It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


A Physicist Explains Why Scientists Won't Discuss UFOs

page: 4
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in


posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 10:42 AM

Originally posted by BlueMule

Originally posted by Zcustosmorum
reply to post by 1questioner

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

Carl Jung didn't ignore it, he wrote a book about it. He's a scientist.

His book is still ahead of its time, and if modern scientists take the ET mythos literally, then it always will be.

I never said all scientists mate

posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 10:42 AM
reply to post by Zcustosmorum

Im sure plenty of scientific personal have been told to "keep quite or else"....problem short.....alot of people would probably agree that the governments of the world have been hiding info for a very long time....they really wouldn't want this to all of a sudden be released to the general public because...A it would catch them in a lie that goes back "a few years"
B well...imagine what would happen ,if say,we got our hands on tech that released us from the needs of fossil fuels
guess the oil,gas,power companies who lobby all over the government would be pretty
and finally...if you were up there...looking down on this planet ,watching what its population is doing to its self and the planet ....would you want to land and say hello
they probably look down here and think...yea right ..we go down there , one of them is gonna try to mount OUR heads on a wall like they do to soo many of the indigenous creatures that populate the planet besides them
....i asked a question once to my father i said what do you think would happen if a u.f.o. landed in the fields behind our house and myself and two of my friends seen friend "who is a drunk" would probably offer them a beer
the other who is a "shoot first ask questions later" kind of person would ...well....u get the idea
me...i would be the one to say "o.k. how fast can that thing make it to Saturn and back"

i dont know....just my three cents worth

posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 10:47 AM

If UFO's are real we should accept that it's a technology we can't understand and move along
reply to post by Jukiodone

But it very well could be technology whose method is understandable. Having the base understanding and the resources/infrastructure to replicate such a method are different.
edit on 22/7/13 by Morg234 because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 11:39 AM
As to the original question of this thread as to why scientists won’t discuss UFOs, many who are responding to that question say because there is no evidence that is “testable.”
Leaving aside for the moment implants, radar reports, impressions left on the ground, higher than normal background radiation etc., I’d like to step back and ask a fundamental question: Can we or have we already tested whether or not a true UFO phenomenon exists?

This question goes back in time to the 1950s and 1960s when people like J. Allen Hynek and Dr. James McDonald became involved. After many years of studying and accumulating data, they concluded that the UFO phenomenon was real. However, looking back at history it seems with the termination of Project Bluebook and with the release of the Condon Report, mainstream scientific inquiry ended and ridicule, mocking and derision of scientists and inquiring persons began in ernest.

So here we are some fifty years later. We have scientists who have already tested and proved a hypothesis. But our government (led by our military) have done just about everything in their power to control the flow of information and intimidate us to stop further inquiry. If it wasn’t for the rise of the internet in the 1990s and the opportunity for researchers and experiencers to share what they know, we would still be totally in the dark regarding the phenomenon.

I think debate on this subject is great. It’s healthy and it allows everyone share their knowledge and ask questions. For whatever reason, we certainly can’t depend on our government to help us regarding this phenomenon.

I believe the only way we can combat the derision is to openly engage our friends and family in the discussions. I know many here on ATS will only broach this subject in private and in a forum like we have here. However, if we want to move our society forward and have our scientists become fully involved, we can not depend on our governments to lead the way. We must do this ourselves. And, why not? If one does the research, the only conclusion one can come to is the same one J. Allen Hynek and Dr. James McDonald came to: The phenomenon is real.

posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 02:24 PM
Here are my thoughts on this particular subject (why scientists won't discuss or 'study' UFO's)

Say I am a scientist interested in studying this phenomena. Where do I go? What do I look for? Where do I begin applying the scientific method?

We often say "scientists" but which scientists are we referring to.

If we believe it is an unknown animal, then a scientist would be a biologist. Where would this scientist go to begin studying this animal or biological entity in it's natural habitat? Without a physical body, biologists have no where to begin as far as dissection or beginning studying that animal.

If we believe it is of an unknown aerial/cosmic/un-earthly origin, then I guess an astronomer would be called in to study it. But then again, where does the astronomer go to begin studying this? Where exactly in the sky does he need to look to hopefully capture a glimpse of one?

If we believe it is of a military experiment, well then I guess the "scientists" would be told to cease and desist studying this phenomena due to national security concerns.

Now, if you ask why the scientists do not take the evidence seriously and seem to laugh it off (same can be said for cryptozoology..Bigfoot, Chupacabra, etc), what evidence are they to evaluate? Eye witness stories and blurry photographs and videos are not exactly something a scientist would consider "evidence".

Now if you walked into a biology lab with an alien carcass, I'm assuming they'd take this evidence seriously and find out a bit about the creatures biology. But then again, how much "faith" do you have in our scientists, which do not even fully understand our own bodies, diseases, and biology?

I'm not debunking or trying to debunk the UFO phenomena. I, personally, find the subject fascinating and would love for a disclosure to take place. However, my opinion of "evidence" and a scientists definition are two very different things.

Like I said, I find the subject fascinating, but I am a UFO agnostic so to speak. I love the idea and the topic, but the videos, documents, testimonies, and blurry pics are not really evidence to me. Especially, taking into account that I have never personally seen anything.

But then again, I am not a scientist....
edit on 22-7-2013 by Poveglia because: spelling errors

posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 02:33 PM
The fear of not being taken seriously is exactly why the sightings in the Hessdalen valley in Norway are called the "Hessdalen Lights or "Project Hessdalen". The lead researcher deliberately avoided using the term UFO. He did get some funding to investigate the phenomenon.

Maybe other researchers could get more funding if the used other terms like plasma phenomenon, strange lightning etc. Anything but the U** word.

Here's a short documentary on the Hessdalen lights:

posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 02:51 PM
I think there are two or three main reasons Science largely ignores the UFO phenomena ..

1. Evidence is limited photographs and grainy video or by witness reports which are historically known to not be trustworthy.. certainly not in the realm of science... There's nothing that can be tested and verified which is what science does best. Not unless one lands on the lawn of the white house.

2. The world is loaded with more tangible topics they could be devoting their studies to. Things that can be tested and proven.. Most scientists would focus on that.

3. Credibility. You can't become a scientist over night, so dedicating any real time to studying this the way it needs to be studied will hurt them. Who's going to fund that kind of research?

I just don't see any serious study in the immediate future.. not unless something undeniable happens that the Government can hide from public scrutiny because otherwise, they'd just swoop in.. take the evidence, and swoop back out.

posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 03:33 PM
If we look at the arguments of whether they exist or not, cgi hoaxs or genuine, whether they are alien spacecraft or natural phenoms, or whether they are ours or ours from the future. The distinctions and splitting of hairs, in some cases, will always continue. Skeptics want proof, while others have been overwhelmed by the anecdotal evidence, know someone who had an experience, or had one themselves and are quite convinced they exist and are under intelligent control.

If we look at the population of who is saying what, and what the predominant observations are, compounded by whose testimonies are credited, or appropriately professional, and whose are not, I see a few things that are always smoothed over and explained away.

For instance all the legitimate government documents meticulously referenced and crossed referenced by dedicated ufologists who have the thankless job of tediously slaving over reams of pages (mostly blacked out, hmm wonder why) to find the appropriate texts. They have put in the hours, stubbornly stuck to their freedom of info requests and followed all the leads and interviewed the people who were directly involved. Their work counts for something in my opinion.

There is plenty of great evidence if looked at or researched with an open mind. Secondly if you look at the population of professional trained observers who basically make a living in aeronautics, by their eyesight and observation skills, I feel confident in their conclusions. Experienced pilots, air traffic radar guys, high ranking armed forces officers or guys like Karl Wolfe the lunar orbiter optics tech who was drawn by accident into his experience, and by the way is one of the most believable witnesses I have ever heard. Don't truly know why, but man do I believe him.

Why should we believe pilots? We only trust them with our lives. Especially pilots who are engineers too. How can a skeptic not believe what they are being told yet trust them with their lives flying a couple miles up? If one of these folks says, "A bright orange glowing disk flew circles around us, matched our speed and velocity, joined a formation of other disks and sped off at ungodly speeds", I think his professional testimony counts more than some hobbyist armchair ufo believer. And can not easily be explained away. Especially if there are radar soundings to back him up.

Many of the believers don't have all the facts straight or the credentials to be preaching this or that about the "core story", what ever it may be. However, the armchair skeptics, who so confidently say "show me the proof" or it doesn't exist, can't honestly say that "something" isn't up when it comes to the subject. For the scientific community to ignore the facts is laughable and not limited to just the subject of ufology. Archaeology and anthropology, are other fields that seem to ignore emerging evidence that may shed doubt on the official story. Those giant ancient pyramids in Bosnia come to mind

It borders on an illness itself. The very illness the skeptics would say the believers suffer from for "believing.

posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 03:37 PM

Originally posted by combatmaster
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?

You're right. The main reason that they won't release the information, I think, is that they would have to admit so many dangerous lies. They'd have to admit that they performed questionable experiments on US citezens and also admit about the existence of extraterrestrials and extra dimensional beings.

Some of these lies we're to other friendly nations, and those lies potentially cost these nations,both financially and otherwise.

Again, I feel, they're afraid it would cost them too much to bring the,info forward.


posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 03:59 PM
In keeping with the OP, here is a short video summarizing the 2013 Symposium on Official and Scientific Investigations of UAP (UFOs).

posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 05:12 PM
Here is another perspective on why scientists might not be talking about UFOs. Apologies if this has been mentioned already.

Take these opinions for what they are worth, possibly nothing, but I believe that the United States is making a major error in the way that it handles "UFO" related material. I'm referring to the whole area of so called "black science".

It is rumored that places like Area 51 and other lesser known bases in the southwest of the United States are homes to top secret advanced scientific research institutions, labs and bases. Research in these facilities is rumored to be highly compartmentalized, so that not even scientists working in them know what other colleagues are doing. Needless to say, large numbers of scientists and engineers in the straight academic and industrial world are completely in the dark about these hidden programs and may well be duplicating work already done in the black by others.

It has been voiced by some senior scientists who have worked in the environment of "black science" that proceeding to do research in this highly compartmentalized fashion is not conducive to good science.

It is certainly not in the scientific and engineering tradition of publication and shared knowledge. It is justified on the grounds of the importance of the research and the very sensitive security related subject matter of the research.

The people who instituted this policy of secrecy and compartmentalization should rethink the whole situation, I believe.

It was just such a policy that was adopted by Nazi Germany in it's attempt to develop the first atomic weapon. Different groups of scientists were working in parallel, only dimly aware of what others were doing, because of compartmentalization.

The Manhattan Project, that successfully produced the first atomic bomb, was a secret program, but my understanding is that it was not so highly compartmentalized, at least at the research and theoretical levels.

Is the US in danger of falling behind in these areas due to overzealous security procedures? If China or Russia were to develop a secret, but more collegial research environment in those countries, is there a danger that they might produce the next Manhattan Project style breakthrough and leave America in the position of the totalitarian nation, Nazi Germany, that they are emulating in their scientific security arrangements?

posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 06:21 PM
It sure does put a smile on the faces of us minority "who have always known" to see these kinds of statements, and over the past many decades watched people wake up to not so much believing but the possibilities that we might not be alone after all

Its all building up to that very satisfying day we can put those responsible for covering it up in a court room for the greatest crime ever committed against humanity at least not the originals but perhaps there predecessors predecessors...
edit on 22-7-2013 by TritonTaranis because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 06:54 PM

Its all building up to that very satisfying day we can put those responsible for covering it up in a court room for the greatest crime ever committed against humanity at least not the originals but perhaps there predecessors predecessors...
edit on 22-7-2013 by TritonTaranis because: (no reason given)

Very true, this topic, whether real, credible or no, is not the intellectual property of, nor imminent domain of the Unites States, or any other Government. This issue is not an issue of state or national security, and the withholding of such information to its credence or refutation, by a governmental, para or extra-governmental agency or corporation is a violation of basic human rights.

posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 07:33 PM

Originally posted by 1questioner
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.


Now this the most interesting part of this "UFOs are real phenomena. They are artificial objects under intelligent control..." What does he mean by artificial? I don't know but it's not really important. Here's reality, he ain't got one to look at. And no matter how much he wants to say they are real, he still ain't got one to look at. scientist or not, he still ain't got one to look at. Maybe I'm slow but he's talking about a dream here isn't he? Since no one at any time has every had one to look at. And until we have one to look at, what's science got to do with it anyway? He'd better off telling us how science is going to help us find one to look at.

I say good luck.

posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 09:10 PM
One of the funny things about this topic that I see ALL THE TIME in these forums is the generalized lumping together of ALL SCIENCE and scientists.

What is wrong with you people?

Geologists are scientists?
Biologists are too?
Astronomers, Archaeologists, Anthropologists, Physicists ... the list goes on.

Psychology hasn't been afraid to look at UFOs or aliens at all.
Of course, most people are willfully, purposefully, conspicuously silent on a number of studies that point to Interacranial attributions over any kind of indications of extraterrestrial phenomenon.

The other sciences?

Well, which science do you want to LOOK at UFOs?

Psychology has had lots of fun looking at UFOs and Space aliens, or, well, more accurately; the heads of those kinds of people that seem to like to make claims of such experiences and interactions.
That, however, isn't good enough.
People don't like those answers.

Thus, which branch of science and what scientists would you LIKE to look at UFOs?
I mean, really?
Who do you think will give you an answer that you'll at least accept and not reject outright like everyone does the all indications in Psychology?

Which branch of science will you respect if they come back and tell you "NO, the Psychologists and Meteorologists were right"?

It seems to me that not matter how much funding, or what branch of science looks at this phenomenon, most adherents to the near religious following of the mythology of UFOs and Aliens will NEVER accept any answer except for an answer that validates their bias.

I'll be more than happy to accept Flying Saucers and Aliens if you just show me some. Let's have tea.
I'm more than happy to accept the other extreme of it all being nonsense.

Who's willing to accept either extreme?

edit on 22-7-2013 by Druscilla because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 09:30 PM

Originally posted by Drunkenparrot

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?

Sorry, buy you're totally wrong here. There are a few different observational methods that can be utilized while doing research. There's indirect, direct, overt, cover, and so on. The scientific method has been used for hundreds of years to discover new things and investigate all sorts of phenomena. If every researcher and scientist did it the way you say it must be done, we'd still be in the dark ages.

posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 10:09 PM
Two things they'll say..."WTF is that?"
, and "I don't know how it works".

Are good reasons.

posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 10:45 PM
reply to post by Zcustosmorum

Um...well some are working with them, and what you're saying is just a game they play with the public when they're not on the same page, in the same chapter. They're not in the same book.

posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 11:02 PM
reply to post by 1questioner

I was lucky enough to go to School, here in Austin (Where, I have lived, since 1984)

I got my degree in Mathematics from the University of Texas, and - even though they don't recognize it - minor'd in Astronomy.

I am embarrassed to admit, that I do not recognize this man's name. (should I?)

Great article and linkage - S&F Hope it gets some views

If for no other reason (than to expose ET visitations
) than to at least open some eyes to some folks about how far ahead of the curve, in terms of technology, certain factions & aspects of our own civilization have become. [*ahem*military... for starters]

The video started off a little rough for this guy - he tried to explain too much, too fast, and kinda came off 'dorky' mainly because even though he was 'dumbing it down', it wasn't far enough for the ignorant (and, I don't mean stupid, I mean Lacking knowledge, information, or awareness about something in particular - eg. whilst explaining warp drives, and whatnot)

edit on 7/22/2013 by SquirrelNutz because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 23 2013 @ 12:04 AM

Originally posted by peashooter
"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".
edit on 21-7-2013 by peashooter because: (no reason given)

I agree about the documents. Disclosure has already come except for two things that skeptics want.

1. They just want for the government to admit what is already there.
2. They wanna have lunch with an extraterrestrial.

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in