquiry is pointless. But this is precisely the kind of black and white thinking that I've mentioned elsewhere that seems to be a staple of "popular skepticism". But a true skeptic wouldn't give up so easily. Given the reality of UFOs, and given the lack of absolute, confirmed evidence regarding their origin, instead of stopping the inquiry there (which would strongly imply a prejudice towards either an alien or mundane origin), it is necessary to seriously consider possible explanations that are compatible with our knowledge of UFOs, but that doesn't stop us from making conscious and careful initial assumptions that slowly whittle down that initially large set. This is a realm of plausibilities, not confirmed realities, yet this is all we have recourse to, as rational people unfettered by cultural or intellectual biases, at this point in time.


You're trivializing the enormity of extra-terrestrial visitation by arguing and giving credence to the "facts" of hypothesis. Do you think it's really that easy of a "go-to" answer having zero proof of aliens in all of humankind? Shouldn't there be proof somewhere in the span of ancient history for example, in order to come out and so nonchalantly say "Oh, they could be alien"? I don't follow that process and if anything, Hynek was on the right track later in life trying to understand what people were seeing, instead of figuring out "what's" inside.



posted on Dec, 6 2012 @ 07:52 AM
link   
Wow- go away for a couple of days and it seems a total S$%^storm has occured.

First of all, Ectoplasm (Im afraid I dont know how to do the multiple quote thing, and your post is to long to quote anyway), you said "His comment about the Condon Report was to the lack study of the actual phenomenon, not the source of that phenomenon. ". Not true- in the interview in the link he doesnt claim they never studied the phenomenon- in fact he makes a point of saying that Condons 'summary' completely ignores the 20% of cases that they, the Condon investigating team, identified. His problem is with Condons summary.

You then said "Base your understanding solely on what he said and not on what you think he meant. I'm dealing what he actually said, in fact." And then proceed to give us a lengthy appraisal of what you think he meant.

You also accused me of selectively quoting Hynek, and yet do exactly the same yourself.

And finally, you say :"The bottom line is, that it doesn't matter if Hynek, or any scientist, gives their opinion on what is piloting "UFOs". They could study every single case that has been reported and come up with a hypothesis. It doesn't make that hypothesis any more of a realistic answer than if you or I gave our opinion. "

Im afraid I disagree. Hynek spent most of his adult life studying the UFO phenomena, and had certain inside access at times to case files. I would suggest that this would give him a much better background to come up with a hypothesis than you- particularly as he came to the subject as a skeptic and became a changed man based on the evidence he observed for himself.



posted on Dec, 6 2012 @ 09:23 AM
link   
I think all the education in the world second hand doesn't equate to a Travis Walton or a Gary Wilcox (april 24th 1964) or Lonnie Zamora (April 24, 1964) or a Donald Shrum - 1964.

But you can do interesting things in Science, Astronomy, Physics, high technology.
You can have high technology with a craft and launch it (1964) for a flyby of mars (mariner 4) to take photos of mars. But not like the real thing though, such as in Gary, Lonnie or Donald's hands on experience with extra terrestrials.

So all the analyzing, theorizing that scientists in the world can muster is hardly a drop in the bucket to seeing the real thing, it is just transferring what they saw and bring it to the world is the hard part. Though Jim Penniston pf Rendlesham Forest did a spectacular job because he had associates with military clout bring out the legitimacy.

The others like Gary, Lonnie and Donald didn't have the luxury of having a military base of soldiers coming out of the closet to speak up. Though I find that Gary, Donald and Lonnie were on to something even more interesting than the Rendlesham Forrest incident because of the incredible anomalies of mars such as tubes, the bio sprayer, Richard's photo of the apartment complex.



posted on Dec, 6 2012 @ 09:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by booNyzarC

I hadn't seen that particular interview before, though I'm familiar with Hynek's opinions about the Condon report.



Appreciate the reply matey and Dr Hynek certainly didn't seem very impressed with the way the Condon Committee conducted itself - there's another video clip here dealing with agendas and motivations behind the report and when you also factor in that Dr Condon omitted some of the most puzzling cases on record and purposefully excluded many detailed reports from scientists, engineers, police officers and airline pilots, I'd say there's some pretty legitimate reasons for doubting the scientific validity of the whole project.

Also thought TeaAndStrumpets made a good point here asking "why so many (but by no means all) of those calling themselves UFO 'skeptics' refuse to apply that same skepticism to the Condon Report" and considering that Dr Condon's 'conclusions' were instrumental in closing down official U.S. Government investigations into the UFO subject I suppose it's a fair question.




Originally posted by booNyzarC

Hykek did go through different 'phases' throughout his career, and seemed to take an honest and dedicated approach to the subject. Ultimately though, I think he reached the conclusion the phenomenon was unlikely to consist in nuts and bolts craft, and that we should start looking closer to home for answers instead of trying to shoehorn the ETH as an answer.


He sure did and I don't see how anyone can object to taking an honest and dedicated approach to the UFO subject (controversial though it is) - it states in this pdf file that Dr Hynek felt that it was 'simple-mindedness' to assume that UFOs are nuts-and-bolts hardware from outer space but it also goes on to mention he thought UFOs obviously suggested a controlling intelligence and that any attempt to dismiss UFO existence as nonsense was itself nonsense.

John P. Timmerman discusses in this interview how Hynek's goal in his later years was to provide the wherewithal for serious scientific study of the UFO subject and, although he stated in 1969 that he 'knew of no hypothesis that adequately covers the mountainous evidence', he makes a few revealing comments here in a 1978 speech about 'sufficient evidence to defend both the ETI and the EDI hypothesis' and something he calls 'M&M' technology.

Also thought he made a great point about the 'mis-interpretation of the UFO phenomenon' taken from his speech at the United Nations in the same year.



I refer, of course, to the phenomenon of UFOs... Unidentified Flying Objects... which I should like to define here simply as "any aerial or surface sighting, or instrumental recording (e.g., radar, photography, etc.) which remains unexplained by conventional methods even after competent examination by qualified persons."

You will note, Mr. Chairman, that this definition says nothing about little green men from outer space, or manifestations from spiritual realms, or various psychic manifestations. It simply states an operational definition. A cardinal mistake, and a source of great confusion, has been the almost universal substitution of an interpretation of the UFO phenomenon for the phenomenon itself.

This is akin to having ascribed the Aurora Borealis to angelic communication before we understood the physics of the solar wind.


Nonetheless, in the popular mind the UFO phenomenon is associated with the concept of extra-terrestrial intelligence and this might yet prove to be correct in some context.

link


..



posted on Dec, 6 2012 @ 10:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by booNyzarC

It is notable that he ended up visiting Hessdalen near the end of his life, where scientific research into atmospheric plasmas which exhibit many of the same characteristics reported by UFO witnesses was taking place. I think he may have been on the verge of discovering and understanding one of the more likely 'closer to home' answers for the UFO enigma in general.



Fair point mate and you've got to love that hat.






Certainly salute the work being conducted at Hessdalen and here he is discussing how the place is a 'UFO laboratory' and one of the best sites in the world for UFO research, he also explains that whatever the truth about UFO origin turns out to be, it's 'terribly important'.




Thought this was a lovely analogy he once made about UFO existence and a horse in a bathtub and due to his research over the years he pretty much established three major points about the phenomenon that most people can agree upon - one, that UFO reports not only exist but persist; two, that the phenomenon is global in nature (over 140 countries) and three, that many UFO reports come from highly credible and technically trained people.



In considering extra-terrestrial intelligence, said Dr. Hynek, we may be putting the cart before the horse. As a humorous example, he added:


"'Speaking of horses, suppose someone comes here and tells us... there is a report of a horse in the bath tub. I think it would be rather pointless to then ask, what is the color of the horse, what does he eat, how could he have gotten there, who who installed the bath tub? The question is, IS there a horse in the bath tub?


pdf



Whatever the true nature of objects involved in cases like the Edwards AFB incident, the Coyne incident, the Portage County incident, the Tehran incident etc.. I'd say the way mainstream science treats the subject is pretty disgraceful (not to mention irresponsible) - here he is discussing the 'provincialism' displayed within the scientific community whilst listing seven popular misconceptions about the UFO phenomenon, he also calls for an end to the ridicule of UFO witnesses which can only be a good thing.

Doc Hynek is sorely missed.



HYNEK HITS UFO INVESTIGATION, CONFIRMS EVIDENCE

Pressure Mounting To End Debunking

PDF File


Cheers.
edit on 6-12-2012 by karl 12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 6 2012 @ 12:31 PM
link   
You summed it up perfectly, karl12. I, like you, miss Dr Hynek's input into the subject. He had a great way of putting things, and for a man of science, he could put his point across without talking down his nose to people or ramming his qualifications down peoples throats.

Many could learn a great deal from his approach.



posted on Dec, 6 2012 @ 08:44 PM
link   
reply to post by karl 12
 


Excellent points and information as usual Karl. Hynek was a great man, you'll get no argument from me on that, and I really appreciate all the hard work he put into the field. I'm afraid that much of modern day UFOlogy pales by comparison and would do well to follow his lead.

Cheers mate.



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 12:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ectoplasm8

As far as Hyneks IDH or EDH, I'm not ignoring it, just responding to his latest comments from the 1983 article I posted. What "Thunda" quotes is from a speech he gave in 1977 at the International UFO Congress, not from his "The Case Agains E.T" speech. The book you mentioned, "The Edge of Reality" was published in 1976. Neither of those are relevant to what I'm speaking of. As I said, later in his life, in the early to mid 80s, he had clearly moved on from assuming what was "piloting them" into what "they" actually were. His "Putting the cart before the horse" comment from Synder's show not only applies to his ETH, but to IDH and EDH as well. In fact, if assuming is a form of deduction for believers, look at his point 5 in the MUFON JOURNAL comment, he states that:
"The apparent isolation of the UFO phenomenon in space and time, what Hynek calls 'Cheshire Cat Effect', after the character in 'Alice in Wonderland' who appeared sometimes as only a smile or a tail, and sometimes not at all 'The UFO appears spontaneously" said Hynek,'remains visible for a short while, and then like that remarkable cat, is gone... but where to? The UFO seems to have dual existence: physical at one moment, non-physical at the next."
These points are against a hypothesis and one could "assume" he was commenting directly to this IDH or EDH.


No. The "Cheshire Cat Effect" properties of UFOs that Hynek was referring to are the exact properties that would lead one to abandon the ETH in favor of something like IDH/EDH.

In fact, all of the points against the ETH that he brought up in "The Case Against E.T." are what lead people to favor things like IDH/EDH.

I know that you want to think that Hynek abandoned the idea that aliens were controlling these craft, but you can't conclude this from the quotes that you are referencing that he made in his later years. All that you can conclude is that:

1) His focus shifted to an interest in the study of UFOs as opposed to questions regarding their origin.

and

2) He brought up some counterarguments to the ETH.

In neither 1) nor 2) do you see Hynek saying that he no longer believes that aliens could be controlling these craft. What you do see is someone who is more interested in raising the social perception of Ufology by turning the focus to the scientific study of what these craft are, as opposed to what might be controlling them.

You made this comment earlier:



You make the mistake that many here do in reference to Hynek. They selectively quote what fits into their way of thinking, from years before, without taking in account the totality of his views after 60+ years of study. Like I mentioned, in 1983 at a MUFON symposium a few years before his death, he expressed his renewed views of the UFO phenomenon related to alien involvement. He however kept the view that the phenomenon of UFOs themselves should be seriously studied.


But why not reference Hynek with regard to a possible alien involvement with UFOs? You seem to want to imply that after his 60+ years of study, he concluded that there was no alien involvement. You seem to think that Hynek's statements in "The Case Against E.T." imply that he no longer believed in such an involvement, but that's simply drawing a false conclusion.

The same goes for his comments during the Tom Snyder interview. You can't at all conclude from those comments that he gave up on the idea of alien involvement. In the interview, he says: "In the public mind, 'UFO' is synonymous with 'little green men from outer space'." In the public mind indicates that he's increasingly concerned with the public's disparagement of the entire subject because they automatically link their belief in the implausibility of aliens with UFOs. There is nothing here whatsoever to indicate that Hynek himself had now ruled out an alien involvement.

Yet what I believe is happening is that you are combining his comments from the interview and his counterarguments against the ETH and concluding that Hynek had suddenly discounted the idea of alien involvement. But he hadn't. He had just shifted his public attention to the study of UFOs themselves.

You also point out that "The Edge of Reality" was published in 1976, and that it is not relevant to the discussion. But it is. It indicates his early shift from the ETH to the IDH/EDH, and the counterarguments from his later years against the ETH represent the reasoning that led him to the IDH/EDH in the first place.

You're doing exactly what you're accusing others of doing - focusing only on the facts that fit your world-view. You're taking two isolated comments from Hynek and not only grossly misinterpreting them, but you're ignoring precisely the earlier facts about his thought that are what provide the perspective that lead to a proper understanding of his later comments.



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 04:20 AM
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


I wouldnt call Project Blue Book a "big lie" - They just hid the more impressive cases and never added them to it. Instead, it was full of non-impressive junk that could be easily wrote off as something else. Everything UFO related during that era wasnt exactly added to Project Blue Book for a reason.......





new topics
top topics
 
35
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join