Originally posted by seethelight
reply to post by Xtraeme
Once we believe in a pattern, everything falls into place.
The blinking in and out of the anomaly, for instance...
If when it disappeared, it reappeared in front of another human, that human would assume that they were its "target".
I would only say "I'm the object's target" if it happened numerous times, after I had changed position in a manner that was discontinuous. Which
is what we see with the RB-47 case.
Not saying that happened, btw., but that when we start believing things our entire world-view tends to mould to our beliefs.
Not matter what reality actually ... well... is.
This is an inevitable problem with humans projecting & trying to force an idea "to fit it in to the shoe." A common approach to get around this is
to use computer modeling, applying a consistent approach on a large set of data, to see what falls out.
I understand you have developed methods you trust, when you evaluate information, and that's admirable, but unless this happens repeatedly we
already have "all the available information" on this case. The rest is supposition based on our beliefs and our passions and our desire.
The age old, "If it's not repeatable it can't be said to be true" problem. This is a huge hurdle. I've put together a proposal to resolve this
issue in a scientifically rigorous manner as I somewhat touch on below ...
I'm not saying your wrong, per se, but that we can't know, probably ever, what "right" is/was in this case.
So that's not good enough for me to make "definitive" claims.
And that, at the core, is my problem with the OP.
Your point demonstrates the difficulty of dealing with anecdotal evidence. However most people are intelligent enough that they can distinguish
earnest accounts from fluff. Absolutely some people are schizophrenic. Others so badly want for their observation to be something extraordinary that
they jump to the conclusion that it must be alien despite other possible mundane explanations. This is why the AF, in 1952, stopped giving credence to
many UFO reports simply because it required a considerable amount of time sifting through peoples biases / perceptual errors. It's well known that
90-95% of all UFO observations are mundane, but the residue of truly astonishing accounts is what's interesting and worth narrowing in on.
Where the subject of UFOs becomes truly compelling is when there's objective evidence supporting the notion of an airborne object.
Annecdotal accounts, though not rigorous, have scientific value. More to the point I was even able to demonstrate how
anecdotal UFO reports have tangibly benefited science. The trick is making those
anecdotal accounts as objectively rigorous as possible to reduce the signal-to-noise ratio.
Furthermore at the heart of your post is that as people collect data, they often try to fill in the "holes" with various hypotheses to rationalize
the observation. Something that ufologists need to learn is to separate hypotheses from identifications and keep the facts separate from pet
theories.
The study of UFOs is effectively what intelligence analysts deal with on a daily basis. They gather imperfect information, make an assessment, and
then pipe data reduction reports to various governmental departments.
Much the same science still has lots of swiss-cheese sized holes and we have to take our leads wherever we get them (anecdotal or otherwise). Defining
UFO as a "process to identify an unidentified aerial sighting" correctly illustrates the notion of how we as humans deal with incomplete information
and how we go about gaining clarity.
In the cases where UFO sightings aren't simply misidentifications, the concept of UFOs as a process to identify the sighting provides a mental
framework so the information derived from rigorous analysis reveals unassailable properties about the sighting.
The details that "fall out" of this process potentially highlight a new phenomenon. Thereby giving scientists in all areas of study ideas on how to
induce / better study it.
In my view the study of UFOs can be thought of as "Intelligence gathering for Science." So at the heart of the "Ufology" is the need for an
automated "process to identify an unidentified aerial object." I've been working on an application to perform this function and I've been courting
NAS, NSF, & various other agencies to gain further funding.
Proof is in the eye-of-the-beholder. Thankfully scientific processes makes the bar very high. So we can say with a great deal of confidence what we
know is true.
My goal is to decrease the time we spend bickering about what is and what isn't by simply ruling out what is. Then we can focus on the facts of these
truly astonishing cases & try to answer for ourselves what they might represent.
To be honest I would be much happier if UFOs that exhibit craft-like properties DO NOT represent non-human or non-present-day human crafts. I'm
strongly against the idea of spraying radio signals out in to space. We simply have no idea what we're exposing ourselves to. The longer we can
isolate ourselves the better.
If, and I say a big IF, some UFOs represent a non-terrestrial intelligence, I can't help but think we're f##ked.
Besides, as you pointed out, very often things we ascribe somewhat incredible properties to often turn out to have more down-to-earth explanations.
I'm all for this type of thinking.
Even if we're only encountering a new physical aspect of reality (ha! - only), it's still useful to our understanding of the world around us. It's
the very point of science to explain things & to rigorously ascertain aspects of our reality.
The second science stops answering peoples questions in an unbiased manner, it's no longer serving its function. Furthermore it's the point of
government to ensure its people safety. Many people, myself included, are floored at the utter irresponsibility of the DOD flatly stating,
No UFO reported, investigated, and evaluated by the Air Force has ever given any indication of threat to our national security."
www.dod.mil...
This is blatant misinformation and patently false.
Thanks to Mr. Hastings we know that on Mar. 16, 1967 in Montana at the Malmstrom AFB Minutemen Missile Launch Control Center (LCC), a perimeter
security guard phoned the on-staff Deputy Crew Commander (DMCCC), Cpt. Robert Salas, in the LCC capsule to report a glowing-red orb floating over the
facility. Salas not believing this instructed the man to "call [back] when something more significant happened."
5 to 10 minutes later, following another distressed security call, the alarm klaxon sounded and lights at the commander's station flashed indicating
missiles were entering a "no-go," or unlaunchable, condition. Oscar-flight lost 6 to 8 missiles that morning. Several miles away at Echo-flight,
under similar circumstances, another LCC crew lost all 10 missiles.
The loss of 1 nuclear missile let alone 18 is unprecedented.
According to
FOIA declassified Strategic Missile Wing
documents and interviews with ex-Boeing engineers’ tests were unable to identify a pathway for missile shutdowns. Mr. Salas has since gone
before the National Press Club and stated that he’s willing to
testify before Congress to the
truthfulness of this account.
[edit on 25-1-2010 by Xtraeme]