A Physicist Explains Why Scientists Won't Discuss UFOs

I read this article by Lee Speigel that I felt should be discussed here at ATS.

For a very long time, the scientific community has been wary of studying UFOs, and the scientists themselves hesitate to talk about their beliefs of unexplained aerial phenomena.

But that attitude is changing, and many scientists are joining the discussion without fear of ridicule.

"UFOs are real phenomena. They are artificial objects under intelligent control. They're definitely the craft of a supremely advanced technology," says physicist Eric Davis, a researcher of light-speed travel.

Davis, a research physicist at the Institute for Advanced Studies in Austin, studies propulsion physics, which he hopes will one day allow humans to travel easily and quickly through our galactic neighborhood.

He's aware of the public perception -- mostly from skeptics and debunkers -- that no legitimate scientists would ever touch the subject of UFOs.

"They're wrong, naive, stubborn, narrow-minded, afraid and fearful. It's a dirty word and a forbidden topic. Science is about open-minded inquiry. You shouldn't be laughing off people. You should show more deference and respect to them ... Scientists need to get back to using the scientific method to study things that are unknown and unusual, and the UFO subject is one of them."

Slowly but surely, acceptance of this subject is becoming mainstream.

Source

reply to post by 1questioner


Let's hope so because for too long this subject has been openly ignored by scientists

My basic understanding is that they wont discuss it because they need the "evidence" right there in front of them, and the fact that thousands have witnessed UFOs (some at close proximity) doesn't even constitute as "evidence". To me, that is utterly stupid and with the law of averages, it's a pretty safe bet that they exist (as in something that isn't mundane and explainable).

I'm sure some scientists won't accept UFOs until one lands and an alien emerges and sh*ts on their lab desk, but to ignore the subject and what is currently known is ignorant.

On an open thought as well, I wonder how many mainstream scientists have been told to deliberately ignore the phenomenon by TPTB? I believe this to be a real scenario.

I think it will continue to be deliberately ignored.

I mean think about the psychologists. Even the arm chair one's who frequent this site. They label those who have abnormal/paranormal experiences as delusional and crazy. Actually, go to lengths to convince them they are crazy!

So if it becomes accepted - what do you think will happen to those psychologists who labeled all those people a crazy/delusional person? Will they be hauled into court and stripped of everything as they should? Or just pardoned - ooopsssieee we were wrong. Sorry, dude, I know we said you were a schizo and now melted your brain down with meds - but we didn't know! We really did think you were crazy!

Too much to lose, to much to answer for - for disclosure to come out now.

Cirque

That guy seems like a real scientist to me. That is what I like to see in a scientist, an open mind. I see too many "set in their way" or "Mule headed" individuals in science today. Real science is not glamorous, real scientists work to test things to gain knowledge, not money or prestige. Real scientists should not be laughed at for investigating things that seem paranormal or fantasy. All fantasy has some reality in it. All old wives tales have some basis, all folklore is open to testing, but you have to understand that what is sometimes seems most evident is not the reality of the situation. There is often a second, hidden from us, reason for this stuff. Scientists are often blind, testing for what they think is there with tests that cannot find the truth. Otherwise the reasons for these things would be already discovered.

reply to post by 1questioner


These of course, will be the same scientists, who when and if disclosure happens, will be rolled out on the media to give us their insight and spin on the subject.

Originally posted by Zcustosmorum
My basic understanding is that they wont discuss it because they need the "evidence" right there in front of them, and the fact that thousands have witnessed UFOs (some at close proximity) doesn't even constitute as "evidence".

But its true.
A lot of stories posted to the MUFON website (or here on ATS, or anywhere else) about white dots in the sky cannot be scientifically studied. I agree with the guy that there are a lot of people who would like to scientifically study UFO's, but you cant scientifically study a story of somebody saying "I saw a weird dot of light in the sky".

Give some examples, please, if you disagree, about exactly specifically what scientific study can be made of UFO sightings.

If you haven't seen this video of Dr. J. Allen Hynek, you should. Not only does he admit astronomers see UFOs, he shows off his sense of humor with a very funny quote: "There some who say that if you want to see real flying saucers, goose the waitress."

I personally believe that even if all 300 million american citizens sign a petition for UFO disclosure, it wont help.

The system is built in such a way that we do not have the power to initiate disclosure to humans on a mass scale. Even if we all wanted to, we cant, because the government has the power and we authorized them to have power by living in a civilization that is run by governmental bodies. This is the furthest we have come as a species. Maybe thats the reason the Extraterrestrials wont even disclose to us.

We have created the system that keeps us in the dark. Who is to blame if not humans?

Originally posted by alfa1

Originally posted by Zcustosmorum
My basic understanding is that they wont discuss it because they need the "evidence" right there in front of them, and the fact that thousands have witnessed UFOs (some at close proximity) doesn't even constitute as "evidence".

But its true.
A lot of stories posted to the MUFON website (or here on ATS, or anywhere else) about white dots in the sky cannot be scientifically studied. I agree with the guy that there are a lot of people who would like to scientifically study UFO's, but you cant scientifically study a story of somebody saying "I saw a weird dot of light in the sky".

Give some examples, please, if you disagree, about exactly specifically what scientific study can be made of UFO sightings.

You missed my point, surely the eye witness reports themselves should be enough to make a scientist enquire more at least.

Furthermore, there are cases of CE2s and CE3s in existence, where ground evidence has been left (Paris, France in the 70s, I think) as well as angel hairs (Portuguese case from the 50s or 60s I think). There have also been a ton of cases where hundreds of witnesses have reported seeing beings and the like (Ariel School, Zimbabwe 1994 as an example)

Originally posted by Zcustosmorum

Originally posted by alfa1

Originally posted by Zcustosmorum
My basic understanding is that they wont discuss it because they need the "evidence" right there in front of them, and the fact that thousands have witnessed UFOs (some at close proximity) doesn't even constitute as "evidence".

But its true.
A lot of stories posted to the MUFON website (or here on ATS, or anywhere else) about white dots in the sky cannot be scientifically studied. I agree with the guy that there are a lot of people who would like to scientifically study UFO's, but you cant scientifically study a story of somebody saying "I saw a weird dot of light in the sky".

Give some examples, please, if you disagree, about exactly specifically what scientific study can be made of UFO sightings.

You missed my point, surely the eye witness reports themselves should be enough to make a scientist enquire more at least.

I think you miss the point that science requires direct observation.

Ever consider the possibility that the UFO enigma is a cultural phenomena that was purposefully fed by governmental disinformation agencies as a convenient cover story for civilian observations of what was then top secret military technology and is now perpetuated by conmen selling half truths and snake oil?

"They're wrong, naive, stubborn, narrow-minded, afraid and fearful. It's a dirty word and a forbidden topic. Science is about open-minded inquiry. You shouldn't be laughing off people. You should show more deference and respect to them ... Scientists need to get back to using the scientific method to study things that are unknown and unusual, and the UFO subject is one of them."

Spot on, it's shocking how many people react very negatively when you bring up the topics of UFO's.

As if they know every single cause behind the phenomenon and anyone who brings up the topic is immediately looked down upon as if they're not "scientific" because they don't have solid "evidence".

Evidence to them is the day when every government has full blown disclosure about the UFO phenomenon, even though a quick internet search can allow you to access endless amounts of government/military documents, photos and sightings from all over the world.

We as humans can learn so much more if scientists around the world accept the fact that there are unknowns in the skies and can openly study the topics without ridicule or risk of losing their jobs due to "credibility".

reply to post by Drunkenparrot

Ever consider the possibility that the UFO enigma is a cultural phenomena that was purposefully fed by governmental disinformation agencies as a convenient cover story for civilian observations of what was then top secret military technology and is now perpetuated by conmen selling half truths and snake oil?

I grew out of that theory a long time ago mate, what absolute twaddle, no offence

Ever consider that your quote in itself is what some people would want you to think?

reply to post by peashooter


Sorry to pop your bubble but science, not blind belief, has built the modern world and all the little conveniences that we all enjoy ( such as living past the age of 35 ).

Even if UFO's "alien spacecraft" exist, who is going to give scientists the authority to study them and make that information public? Sure you can come up with all the hypothesis's you want but until you actually physically study one yourself, you're just taking guesses.

Originally posted by Zcustosmorum
I grew out of that theory a long time ago mate, what absolute twaddle, no offence

Ever consider that your quote in itself is what some people would want you to think?

Well, considering I have a degree in aerospace engineering and have been interested in this topic for the majority of my nearly 50 years on this earth, I think its safe to say I have forgotten more about this subject than most people commenting on this board and am more uniquely suited than most to discern what is "twaddle" than most when discussing the subject.

If you want to believe in unicorns and santa its your business but please don't forgot that some of us actually know the players involved and understand enough physical science to call B.S. on pseudoscience and fairy tales.

No offence.

I believe they won't discuss it for two reasons:

1. The technology that "the others" have is way beyond the comprehension of many scientists.

2. When, and if, we finally do figure out the science beyond their propulsion systems and their impossible
maneuvers, it will blow so many of our theories out of the water, that many of these scientists will be out of work.

Originally posted by Drunkenparrot

Originally posted by Zcustosmorum
I grew out of that theory a long time ago mate, what absolute twaddle, no offence

Ever consider that your quote in itself is what some people would want you to think?

Well, considering I have a degree in aerospace engineering and have been interested in this topic for the majority of my nearly 50 years on this earth, I think its safe to say I have forgotten more about this subject than most people commenting on this board and am more uniquely suited than most to discern what is "twaddle" than most when discussing the subject.

If you want to believe in unicorns and santa its your business but please don't forgot that some of us actually know the players involved and understand enough physical science to call B.S. on pseudoscience and fairy tales.

No offence.

edit on 21-7-2013 by Drunkenparrot because: format

And that STILL don't make you know everything, no offence

Well it's about time! When you have credible witnesses like military personal, police officers, pilots, and group sightings around the world who claim to have seen these "UFO's," you would think these bright minds would realize it's beyond coincidence or just simple miss identifications. However, I'll believe in their change of perspective about UFO's when I see and hear it.

reply to post by Drunkenparrot

Well, considering I have a degree in aerospace engineering and have been interested in this topic for the majority of my nearly 50 years on this earth, I think its safe to say I have forgotten more about this subject than most people commenting on this board and am more uniquely suited than most to discern what is "twaddle" than most when discussing the subject.

If you want to believe in unicorns and santa its your business but please don't forgot that some of us actually know the players involved and understand enough physical science to call B.S. on pseudoscience and fairy tales.

Just curious... If you believe that the UFO phenomenon is nothing more than unicorns and santa, why have you been interested in this subject for "nearly fifty years."?

Originally posted by alfa1

Originally posted by Zcustosmorum
My basic understanding is that they wont discuss it because they need the "evidence" right there in front of them, and the fact that thousands have witnessed UFOs (some at close proximity) doesn't even constitute as "evidence".

But its true.
A lot of stories posted to the MUFON website (or here on ATS, or anywhere else) about white dots in the sky cannot be scientifically studied. I agree with the guy that there are a lot of people who would like to scientifically study UFO's, but you cant scientifically study a story of somebody saying "I saw a weird dot of light in the sky".

Give some examples, please, if you disagree, about exactly specifically what scientific study can be made of UFO sightings.

What about all the folks that claim to have seen close ,"nuts and bolts" if you will, UFOs. I mean an airline pilot or air force pilot, for example but certainly not limited to, have enough understanding of the basic science involved to be considered scientific or at least viable technical observers.