Advancements in UFOlogy

Thanks for your thoughts Access Denied. I realise the futility of attempts for us to sway one another's opinion on an internet forum especially when our experience, beliefs, societal conditioning and a million other factors will differ, it is no surprise that our opinions also differ.

I consider that UFOlogy is going nowhere and will not make any progress anytime soon and this bothers me a little. Those on the skeptic side of the fence that have posted on this thread have helped me formulate my opinion further.

It seems that getting the idea into the mainstream is a healthy start. In order to do this, surely the ridicule factor has to go away! I say this because I still can't get my head around how someone can rule for certain that something is bunk in equal measures that someone else can claim it is true.

You talk about seperating the wheat from the chaffe yet many skeptics would post as though it is all chaffe. Could you point me in the direction of any wheat? Is there anything about this field that a skeptic would embrace?

Originally posted by Prote
I consider that UFOlogy is going nowhere and will not make any progress anytime soon and this bothers me a little.

Hi Prote,

Just a quick post to mention "The UFO Curse", which is relevant to this thread.

You may already have heard of it.

Philip J Klass bequeathed the following curse to the ufologists who publicly criticized him,or who even think unkind thoughts about him in private:

The UFO Curse, by Philip J Klass
"No matter how long you live, you will never know any more about UFOs than you know today. You will never know any more about what UFOs really are, or where they come from. You will never know any more about what the U.S. Government really knows about UFOs than you know today. As you lie on your own death-bed you will be as mystified about UFOs as you are today. And you will remember this curse."

Kind Regards,

Isaac Koi

[edit on 22-10-2007 by IsaacKoi]

Hi Isaac

Maybe that's the first thing he got right. I have been guilty of thinking unkind thoughts about Mr Klass mainly because some of his refutations have been as laughable as he has found the claim.

Perhaps he knew there would always be people like him around and/or perhaps he always knew that people would be paid to scorn, ridicule and debunk issues of subjectivism... a position that must be the easiest job in the world.

I don't know, except that at this point, I fear he may be right.

Thanks for bringing it to the table.

Peace
~Prote

I havent seen any progress or innovation in the past 20 years in UFO research, aside from the advent of PCs and better analysis tools. However you also have to take into the equation that the hoaxers also have better tools, so I figure it evens out in the end.

I think it's all going to depend on people, and how willing they are to work *together* and stop worrying about who found out what and when, and why didn't I get credit for it. Unless it undergoes a serious effort at reorganization, you might as well forget any progress. Dave Biedny and I have for awhile been pissing off (and on) any "researcher" or case that just simply doesnt add up or has large holes. But not everyone is going to agree with that, and we dont delude ourselves to think we're making any huge difference. But maybe it's baby steps? Who knows.

As of right now it's a stagnated mess, and other paranormal topics are looking pretty good to me despite my involvement in this one. Maybe I oughtta mix it up.

Originally posted by jritzmann
As of right now it's a stagnated mess, and other paranormal topics are looking pretty good to me despite my involvement in this one. Maybe I oughtta mix it up.

Yes, I've been taking more of a look at ghosts lately. I think that field is getting ready for another burst of activity and maybe a paradigm shift. And there has been suggestion in the past that the two topics may be related on a fundmental level, having to do with the perception of certain energy fields and reality constructs.

Maybe there's some advancement to be made in the spook field, as long as it doesn't get clogged up with a lot of charlatans and people wanting to talk to their late Aunt Betty for some nutty reason.

UFOs? It looks like we're going to have to wait for them to make a big move, and it's beyond our ability at this point to sort it all out or understand it.

Originally posted by Nohup

Originally posted by jritzmann
As of right now it's a stagnated mess, and other paranormal topics are looking pretty good to me despite my involvement in this one. Maybe I oughtta mix it up.

Yes, I've been taking more of a look at ghosts lately.

You too huh? Thats been especially interesting to me as of late too. I do as well think that the majority of "paranormal" issues are related. Perhaps there's something to be learned the to apply to this subject later on.

I think until people are willing to look outside the UFO subject for answers...your right, nothing new is going to come to light.

Originally posted by Access Denied
Because that wasn’t a claim, it was my $0.02… take it for what it’s worth. Did you miss that part? I’ve already outlined the evidence to support my opinion on many famous cases both here and elsewhere and you know it.

No offense but I don't recall you outlining any evidence that "many" "Flying Saucer" cases since 1947 were sightings of Military aircraft.

IMO it's fine to have an opinion, but I'm not impressed by phrasing an opinion as FACT or otherwise making a claim then simply adding 'That's my $0.02' at the bottom of your post like it's code or fine print or some disclaimer.

Originally posted by Access Denied
Right but that doesn’t mean they’re from outer space and you know as well as I do that there’s no proof… otherwise we wouldn’t be here arguing about it now would we?

I'm not arguing with you about whether or not UAP are from 'outer space'. Quite the opposite actually, I'm arguing the position of what we do know about UAP. That actually ties into the topic of this thread BTW because there has been some 'advancements' concerning 'our' understanding of aireal phenomena, the historical study of the sightings and reports of these phenomena could be easily labeled "UFOlogy".

I can't leave this line of thought now without pointing out that "Science" and "History" go hand in hand with each other. You can't have one without the other. So you just can't ignore 'History' while pretending to be 'Scientific', ignoring 'History' is itself 'pseudo-scientific'. We already have a well established methodology ("Science" if you will) for studying History. We have to follow this established methodology for the study of the 'History' of UAP just like we do anything else in order to remain 'Scientific'.

So all debates or arguments that dare discuss 'History', even when talking about "UFOlogy" (Past reports of sightings), risk becoming un-scientific or pseudo-scientific when the established methodology of 'History' is compromised.

Originally posted by Access Denied
I’m not sure what cases you’re talking about but yeah I guess I see your point.

If you’re talking about the Belgium case I would suggest reading this…

Well your basically asking for examples of RADAR/Visual/Photographic cases. Although RADAR/Visual is much more prevalent just as Visual/photographic would be. However, that isn't very much of a concern IMO because UAP tend to reflect RADAR only sporadically or intermittently and it's known according to the MoD report that only Military RADAR can actually track UAP while ATC RADAR can not/does not.

Look at the O'Hare incident. Is it any wonder given what the MoD report said about ATC RADAR that the FAA's ATC RADAR didn't register the 'object' reported 'hovering' over Concourse C Gate C-17?

Originally posted by Access Denied
The So-Called "Belgian Ufo Wave" - A Critical View
www.skepticreport.com...

The only difference between self described "skeptics" and self described "believers" is the side of the extreme spectrum they naturally fall into or self-identify with. Everything you read from BOTH 'skeptics' and 'believers' has to be taken with a grain of salt and of course interpreted objectively according to the methodology one is using.

Originally posted by Access Denied
Time and again, when subjected to closer scrutiny and critical thought, the case for the ETH simply falls apart.

I don't agree. It's nothing personal, of course you know that.

I'm not advocating the ETH, but it hasn't been falsified through testing yet. At the same time no other hypothesis has been validated through testing to the point of what we would 'Scientifically' call theory either.

Originally posted by Access Denied
You invoked the MoD report. As you know the working hypothesis of the report is that a number of unexplained similar cases suggest the possibility for the existence of a heretofore undiscovered rare and poorly understood atmospheric phenomenon… e.g. “massless” electrically charged objects like “dusty” plasmas might explain BOLs, foo fighters, and other similar sightings reported by pilots.

The MoD report is discussing UAP of all commonly reported recurring shapes including ellipsoids, not simply BOL or "Foo Fighters". The report itself makes this very clear.

Originally posted by Access Denied
My point exactly. This early sighting, despite the witness’ bizarre description which we know is highly subjective and ambiguous at best, was attributed to a meteor… not a “flying saucer”.

Your completely right about you and I being able to look at the same thing (document or report) and see two completely different things!!!

For instance, it was only in 1802 that Edward Howard proposed an Extraterrestrial explanation for meteors rather than the atmospheric phenomena explanation popular at the time. That was only 6 years prior to this 1808 report and it took 31 years for the Scientific community to accept that explanation in 1833. So you see "your" idea of "was attributed to a meteor" and "my" idea of "was attributed to a meteor" in this specific 1808 report are two completely different ideas!

Do I even need to talk about the description, characteristics, and behaviors of the object reported in the 1808 report and how these conform to a UAP and not a "meteor"?

As for not being LABELED a "Flying Saucer", it's true that at the time in 1808 "Flying Saucer" was not in the public lexicon as a label for ellipsoidal objects. So if your arguing that the words "Flying Saucer" were not used then your right, but if we are talking about objects described as ellipsoids then there are many of these that predate 1947 and would be considered 'classic' "Flying Saucers" today.



[edit on 22-10-2007 by lost_shaman]

UFOlogy is infiltrated with dis info agents that promote the
events minus all the good evidence and shut down attempts
to counter.

Then the dis info skeptics come out of the wood work a al
Project Blue Book and pull out the bird and balloon cards.

So where do we go.

You would have to be lucky like the sheriff asking if your 30 aut 6
was fired recently cause someone shot at a saucer.

A phantom or a flying craft that does not exist... yeah sheriff we
don't shoot at saucers cause the info is suppressed.

Or a saucer crash into a house and six stretchers are taken out
with three having smaller humans. The UFO police were at the
sight in 15 minuets. Basically this story would be confined to the
neighborhood.

People state their UFO experience and thats about it.
There can't be much else.