Science and the failure to investigate Unidentified Aerial Phenomena.

reply to post by yeti101


Thats interesting - can you supply a link or book reference?

I could be wrong but SEPRA (formerly GEPAN) did conduct an extensive scientific study - 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".

www.ufoevidence.org...

There has also been quite a number of scientific reports written on the UFO subject (like the one below dealing with E.M. interference effects written by Dr. Richard Haines) - perhaps the one common factor in all these studies being that 'pseudosceptics' rarely address them.

56 Pilot Sightings Involving Electromagnetic Effects.

"Reports of anomalous aerial objects (AAO) appearing in the atmosphere continue to be made by pilots of almost every airline and air force of the world in addition to private and experimental test pilots.
This paper presents a review of 56 reports of AAO in which electromagnetic effects (E-M) take place on-board the aircraft when the phenomenon is located nearby but not before it appeared or after it had departed.
Reported E-M effects included radio interference or total failure, radar contact with and without simultaneous visual contact, magnetic and/or gyro-compass deviations, automatic direction finder failure or interference, engine stopping or interruption, dimming cabin lights, transponder failure, and military aircraft weapon system failure.
We're not dealing with mental projections or hallucinations on the part of the witness but with a real physical phenomenon."

Dr. Richard Haines, Psychologist specializing in pilot and astronaut "human factors" research for the Ames NASA Research Center in California-Chief of the Space Human Factors Office.

There are many more examples here - are you truly of the opinion that all this scientific research is just 'propaganda' and theres absolutely no truth to any of the subject matter contained within the reports or congressional hearings?

If so, why?

reply to post by internos


Internos, great post and I'd tend to agree with your comments there -I've got quite a lot of respect for Dr James E. Mcdonald and he makes some very interesting points below about the RB-47 case, the Lakenheath case and incidents at Haneda and Kirtland Air Force Bases.

He also makes some revealing comments about the inadequacy and incompetence of U.S. Government sanctioned studies into the subject:

Science in Default: Twenty-Two Years of Inadequate UFO Investigations

Close examination of the level of investigation and the level of scientific analysis involved in Project Sign (1948-9), Project Grudge (1949- 52), and Project Bluebook (1953 to date), reveals that these were, viewed scientifically, almost meaning less investigations.
Even during occasional periods (e.g., 1952) characterized by fairly active investigation of UFO cases, there was still such slight scientific expertise involved that there was never any real chance that the puzzling phenomena encountered in the most significant UFO cases would be elucidated.
Furthermore, the panels, consultants, contractual studies, etc., that the Air Force has had working on the UFO problem over the past 22 years have, with essentially no exception, brought almost negligible scientific scrutiny into the picture.

The Condon Report, released in January, 1968, after about two years of Air Force-supported study is, in my opinion, quite inadequate.
The sheer bulk of the Report, and the inclusion of much that can only be viewed as "scientific padding", cannot conceal from anyone who studies it closely the salient point that it represents an examination of only a tiny fraction of the most puzzling UFO reports of the past two decades, and that its level of scientific argumentation is wholly unsatisfactory. Furthermore, of the roughly 90 cases that it specifically confronts, over 30 are conceded to be unexplained.
With so large a fraction of unexplained cases (out of a sample that is by no means limited only to the truly puzzling cases, but includes an objectionably large number of obviously trivial cases), it is far from clear how Dr. Condon felt justified in concluding that the study indicated "that further extensive study of UFOs probably cannot be justified in the expectation that science will be advanced thereby."

Link

Cheers.

[edit on 02/10/08 by karl 12]

Originally posted by zaiger
well it begs the question what is a scientist. The definition of scientist is so broad that includes anyone who uses the scientific method. For UFOs it is hard to find "scientists" to proove anything. Due to the very nature of science and how specialized every field of science it just complicates the problem.

Yes, perhaps we need a number of scientific disciplines brought to bear on the objective analysis of the UFO/OVNI subject - Dr J Allen Hynek (Chairman of the Department of Astronomy at Northwestern University) makes some good points in this opening report statement:

The Emerging Picture of the UFO Problem
By Joseph Allen Hynek

Northwestern University
Evanston, Illinois

Presented at the AIAA 13th Aerospace Sciences Meeting Pasadena, Calif., January 20-22, 1975.

This paper intends to present the elements of the UFO problem, today. Truly unidentified reports of events in the air, and close to the ground, exist, events worldwide in origin and appearing to fit a relatively small number of patterns.
The data, amenable to study of an interdisciplinary nature, involving a number of scientific disciplines and probably necessitating new departures in methodology, have been imperfectly studied in the past and have been virtually ignored by science.
An increasing interest in, and open-mindedness about the UFO phenomenon, whatever its cause, on the part of established scientists and the educated public exists, and there has been created a Center for UFO Studies, whose activities are guided by a scientific board of established scientists in their respective disciplines.
The outstanding objective of the attack on the UFO problem is the formulation of a hypothesis - or hypotheses - that encompasses the established parameters of the UFO phenomenon - no matter how far beyond the boundaries of present day science it may have to be.

Link

Cheers.

[edit on 02/10/08 by karl 12]

Originally posted by tmayhew01

Its sad, because when new research points in a different direction than mainstream scientists... scientific theory fly's out the window.

Tmayhew -you make a mighty fine point there.

Below are some revealing quotes made by scientists from the past who were absolutely convinced about their 'opinions'.

They were sure it couldn't be done

"No possible combination of known substances, known forms of machinery, and known forms of force, can be united in a practical machine by which man shall fly long distances through the air..."
Simon Newcomb (1835-1909), astronomer,
head of the U.S. Naval Observatory



"Men might as well project a voyage to the Moon as attempt to employ steam navigation against the stormy North Atlantic Ocean".
Dr. Dionysus Lardner (1793-1859)
Professor of Natural Philosophy and Astronomy



"There is no hope for the fanciful idea of reaching the Moon because of insurmountable barriers to escaping the Earth's gravity".
Dr. Forest Ray Moulton, University of
Chicago astronomer, 1932.



"Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible".
Lord Kelvin (1824-1907)
British mathematician and physicist



"To place a man in a multi-stage rocket and project him into the controlling gravitational field of the moon where the passengers can make scientific observations, perhaps land alive, and then return to earth--all that constitutes a wild dream worthy of Jules Verne. I am bold enough to say that such a man-made voyage will never occur regardless of all future advances".
Lee DeForest,
American radio pioneer, 1926.



"Rail travel at high speed is not possible because passengers, unable to breathe, would die of asphyxia".
Dr. Dionysus Lardner (1793-1859)
Professor of Natural Philosophy and Astronomy



"What can be more palpably absurd than the prospect held out of locomotives travelling twice as fast as stagecoaches?"
The Quarterly Review, England (March 1825)

Link

Cheers.

Article from the 1968 edition of the scientific review 'Electronic Design'

SCIENTISTS ASK THAT UFOS ARE STUDIED SERIOUSLY:

Six famous scientists recommended that the Congress should seriously plan to give its support to an intensive international study of UFOS (unidentified flying objects). They asked in a pressing way that the subject is not condemned in advance, not turned in derision and not overlooked.

The six scientists brought their testimonial to a UFO symposium sponsored by House Committee on Science and Astronautics. These scientists were: Dr. Robert L. Baker Jr of the Computer Sciences Corporation; Dr. Robert L. Hall, professor of sociology at the university of Illinois; Dr. James A. Harder, professor of civil engineering of the University of California with Berkeley; Dr. J. Allen Hynek, adviser of the U.S. Air Force as regards UFOS and astrophysicist in Northwestern University; Dr. James McDonald, senior of physics at the university of Arizona and Dr. Carl Sagan, astronomer in Cornell University.

link

Interesting Quote:

"As a result of several trips to project Bluebook,I´ve had an opportunity to examine quite carefully and in detail the types of reports that are made by Bluebook personnel. In most cases,I have found that theres almost no correlation between so-called "evaluations and explanations" that are made by Bluebook and the facts of the case...
There are hundreds of good cases in the Air Force files that should have led to top-level scientific scrutiny of this problem,years ago,yet these cases have been swept under the rug in a most disturbing way by Project Bluebook investigators and their consultants."
Dr James McDonald -Senior physicist at the Institute for Atmospheric Physics and professor in the Department of Meteorology at the University of Arizona

UFOs - A Challenge to Mainstream Science

...So what do scientists need to conduct a serious investigation of the UFO phenomenon? Scientists need:

(1) a physical phenomenon to observe;

(2) the formulation of a hypothesis about the phenomenon;

(3) experiments to test the hypothesis; and

(4) conclusions based on the results of the tests that confirm, refute or modify the hypothesis.


The UFO phenomenon meets all four of these scientific requirements:

(1) There is a physical phenomenon to observe. UFOs have been seen worldwide for over 50 years and captured on still and motion picture film and on videotape. There are a number of databases available, each of which contains tens of thousands of documented reports of UFO sightings.

(2) Hypotheses have been formulated. There are many variations of a simple hypothesis: UFOs are intelligently-controlled, physical craft not of Earthly origin.

(3) There is physical evidence that can be scientifically tested. Physical evidence of UFO operations in and around the Earth's atmosphere, as well as on the surface of the Earth, exists and has been studied scientifically (e.g., soil samples, radiation effects, electromagnetic activity).

(4) Evidence-based conclusions can be drawn by scientists. The results of the scientific tests will confirm, refute or modify the hypothesis that UFOs are physical craft not of Earthly origin.

Link

[edit on 02/10/08 by karl 12]

Interesting statements made by the Chief Official in charge of Project Bluebook, Captain Edward J. Ruppelt:

Captain Ed Ruppelt:

After the Fort Monmouth, NJ, radar sightings (which started on Sept 10, 1951), the Air Force held a meeting at the Pentagon. General Cabell presided over the meeting, and it was attended by his entire staff plus Lieutenant Cummings, Lieutenant Colonel Rosengarten, and a special representative from Republic Aircraft Corporation. The man from Republic supposedly represented a group of top U.S. industrialists and scientists who thought that there should be a lot more sensible answers coming from the Air Force regarding UFOs.

"Every word of the two-hour meeting was recorded on a wire recorder. The recording was so hot that it was later destroyed, but not before I had heard it several times......it didn't exactly follow the tone of the official Air Force releases--many of the people present at the meeting weren't as convinced that the 'hoax, hallucination, and misidentification' answer was quite as positive as the Grudge Report and subsequent press releases made out."

Also

"The one thing about these briefings that never failed to amaze me, although it happened time and time again, was the interest in UFOs within scientific circles. As soon as the word spread that Project Blue Book was giving official briefings to groups with the proper security clearances, we had no trouble in getting scientists to swap free advice for a briefing. I might add that we briefed only groups who were engaged in government work and who had the proper security clearances solely because we could discuss any government project that might be of help to us in pinning down the UFO. Our briefings weren't just squeezed in either; in many instances we would arrive at a place to find that a whole day had been set aside to talk about UFOs. And never once did I meet anyone who laughed off the whole subject of flying saucers even though publicly these same people had jovially sloughed off the press with answers of 'hallucinations,' 'absurd', or 'a waste of time and money.' They weren't wild-eyed fans but they were certainly interested."

Capt. Edward J. Ruppelt.

Quotes

reply to post by karl 12


Fascinating quotes, especially the second. Isn't it sad though that these scientists, of varying fields, must present a face of incredulity to the public in spite of their interest, merely to avoid condemnation and loss of grants? I think that speaks volumes about the way mainstream science treats subjects like this. How can we expect proper investigation when those investigating worry about loss of funding or career? ugh.....sometimes it sickens me.

Originally posted by optimus primal

Isn't it sad though that these scientists, of varying fields, must present a face of incredulity to the public in spite of their interest, merely to avoid condemnation and loss of grants? I think that speaks volumes about the way mainstream science treats subjects like this. How can we expect proper investigation when those investigating worry about loss of funding or career? ugh.....sometimes it sickens me.

OP good point mate and it sickens me too - very sad state of affairs.

The late Richard Hall did come up with a few interesting proposals about what science could do though:

WHAT SCIENCE COULD DO:

Aside from the potentially fertile fields of study that UFOs offer to scholars in sociology, history, psychology, history and sociology of science, anthropology, and political science, the ways that the physical and biological sciences COULD meaningfully study these reports is limited only by two lacks: lack of imagination and lack of funding. The following suggestions merely scratch the surface:

* Have multidisciplinary teams on standby to go to the scene of a close encounter UFO sighting with reported physical or physiological evidence, systematically gather data, and conduct all appropriate laboratory analyses. Apply forensic science investigative techniques very much like those used at an accident site or crime scene. In the case of physiological effects on witnesses, conduct appropriate medical tests. For vehicles that have experienced E-M effects, make notes on the age and condition of the engine, document the ignition system and lights, and check vehicle for magnetic signature.



* Develop an instrumentation package to transport quickly to areas where UFO sightings persist for a period of time (there are numerous precedents for this). Include sophisticated tracking cameras and special films, diffraction gratings or other light spectrum analyzers, broad-spectrum electromagnetic energy detectors, and tape recorders with sensitive directional microphones for recording sound.



* Compile a computer data base of all cases that meet a certain minimum set of standards geared toward potential evidential value. Conduct statistical analyses of geophysical associations. Systematically study the data relevant to propulsion clues and UFO physics.



* Compile historical evidence on radar-visual UFO sightings, encourage current reporting of radar-visual cases to a central agency, and analyze these cases in terms of known radar imagery and the particular radar set capabilities.



* Compile historical catalogues of all known physical and physiological evidence cases and systematically acquire all extant analysis reports. Encourage current reporting of similar cases to a central agency. This would include E-M effects on vehicles and effects on humans and animals, as well as physical trace evidence.



* Encourage reputable witnesses who are willing to swear an affidavit about their still photographs or motion picture/videotape films, use a selective process to determine which films potentially have probative value, and submit the selected films to expert photoanalysis.



* Establish a refereed scientific journal that will entertain articles reporting on case investigations, physical and physiological evidence, and analysis reports and promote thorough peer review of all scientific studies.

Link

Cheers.

Originally posted by internos

Ask to those who jumped to those conclusions if they know about this stuff.
The major problem is always the same: ignorant and presumptuous people believing to know everything but what they really know is the 0,00003 of what they should know before even opening their mouth.
After having ruled out birds, chinese lanterrns, planes, helicopters, bugs and a LOT of more stuff then you have a real ufo.

[edit on 7/9/2009 by internos]

How then would one determine if one knew enough to open their mouth? It would seem impossible without already having the knowledge, in which case then you would know. So is it a meetable demand? And what if you open your mouth when you don't know enough, but also don't claim or believe to know "everything" (which nobody does, anyway)? (not claiming and/or believing to know everything is meetable.)

Two important (and very interesting) reports on science, scientists and the UFO subject:

Symposium on Unidentified Flying Objects -Committee on Science and Astronautics - US House of Representatives,1968.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/b06ef12fdf4e.jpg[/atsimg]

"Today the House Committee on Science and Astronautics conducts a very special session, a symposium on the subject of unidentified flying objects; the name of which is a reminder to us of our ignorance on this subject and a challenge to acquire more knowledge thereof. We approach the question of unidentified flying objects as purely a scientific problem, one of unanswered questions. Certainly the rigid and exacting discipline of science should be marshaled to explore the nature of phenomena which reliable citizens continue to report"

Link

---

UFOs: A NEW LOOK - A Special Report by the The National Investigations Committee on Aerial Phenomena (NICAP)

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/a74b5e6a20cb.jpg[/atsimg]

"One of the most significant developments since 1964 has been the increasing concern over the UFO problem demonstrated by professional scientists and engineers. The growing involvement of scientists insisting on a careful review of the evidence decreases the likelihood that the problem could or would be buried or glossed over in the future before a proper evaluation is made".

Link

Stanton Friedman discusses scientific methods of UFO investigation:

Ann Druffell - The Firestorm: Dr. McDonald's Fight for UFO Science.

Google Video Link

Ann Druffel expands on her new book, Firestorm, which tells the important story of Dr. James McDonald. Her book and presentation powerfully demonstrate what researchers have gone through to bring a truth to the public which the public's elected and appointed officials did not want acknowledged. Of all the researchers who intersected with the process and prospects of governmental public disclosure, none was more intellectually suited and had collected more scientifically valid data than Dr. James E. McDonald, a prominent scientist and professor with the Institute of Atmospheric Physics and the University of Arizona at Tucson. He had unprecedented high-level contacts, and during his scientific career introduced numerous groundbreaking projects in meteorology and climatology under ONR contracts and with top scientific organizations. Between 1958-1971 he worked closely with science-oriented UFO groups nationwide and in several foreign countries. He gave hundreds of talks on UFOs before top scientific organizations, influencing numerous scientists to take the UFO question seriously and in 1968 was instrumental in bringing about one of only two public Congressional hearing, thus far, on the UFO subject.

[edit on 02/10/08 by karl 12]

reply to post by karl 12


Australian UFO researcher Bill Chalker makes some interesting points about how 'politicised and militarised' science has tried to bury the UFO subject, he also raises some important points about inconsistencies and the apparent lack of objectivity of the government sponsered ´Condon report´:

SCIENCE and the UFO CONTROVERSY