NCCC Professor Wants UFOs Studied.

“It’s about time we looked into [UFOs] as a worthy area of study. It’s important that the whole subject be brought out in the open and investigated.”
Professor Philip Haseley

Interesting article from the Buffalo News dealing with calls for the UFO subject to be seriously studied and open to rigorous, objective investigation.

NCCC Professor Wants UFOs Studied


[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/8126f2c75c50.jpg[/atsimg]

Philip Haseley has never had any encounters with UFOs or extraterrestrials, but he knows dozens of people who say they have.

“It happens to millions of people [around the world],” he said. “It’s about time we looked into this as a worthy area of study. It’s important that the whole subject be brought out in the open and investigated.”

Haseley is doing his part. He is as serious about unidentified flying objects as anyone in the region. The Niagara County Community College anthropology professor has brought several speakers on the subject to the college in recent years and is head of the Western New York Mutual UFO Network, a group interested in UFO research.

Like the national organization, the Western New York group researches reported UFO sightings.

Generally, about 30 to 50 claims of UFOs are reported monthly across the state, Haseley said, including two or three in this region.

The investigation is done in a scientific manner, he says. Some members receive training, including in field investigation, astronomy and meteorology. They also are taught to use radar and other types of instruments and technology.

“To say we are UFO believers basically implies we are taking this on faith, and that’s not the case,” he said. “There’s plenty of evidence.”

The Western New York group has about 25 members, including about 15 who meet regularly to discuss books and local cases, and to socialize. They are a diverse group, ranging in age from late teens to the 70s. They are typical citizens, including students, teachers, engineers and businesspeople.

“We have a slew of people from different ages and educational backgrounds,” he said. “And the only thing that brings them together is an interest in UFOs and the desire to find out what they are all about.”

Some in the group say they have had some kind of encounter. One member, along with his son, saw a huge triangular shape in the sky on a recent morning in their backyard in the Town of Tonawanda. Another member claims to have been regularly abducted since age 5, taken aboard a craft, subjected to medical examinations and given tours.

Haseley and other UFO network members are well aware that there are skeptics.

“We have to deal with skeptics like any other UFO organization, and we are perfectly willing to be critiqued,” he said. “We know people who think this is a nonsense subject. And we’ll refer you to voluminous literature and facts about UFOs.”

Link

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

At least someone is standing up.
He will be treated as another UFO nut. crackpot. crazy lunatic.

Another study by someone soon to be labelled a crackpot for going against mainstream science.

reply to post by SaturnFX


My thoughts exactly.

Methinks a certain professor, will soon have a drastic budget cut.

Bravery doesn't pay very well.

reply to post by magnetix


Magnetix, you're probably right.

I always thought Bernard Haisch made a good point in this quote:

“Cut through the ridicule and search for factual information in most of the skeptical commentary and one is usually left with nothing. This is not surprising. After all, how can one rationally object to a call for scientific examination of evidence?

Astrophysicist Bernard Haisch - homepage

Cheers.

Originally posted by magnetix
At least someone is standing up.
He will be treated as another UFO nut. crackpot. crazy lunatic.

Please.

Thousands of people have called for the serious study of UFOs.

Are those of us without some big college degree without merit?

This is good but he better be careful not to let the crackpots enter the podium.

“We have to deal with skeptics like any other UFO organization, and we are perfectly willing to be critiqued,” he said. “We know people who think this is a nonsense subject. And we’ll refer you to voluminous literature and facts about UFOs.”

If you're not skeptical of the evidence how are you supposed to be taken seriously by the scientific community?

[edit on 11-4-2010 by cripmeister]

reply to post by skepticantiseptic


Unfortunately... yes. there's a certain mindset among the mainstream that only those with "doctor" or "professor" before their names are worth listening too. what people don't understand is that, while a lot of these university grade professors are indeed more worth listening to due to their intelligence and invested research in their field of study, there are a lot of idiots and genuine crackpots that are somehow able to graduate collage and enter the scientific community, either through money, networking, whatever.

to make it worst is the idea that if you do not have any sort of title, your questions and views are moot and unimportant, no matter how much thought and research you put in to it.

to put it simply, "Who are you, a nobody, to question, or inform, me, a somebody?" elitism in a nutshell

in order for us nobodies to be taken seriously, we need to get one of the "intelligent elites" on our side.

in a way it is a good thing, cause at least we have a (at least partially,)educated person speaking for us. someone who knows what their talking about and how to say it.


[edit on 4/11/10 by Redajin]

Originally posted by cripmeister
This is good but he better be careful not to let the crackpots enter the podium.

Cripmeister -I think there are crackpots on either side of the UFO debate mate.

Originally posted by cripmeister

“We have to deal with skeptics like any other UFO organization, and we are perfectly willing to be critiqued,” he said. “We know people who think this is a nonsense subject. And we’ll refer you to voluminous literature and facts about UFOs.”

If you're not skeptical of the evidence how are you supposed to be taken seriously by the scientific community?

I don't think he's referring to true sceptics - just wilfully ignorant cynics who haven't lifted a finger to educate themselves about the subject (this includes many mainstream scientists).

Here's two other relevant statements about academics being completely unaware of UFO evidence due to conditioning, prejudice or apathy.

"Because few scientists have carefully studied the literature and conducted field investigations, most know pratically nothing about UFOs. Their ignorance of the subject has much to do with their attitudes towards it".
Dr David M Jacobs, Professor of History, Temple University - (UFO Congress paper, 1980).




"Most scientists have never had the occasion to confront evidence concerning the UFO phenomenon. To a scientist, the main source of hard information (other than his own experiments' observations) is provided by the scientific journals. With rare exceptions, scientific journals do not publish reports of UFO observations. The decision not to publish is made by the editor acting on the advice of reviewers. This process is self-reinforcing: the apparent lack of data confirms the view that there is nothing to the UFO phenomenon, and this view (prejudice) works against the presentation of relevant data."
Peter A. Sturrock, "An Analysis of the Condon Report on the Colorado UFO Project," Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol.1, No.1, 1987

Cheers.

reply to post by karl 12


Of course, there are crackpots everywhere and Dr David Jacobs is one of them. Are you aware of the Emma Woods debacle? If not, you really should listen to the tapes at Paratopia. I think the UFO crackpots do more damage than the willfully ignorant cynics.

edit: willfully ignorant cynic, willful cynic is something else right?

[edit on 11-4-2010 by cripmeister]

reply to post by cripmeister


Cripmeister, I understand your point but the statement is thirty years old and taken from this NICAP file (above an interesting one made by Albert Einstein) - can I ask if you agree the quote's content?

As for mainstream science -I think Brad Sparks makes a pretty darn good point in this clip:

Google Video Link

Cheers.

Originally posted by Redajin
Unfortunately... yes. there's a certain mindset among the mainstream that only those with "doctor" or "professor" before their names are worth listening too.

Redajin, I see what you're saying but there's been quite a number of prominent scientists, professors, academics (not to mention politicians and high ranking military officials) who have spoken out about the reality of the UFO subject and still been ignored.

Some of their statements are listed here and there's also an interesting article below about scientists asking for intensive, international study as far back as 1968.

Article from the scientific review publication "Electronic Design", September 1st, 1968.

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.

McDonald spoke about what he learned while studying more than 300 cases of UFOs observations. The number of UFO sightings being accompanied by some form by interference with the ground networks of electrical power distribution convinced him, he said, that UFOS are perfectly real, with a "strong possibility that we are under the monitoring of extraterrestrial intelligences... No service has never studied that, and however", told McDonald, "it could be the answer to all the question about UFOS."

Sagan supported this opinion: "If we are visited by extraterrestrial travelers, it would be crazy that we are not interested". He suggested that more stress is put on programs of interplanetary exploration, to obtain more information.

The scientists were unanimous to recommend that the existing program of investigation of the U.S. Air Force must be left aside in favor of a program whose direction would be entrusted to the National Science Foundation, or to the National Academy of Sciences. Hynek urged that an international study be undertaken on a worldwide scale under the authority of the U.N.

It is expected that the U.S. Air Force will submit during this September the report on its program of investigation on UFOS to the National Academy of Sciences. Last spring, the member of the Chamber of Representatives J. Edward Rousch (representative of Indiana) had recommended that the Congress takes the direction of all research on UFOS.

Link

Cheers.

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

reply to post by karl 12


I totally agree with Brad Sparks comment. The key question is of course why science will not touch the subject. Is it because it is too difficult to study? because crackpots continually misrepresent the subject making it out to be something it is not? What should a serious scientific study on the UFO phenomena focus on? These are very difficult questions. What I do know is that 50 years of eyewitness reports, photos and videos have gotten us nowhere. We need to study the actual phenomena, but how?

[edit on 12-4-2010 by cripmeister]

reply to post by cripmeister



Cripmeister, you make some interesting comments there bud - there's some information covered at this link (and in the statement below) which may be worth consideration but it's worth pointing out there has already been scientific studies, papers, symposiums etc.. conducted on the UFO subject and some of their contents make for truly interesting reading - the work of Dr Richard Haines at NARCAP is a good example but there are quite a few others.

Quote:

“The undeniable reality is that there are a substantial number of multi-sensor UFO cases backed by thousands of credible witnesses. In the physical domain there are many photos, videos, radar tracking, satellite sensor reports, landing traces including depressions and anomalous residual radiation, electromagnetic interference, and confirmed physiological effects. Personal observations have been made both day and night, often under excellent visibility with some at close range. Included are reports from multiple independent witnesses to the same event. Psychological testing of some observers has confirmed their mentally competence. Why is none of this considered evidence?

There are over 3000 cases reported by pilots, some of which include interference with flight controls. On numerous occasions air traffic controllers and other radar operators have noted unexplained objects on their scopes. So too have several astronomers and other competent scientists reported their personal observations. Many military officials from several countries have confirmed multi-sensor observations of UFOs. The most senior air defense officers of Russia, Brazil, Belgium and recently a former Chief of Naval Operations in Chile all have stated that UFOs are real. These cases and comments are a miniscule fraction of the total body of evidence.
...Decades in duration and global in nature, there are too many hard sensor data-points and millions of eyewitnesses to ignore. We certainly can debate the significance of specific data and question whether or not it establishes a causal relationship between the observations and extraterrestrial life.
However, it is only through ignorance or pomposity that one can say no evidence exists.”

John B. Alexander,Ph.D

One things for sure - any meaningful 'objective' investigation couldn't be half as bad as some of the 'government sponsered' ones we've had in the past - just look at some of these 'crackpot' explanations.

Cheers.

reply to post by karl 12


The final chapter of the 1964 NICAP report defines the problem very well I think

Only a superficial analysis of the cultist claims is necessary to make one a skeptic, because it is easy to see that they present beliefs and faith rather than evidence. Ergo, there are no UFOs. Thus the cultists (and opportunists, and con-men) obscure the real issues, and mislead critical-minded people into believing that there is no evidence for UFOs. Source

But sadly they equate skepticism with dismissal, everyone should be skeptical (critical-minded) of UFO claims no matter who makes them. It seems many UFOlogists start out this way but lose their edge as the years go by.

Yes I have read the force fit explanations, I have always suspected these were made because of time constraints.

[edit on 12-4-2010 by cripmeister]

Originally posted by SaturnFX
Another study by someone soon to be labelled a crackpot for going against mainstream science.

Not at all. He will be labeled a "crackpot" because of what the "ufo community" and Hollywood has done to the subject. Seriously think about that, read thee forums and imagine the average Joe peeking in here and reading this MADNESS.

Originally posted by cripmeister
The final chapter of the 1964 NICAP report defines the problem very well I think

Cripmeister, thanks for the reply - I agree the NICAP Evidence report does cover quite a lot of UFO reports that are very difficult to dismiss - I just can't help wondering how many self proclaimed 'UFO sceptics' have actualy bothered to read it though - same goes for the scientific reports authored by Dr Richard Haines or even any of the literature from the U.S. Congressional Hearings.

I also agree with the comments you posted about cultists and I thought this paragraph made a good point:

The human reactions to UFO reports very nearly have prevented a rational investigation of these phenomena. Neither the rabid "believers" nor the dogmatic skeptics favor a scientific review of the UFO problem. Both think they have the answer. To the neo-religious cultists, largely centered in southern California, UFOs are the vessels of saintly beings from space (or another dimension) come to aid us through troubled times. To the skeptics, UFOs are a figment of the imagination dreamed up by unstable individuals unable to face up to the realities of the day. Neither of these positions is tenable on the basis of the evidence acquired to date.
Link

Originally posted by cripmeister
But sadly they equate skepticism with dismissal, everyone should be skeptical (critical-minded) of UFO claims no matter who makes them.

Yes, there's a great paragraph below with perhaps the best defintion of a 'true sceptic' I've ever heard and the values described should certainly be applauded - the trouble I (and I suspect many others) find is that people who pour scorn and derision onto the UFO subject and know next to nothing about it (ie: 'wilfully ignorant cynics') often hide behind the label of 'scepticism' and give the practise a bad name.

Skeptic - One who practices the method of suspended judgment, engages in rational and dispassionate reasoning as exemplified by the scientific method, shows willingness to consider alternative explanations without prejudice based on prior beliefs, and who seeks out evidence and carefully scrutinizes its validity.
Link

Originally posted by cripmeister
It seems many UFOlogists start out this way but lose their edge as the years go by.

Yes, I agree - sadly I've also seen many true sceptics descend into embittered cynicism and it's not a pretty sight - maybe that's why 'dispassionate objectivity' is so important.

Originally posted by cripmeister
Yes I have read the force fit explanations, I have always suspected these were made because of time constraints.

Well I completely disagree there but do respect your opinion -maybe you could expand on your thoughts and post your reasoning in the relevant thread:


USAF "force fit" debunks.


Cheers.

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

reply to post by karl 12


Pardon my ignorance, I thought you were referring to the debunking in the early 1950s. Sorry for the off topic.

reply to post by karl 12


Very true

perhaps what we all need is to be louder, more forceful about it (without becoming to violent of course)

we need to be more up into their faces about this. we need to make it all to clear that this needs to be seriously looked into. for to long have this subject been the butt-end of jokes and jeers. it's been drowned out by idiots and crackpots.

we, as an intelligent community in the UFO field, are all to quiet or to timid. and because of that we let the real idiots, crack-pots, scam artists, and whatnot, who already know how to be loud, speak for us.

we all need to show them just how serious this is, and that we're not going to shut up about it while its looked at halfheartedly. We also need to tell those who are trying to keep this subject in "the fringe," as I like to call it, that, we're not going to take it. and we need to do it intelligently and without fear or modesty.

BUMP

Another link here -

www.telegraph.co.uk...