UFO Research of NASA's Paul R. Hill.

Originally posted by Observor
So all the evidence the multitudes of UFO researchers can produce is thousands of books and an explanation that some extraterrestrails with technological abilities far beyond publicly known capabilities of any country on earth are visting the earth?

And everything about who they are, what they want is guess work? Fantastic!

You've probably not been 'Observor'-ing UFO history closely enough? ;-) No crime. The number of people apparently unaware of that history around here is staggering ... even people who'll offer very frequent opinions, even while sometimes admitting to(!!) their lack of study. (Not necessarily you on that, Observor.)

But please, if you're sincerely interested in UFOs, go back and start with the mid- to late-1940's material, see the Project Blue Book unknowns, Special Report 14, the Robertson Panel history, Ruppelt's classic book, Hynek's books and articles, the mid-60's U.S. Congressional hearings and its history, the Condon Report plus its history, James McDonalds' excellent writings, Dr. Sturrock's studies, the new Swords (et al.) book, and plenty more I could list. Compare that knowledge (derived from official sources, not just 'opinions') to the silly debunking efforts and books of UFO-skeptics like Menzel and Klass, and I think then (and probably only then) does it becomes so blindingly obvious that the latter group (skeptics, debunkers) have been, and are being, intellectually dishonest. There's simply no other reasonable, informed conclusion. Really.

So I'm sorry for being so blunt here, but any people who'd roll their eyes at the entire UFO phenomenon, apparently just because there's no physical piece of alien tech on hand, are simply not reading enough. And even if that lack of intellectual fortitude can be forgiven, what probably should not be is the fact that they're also misunderstanding (purposely?) the nature of evidence and probability, and how those concepts filter into what is and is not accepted as reality by the mainstream, topics discussed routinely enough that they can't reasonably be ignored....

Does it matter that, nearly 75 years ago, the physical reality of the phenomenon was officially admitted to? Shouldn't that alone preclude summary dismissal by ANY individual? Given the overwhelming weight of accumulated evidence, any kind of dismissal at all would almost have to be summary, or, at 'best', due to psychological factors....

(Sigh. Wondering why I even bother to take the time to write such posts any more.... I suppose for any new forum members, caught up in the daily YouTube UFO chase.)

Bravo!!!
2nd that

reply to post by TeaAndStrumpets

It appears you haven't understood my post.

I am not interested in the veracity of the evidence available for the UFO phenomenon as such. I am willing to grant to that some crafts of extraterrestrial origin are visting the earth.

Does anyone have any evidence for how many types there are, what their purpose for the visits is and how it impacts our existence?

Yeah, I know there are a lot of guys giving out that "information", but I am asking about compelling evidence for the same. No, I am not willing to enrich these self-proclaimed "researchers" by buying their books.

Originally posted by TeaAndStrumpets

The number of people apparently unaware of that history around here is staggering ... even people who'll offer very frequent opinions, even while sometimes admitting to(!!) their lack of study.

I think 'staggering' is a good word to use mate - 'mindboggling' is another one.

Thought Stanford Professor of Astrophysics Dr Peter A. Sturrock nailed it pretty well with these recommendations (particularly number 1) and the subject of willful ignorance is also alluded to below in response to this book about government UFO documents when it states that few people will actually bother to read the thing.

The History We Don't Know.

What Swords does document, with formidable indexing, bibliography and appendix, are crimes not only against the scientific method, but against intellect as well. But in revisiting those flashpoints with entirely justified incredulity and indignation, Swords concentrates not so much on the baffling events as on the organizational reaction to them..

UFOs and Government belongs on those history shelves. Few will read it.

link

Originally posted by TeaAndStrumpets

But please, if you're sincerely interested in UFOs, go back and start with the mid- to late-1940's material, see the Project Blue Book unknowns, Special Report 14, the Robertson Panel history, Ruppelt's classic book, Hynek's books and articles, the mid-60's U.S. Congressional hearings and its history, the Condon Report plus its history, James McDonalds' excellent writings, Dr. Sturrock's studies, the new Swords (et al.) book, and plenty more I could list. Compare that knowledge (derived from official sources, not just 'opinions') to the silly debunking efforts and books of UFO-skeptics like Menzel and Klass, and I think then (and probably only then) does it becomes so blindingly obvious that the latter group (skeptics, debunkers) have been, and are being, intellectually dishonest. There's simply no other reasonable, informed conclusion. Really.

Am in complete agreement with you there as well - some of the official UFO 'debunker' explanations (and the ways in which actual unknown figures have been manipulated) are an absolute disgrace and have absolutely nothing to do with science or objectivity - the serious UFO literature that you list is also a must read if a person wants to (attempt to) form a balanced, informed opinion about the subject and realize just how seriously it has been taken by scientists and governments.

Originally posted by TeaAndStrumpets

(Sigh. Wondering why I even bother to take the time to write such posts any more..

Suppose many folks feel like that now and again mate but sincerely hope you continue to bother.

Cheers.



* Dr Michael Swords also lists some important UFO literature in this interview and for folks who are interested some of the books are available on free E-book format here.

Originally posted by Observor

I am not interested in the veracity of the evidence available for the UFO phenomenon as such. I am willing to grant to that some crafts of extraterrestrial origin are visting the earth.

Does anyone have any evidence for how many types there are, what their purpose for the visits is and how it impacts our existence?

Observor, I don't think anyone has mate and if I'm wrong then I'd be very interested in seeing it.

Thanks for sharing. I always love free download.

Originally posted by Xromano

Thanks for sharing. I always love free download.

Xromano, no problem mate, so do I.

I just wanted to announce that a new, revised edition of Unconventional Flying Objects will be available in June 2014. It'll have a (presumably new) foreword by Dr. Robert Wood, as well as a completely new foreword from Dr. Don Donderi. I have the original hard copy.

reply to post by karl 12


Thank you for covering this book, it is one of my all-time favorites...

That his daughter published it after his death makes me feel that he genuinely felt strongly about the saucer thing as physical and real...

I love the story in there about the farmer who sees humanoids walking with "shoeboxes" on their feet and walked without touching the ground and then "bounded" over his field fence in one big step over...that kind of testimony smacks as authentic coming from an honest farmer...

this book has many interesting stories like that...

reply to post by karl 12


How could he have been working for NASA in the early fifties when NASA wasn't created until 1958?

reply to post by DelMarvel


It was known as NACA pre-1958 (National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics). NASA absorbed the already existing agency post-1958.

reply to post by karl 12


kinda got sucked into watching the entire video, AMAZING FIND. not much to add on to what has already been said in previous replies, other than another video that might be found interesting by other ATS subscribers.

his name is Paul Hellyer and was a prime minister in canada for a while and has a pretty laid back stance on e.t.'s and ufology which i really took a liking to, hope you guys enjoy. stars!
www.youtube.com...

RUInsane
reply to post by DelMarvel

 

It was known as NACA pre-1958 (National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics). NASA absorbed the already existing agency post-1958.

I knew that. I guess I should have been clearer it was a rhetorical question. He wasn't a "NASA scientist" in the early fifties. That's sloppy writing at best.

reply to post by DelMarvel


If the book had said "NACA scientist", no one would know what it meant, or assumed it was a typo. And considering NASA and NACA are essentially the same entity, it's not really sloppy writing.

reply to post by thedudedoesnotabide


He was not a Prime Minister, he was a former Defense Minister. He unified our nation's military under one command structure, seen by some defense conservatives as a terrible move.

The forum keeps double posting for some reason...EDIT

karl 12
Thanks for the replies and the books certainly an interesting read, here's one of his charts based on repeated observations and it's nice to see a NASA scientist actually tackle the UFO subject (even if he is only speculating about it).

He's not the only one. See also Alan C. Holt who sat on a MUFON board back in the 70s/80s, authored papers with Eric W. Davis from NIDS (National Institute of Discovery Science) and Hal Putoff.

BTW: He still works at NASA Johnson Spaceflight Center in Houston, TX.

Excerpts of one of his peer reviewed and published papers:








I am fascinated by these people who have feet in both the legitimate science world and the UFO subject. They're the only ones, in my opinion who offer to potentially add anything new and most importantly scientifically relevant to the topic.

They also put a lie to the ideas from hardcore "UFOS as Aliens" believers that science is close-minded on this topic in general Skepticism and careful study of testable aspects of the phenomena DOES NOT equal close mindedness on the part of science.

Likewise they put a lie to the debunker oft-repeated line that "serious scientists aren't interested in UFOs."

JadeStar

karl 12
Thanks for the replies and the books certainly an interesting read, here's one of his charts based on repeated observations and it's nice to see a NASA scientist actually tackle the UFO subject (even if he is only speculating about it).

He's not the only one. See also Alan C. Holt who sat on a MUFON board back in the 70s/80s, authored papers with Eric W. Davis from NIDS (National Institute of Discovery Science) and Hal Putoff.

BTW: He still works at NASA Johnson Spaceflight Center in Houston, TX.

Excerpts of one of his peer reviewed and published papers:

I am fascinated by these people who have feet in both the legitimate science world and the UFO subject. They're the only ones, in my opinion who offer to potentially add anything new and most importantly scientifically relevant to the topic.

They also put a lie to the ideas from hardcore "UFOS as Aliens" believers that science is close-minded on this topic in general Skepticism and careful study of testable aspects of the phenomena DOES NOT equal close mindedness on the part of science.

Likewise they put a lie to the debunker oft-repeated line that "serious scientists aren't interested in UFOs."

edit on 29-12-2013 by JadeStar because: (no reason given)

Indeed! At minimum we stand to learn something interesting about how we perceive things, and as of yet unclassified natural phenomena. At the other end of the spectrum, we might just figure out how to reach the stars. The only way to settle the matter is to apply the powers of !SCIENCE! - and the patterns that emerge from the data are...interesting. I'm amazed that we can make attempts at reverse engineering this stuff without having access to the stuff kept under cover. At minimum, even if this is a purely psycho-social phenomena, this stuff is inspiring people to think outside the box.

1ofthe9


Indeed! At minimum we stand to learn something interesting about how we perceive things, and as of yet unclassified natural phenomena. At the other end of the spectrum, we might just figure out how to reach the stars. The only way to settle the matter is to apply the powers of !SCIENCE! - and the patterns that emerge from the data are...interesting. I'm amazed that we can make attempts at reverse engineering this stuff without having access to the stuff kept under cover. At minimum, even if this is a purely psycho-social phenomena, this stuff is inspiring people to think outside the box.

That's what I hope to do with my Hill-Fish starmap research which is pretty much complete pending new data (every year or so I will revise it if new information becomes available.)

I'm also planning to do an astrobiological analysis of reported "alien" entities reported in UFO lore. ie: What kind of planet would produce a species like "The Greys", "The Praying Mantis", "The Hill Aliens", "The Flatwoods Monster", etc?

What evolutionary processes would exist to lead to such a life form?

Not because I believe these account but because in studying the subject from an astrobiological perspective we stand to perhaps learn more about the adaptability of life in general.

On the other side, it will provide a friendly gateway and introduction to serious astrobiology for UFO believers.

JadeStar

1ofthe9


Indeed! At minimum we stand to learn something interesting about how we perceive things, and as of yet unclassified natural phenomena. At the other end of the spectrum, we might just figure out how to reach the stars. The only way to settle the matter is to apply the powers of !SCIENCE! - and the patterns that emerge from the data are...interesting. I'm amazed that we can make attempts at reverse engineering this stuff without having access to the stuff kept under cover. At minimum, even if this is a purely psycho-social phenomena, this stuff is inspiring people to think outside the box.

That's what I hope to do with my Hill-Fish starmap research which is pretty much complete pending new data (every year or so I will revise it if new information becomes available.)

I'm also planning to do an astrobiological analysis of reported "alien" entities reported in UFO lore. ie: What kind of planet would produce a species like "The Greys", "The Praying Mantis", "The Hill Aliens", "The Flatwoods Monster", etc?

What evolutionary processes would exist to lead to such a life form?

Not because I believe these account but because in studying the subject from an astrobiological perspective we stand to perhaps learn more about the adaptability of life in general.

On the other side, it will provide a friendly gateway and introduction to serious astrobiology for UFO believers.

edit on 29-12-2013 by JadeStar because: (no reason given)

If you need a hand, lemme know. The most enjoyable stuff the Orions Arm people cook up, for me, is their xenobiology.