2014 New year : New start for ufology? Or a continuing fall in standards?

IsaacKoi
I'd like to wish fellow members of ATS a very happy New Year.

Was it just me or did the quality of UFO research in 2012 and 2013 actually fall from the previous (already fairly low) standard?

The first day of a new year seems to be a good time to ask some basic questions about the future direction(s) of UFO research.

The current state of UFO research is so frustratingly poor that its amusement value continues to decrease.

2014 is likely to be the year when I either launch a new project within ufology (which has the working name "the UFO Collective") or quit the subject altogether. I'm rather torn between these apparent options.

The Internet has given us all access to more information and resources than previous researchers - however, this does not yet appear to have been translated into better quality investigations/research.

Is else anyone working on (or have ideas for) any projects that may improve the quality of research?

edit on 1-1-2014 by IsaacKoi because: (no reason given)

I have a couple of projects I'm working on as time allows.

Basically the idea is this: UFOlogy in the late 60s-through the early 80s was filled with often thorough scientific analysis.

UFOlogy in 2013 was pretty much a tangled unscientific mess filled with conspiracy theory, new age practices (channelling), "paranormal researchers" and outright hoaxes.

It's a subject which I liken to an Onion. Many layers, most of them stink.

In order to get to the hard core of actual strange and most importantly SCIENTIFICALLY valuable cases UFOlogy must peel back and shed the layers of the onion.

That is why I post the research I do here on ATS. That is why I made recent posts about the post 80's explosion of Reptilian UFO stories and their likely origin. That's why I posted the thread on little known aircraft/spacecraft that are being developed, tested or flown which could account for the consistent 40% of cases that are misidentified aircraft.

If one can cut through the noise of a scientific problem then we can begin to actually examine any real data that may be there.

UFO investigation takes resources and time. Most serious researchers have precious little of either. So what better way to see that this time and money is used efficiently to study the tiny minority of UFO cases which present us with enough evidence that they can be scientifically analyzed than to weed out the Misidentifications, Misunderstandings, Conspiracy Stories without supportive evidence, Hucksters and Hoaxes?

Time and money is better spent not chasing every reported UFO case down blind alleys but weeding through the noise for the stuff that really matters.

Since I joined ATS I've been called many things, a disinformation agent, a debunker, a close-minded scientist and a skeptic.

I'm only one of those things and it is the last one. A skeptic. But an open-minded one willing to look, listen, read and watch the "evidence" presented. Is that not what the UFO field cries out for quite often? For "science and academia to take it seriously?"

Well that's what I hope to do but in order to do that properly the stuff that is not worth being taken seriously needs to be jettisoned from the field..... seriously.

That means I take a skeptical view towards a subject that is filled with unknowns of all sorts because scientific skepticism is like a candle in the darkness. It is something which can guide us to making reasonable decisions about what to study, and what is likely noise within this subject.

And I make NO apologies for treating the UFO field as a scientific problem because until someone comes up with a better way of not fooling ourselves the scientific method works best when faced with an unknown. So, no, I am not interested in spirituality, spirits, trance channeling, dreams, and other nebulous subjects that have attached themselves to the UFO field.

Invisible or "spiritual" aliens which can not be examined are scientifically worthless. Channelling and contactee/abductee stories without providing us with any scientifically verifiable information not already known to humanity is also of no scientific interest.

As a scientist-in-training I have taken up the recommendation Professor Peter Sturrock made in his paper Physical Evidence Related to UFO Reports: The Proceedings of a Workshop Held at the Pocantico Conference Center, Tarrytown, New York, September 29 - October 4,1997 published in the Journal of Scientijic Exploration Vol. 12, NO. 2, pp. 179- 229,1998.

Sturrock, a professor of astrophysics at Stanford stated in Section 14. Recommendations Concerning Implementation

However, even without waiting for such a change in policy of journals, societies and universities, scientists could exhibit a great deal more curiosity than they do now. Of course, it must be professional curiosity if it is to lead to professional results. It is not enough for a scientist to occasionally pick up a tabloid at the supermarket check-out stand.

And...

Unfortunately, it would be far more difficult for a scientist to plan ef- fective research on the UFO problem than in his or her main research area. The scientist would therefore be well advised to collaborate with one or more in- vestigators with experience in field work or some other aspect of UFO research. Such collaboration would be greatly facilitated if, as the panel rec- ommended, there were "some form of formal regular contact between the UFO community and physical scientists." Such contact could help acquaint a broader spectrum of UFO investigators with the normal procedures, protocols and standards of scientific research.

So there it is folks. That's why I'm here. Here is my motive...from Appendix 6. SETI and UFO Investigations Compared:

... the status of UFO studies may be improved if we can find a way to move in a direction where independent confirmation and repeatability could be realized and become routine. Where some level of repeatability exists but explanations are incomplete (e.g.,in the Hessdalen project), more investiga- tive resources are clearly required. Open channels of communication between UFO investigators and a broader scientific group may lead to natural explanations of many observations and thereby winnow the numerous reports to a few notable examples to which intense cooperative efforts could be applied.

I am willing to help foster one of those open channels despite what my current and future colleagues may think.

I figured ATS is home to some of the most knowledgeable people on this subject, some of whom have studied it in great detail for far longer than I have and I'm hoping to sort of partner up on research that takes more time than one person can devote in hopes that we can quietly examine the scientifically relevant data while rejecting the noise.

FIRST SLR in 1979 fully manual is that enough info for you!

reply to post by wmd_2008


The first Single Lens Reflex camera was invented well before 1979, more like the late 1800's, lol. The SLR cameras evolved and in the 60's was the main stay for all professional photographers. They were all manual up until Konica introduced their automatic camera in 79, and even later, you had a choice between a manual or automatic. My first SLR camera was a Minolta I received back in '72 and I'm pretty sure that was all manual. The last SLR I owned was a Nikon F2a that I received as a graduation gift in 78, still manual.

You know you made my point. Every skeptic or person for that matter who owns a camera thinks they have enough knowledge to declare a photo a hoax. I've been around cameras and have developed both black and white and color film photos. I know how to manipulate photographs in the dark room and have used Photo Shop to manipulate, enhance, remove and even embed digital photos into other photographs.

I wouldn't tell someone their photo was a hoax just by viewing it online. Unless it's easily discernible. You do know JPEG pixels degenerate the more you copy and paste them. You're claiming that photos of UFO's produced on film are all hoaxes, when that is far from the truth. I would prefer to leave analyzing digital photos and film photos to the experts who have the high tech equipment to analyze them in a lab.

JadeStar

IsaacKoi
I'd like to wish fellow members of ATS a very happy New Year.

Was it just me or did the quality of UFO research in 2012 and 2013 actually fall from the previous (already fairly low) standard?

The first day of a new year seems to be a good time to ask some basic questions about the future direction(s) of UFO research.

The current state of UFO research is so frustratingly poor that its amusement value continues to decrease.

2014 is likely to be the year when I either launch a new project within ufology (which has the working name "the UFO Collective") or quit the subject altogether. I'm rather torn between these apparent options.

The Internet has given us all access to more information and resources than previous researchers - however, this does not yet appear to have been translated into better quality investigations/research.

Is else anyone working on (or have ideas for) any projects that may improve the quality of research?

edit on 1-1-2014 by IsaacKoi because: (no reason given)

I have a couple of projects I'm working on as time allows.

Basically the idea is this: UFOlogy in the late 60s-through the early 80s was filled with often thorough scientific analysis.

UFOlogy in 2013 was pretty much a tangled unscientific mess filled with conspiracy theory, new age practices (channelling), "paranormal researchers" and outright hoaxes.

I've reached the same conclusion. I think the Bennewitz affair was probably the turning point in the subject - where the meme/disinfo took on its own life independent of what was actually happening. The subject lacks people like John Keel and Jacque Vallee - people who are willing to go against the meme narrative in pursuit of the phenomena. However, I've also got the sense that people are beginning to question the entrenched narrative - ie Mac Tonnies and some of the more interesting emerging characters like Redfern and co. Even on ATS there are more and more people getting fed up with the status quo. This is good. I've noticed the 'UAP' term pop up and I think stuff like this is the way forward.

The subject can be rehabilitated. However, it is a proactive process. It might even entrail interfering with the memetic 'control system' that has developed online. We could get all Situationist and postmodern theoretical talking about this stuff; but the bottom line is that in order to get anywhere, the paradigm has to change. There does seem to be a genuine mystery here. The only way to confront it is through rationality.

1ofthe9

JadeStar

IsaacKoi
I'd like to wish fellow members of ATS a very happy New Year.

Was it just me or did the quality of UFO research in 2012 and 2013 actually fall from the previous (already fairly low) standard?

The first day of a new year seems to be a good time to ask some basic questions about the future direction(s) of UFO research.

The current state of UFO research is so frustratingly poor that its amusement value continues to decrease.

2014 is likely to be the year when I either launch a new project within ufology (which has the working name "the UFO Collective") or quit the subject altogether. I'm rather torn between these apparent options.

The Internet has given us all access to more information and resources than previous researchers - however, this does not yet appear to have been translated into better quality investigations/research.

Is else anyone working on (or have ideas for) any projects that may improve the quality of research?

edit on 1-1-2014 by IsaacKoi because: (no reason given)

I have a couple of projects I'm working on as time allows.

Basically the idea is this: UFOlogy in the late 60s-through the early 80s was filled with often thorough scientific analysis.

UFOlogy in 2013 was pretty much a tangled unscientific mess filled with conspiracy theory, new age practices (channelling), "paranormal researchers" and outright hoaxes.

I've reached the same conclusion. I think the Bennewitz affair was probably the turning point in the subject - where the meme/disinfo took on its own life independent of what was actually happening.

Very good point. The Bennewitz affair is probably one of the saddest cases in UFOlogy. I suspect that the John Ford, "Long Island UFO crash" thing may have involved similar things. Both cases have a lot in common.

A UFO investigator gets too close to non-alien yet still classified research at a government facility and ends up dead or in a mental institution after being fed a bunch of outrageous stories about aliens as a way of discrediting whatever they were investigating which was under wraps.

The 80s were full of so many murky things and dubious researchers/"insiders", William Cooper, Falcon and Condor and their "Strawberry Ice Cream loving 'greys from Zeta Reticuli", the rise of the Reptilian mythos, MJ-12, Project Aquarius, etc.

The subject lacks people like John Keel and Jacque Vallee - people who are willing to go against the meme narrative in pursuit of the phenomena.

I totally agree. The problem now is that it is becoming less and less likely that new people like Vallee with his credentials would take on the subject because that narrative has become so entrenched in such a way that the narrative IS the subject in the eyes of even some serious researchers. And the subject IS the narrative in the eyes of everyone else.

However, I've also got the sense that people are beginning to question the entrenched narrative - ie Mac Tonnies and some of the more interesting emerging characters like Redfern and co.

From what I've read of Redern's stuff and the interviews I've hear with him on a plethora of subjects I like his work as a Fortean archivist much in the way of Charles Fort or John Keel.

Even on ATS there are more and more people getting fed up with the status quo. This is good.

Agreed.

I've noticed the 'UAP' term pop up and I think stuff like this is the way forward.

It is but for how long? I seem to remember the term UFO was adopted by serious researchers to differentiate the subject from the "Flying Saucer" crowd which at the time consisted of people like the 50s contactees and a fair amount of well publicized "saucer hoax" cases in the 50s and 60s.

Now the UFO term carries with it the same stigma that Flying Saucer did. So how long until the same crowd would begin using UAP to describe the Chinese lanterns they saw or a blatant hoaxed CGI video on Youtube?
The subject can be rehabilitated. However, it is a proactive process. It might even entrail interfering with the memetic 'control system' that has developed online. We could get all Situationist and postmodern theoretical talking about this stuff; but the bottom line is that in order to get anywhere, the paradigm has to change. There does seem to be a genuine mystery here. The only way to confront it is through rationality.

JadeStar
It is but for how long? I seem to remember the term UFO was adopted by serious researchers to differentiate the subject from the "Flying Saucer" crowd which at the time consisted of people like the 50s contactees and a fair amount of well publicized "saucer hoax" cases in the 50s and 60s.

Now the UFO term carries with it the same stigma that Flying Saucer did. So how long until the same crowd would begin using UAP to describe the Chinese lanterns they saw or a blatant hoaxed CGI video on Youtube?

I'm honestly not sure. We could go dark and recruit via 'initiation' of some kind. That seems to be how both occult and intelligence organizations have functioned. It seems to have worked for them.

1ofthe9

JadeStar
It is but for how long? I seem to remember the term UFO was adopted by serious researchers to differentiate the subject from the "Flying Saucer" crowd which at the time consisted of people like the 50s contactees and a fair amount of well publicized "saucer hoax" cases in the 50s and 60s.

Now the UFO term carries with it the same stigma that Flying Saucer did. So how long until the same crowd would begin using UAP to describe the Chinese lanterns they saw or a blatant hoaxed CGI video on Youtube?

I'm honestly not sure. We could go dark and recruit via 'initiation' of some kind. That seems to be how both occult and intelligence organizations have functioned. It seems to have worked for them.

Given the confrontational nature of the a few people I've had the misfortune to encounter at the couple of UFO "symposia" I've attended I was thinking it seems more like "Fight Club"

JadeStar

1ofthe9

JadeStar
It is but for how long? I seem to remember the term UFO was adopted by serious researchers to differentiate the subject from the "Flying Saucer" crowd which at the time consisted of people like the 50s contactees and a fair amount of well publicized "saucer hoax" cases in the 50s and 60s.

Now the UFO term carries with it the same stigma that Flying Saucer did. So how long until the same crowd would begin using UAP to describe the Chinese lanterns they saw or a blatant hoaxed CGI video on Youtube?

I'm honestly not sure. We could go dark and recruit via 'initiation' of some kind. That seems to be how both occult and intelligence organizations have functioned. It seems to have worked for them.

Given the confrontational nature of the a few people I've had the misfortune to encounter at the couple of UFO "symposia" I've attended I was thinking it seems more like "Fight Club"

Bwahaha. I could see that.

Also Mysterious Universe just put out a really relevant piece.

WeRpeons

I believe that one day, ufologists and those who have claimed to have seen or made contact will be redeemed. Skeptics on the other hand, will be crawling under rocks facing ridicule, and government leaders will be put on trial for keeping it secret from the world population. Scientist who were afraid to touch the subject for fear of ridicule, will be chastised for not taking the amount of research and evidence seriously. Those who can't come to grips because it doesn't fit in their normal sense of reality, it will turn they beliefs upside down.

I'm not a skeptic because I'm not prepared to entertain the idea of alien civilisations, or even that those civilisations might stumble across us and say 'hi'. I'm a skeptic because the level of evidence is poor, because proper scrutiny can easily disprove them and because people seem much more keen on promotiing their own financial and egotistical advantage than they are the 'truth' that has been supposedly revealed to them. Proper research isn't "Your truth is wrong therefore mine is right", it looks at all sides of the story and sees which evidence explains the story best.

Like every snake oil salesman, most of the big 'researchers' are peddling hope, not facts, and they are deceiving people, and they rely more on "I want to believe" than actual facts.

If the spaceships turn up, I won't be scuttling under any rocks, I'll be saying thank God for that.

Until then I'm quite prepared to believe in UFOs, I just don't believe the people who believe in them.

reply to post by IsaacKoi


Not really an idea for improving the quality of research per se, but an idea on how to possibly shed light on certain aspects of how UFO's might be constructed, or indeed how we ourselves might begin to construct vehicles with similar, often reported attributes.

I've been interested in UFOs for as long as i can remember...watching Star Trek TOS and Dr. Who as a young kid are probably responsible for that, but over the years reports about UFO sightings and close encounters concerning the physical aspects of the craft itself have puzzled me.

One thing that seems to be repeated is along the lines of; "The craft was seamless...no rivets, or panels joined together..."

As a kid i wondered how this could be possible, imagining everything from a liquid metal poured into giant molds, to a semi-molten, viscous mixture that has a gas pumped into it to inflate it like a hi-tech balloon.

But i think i've got it...at least our version of it.

I think these craft may be using construction technology where they are PRINTED...just like the latest metal gun that has been 3D printed, the process can be scaled up in theory to any size and print out any shape.

Nano grained powders of tungten, titanium, irridium...any material can be fused the same way, in various alloys and incorporate electo-shape changing characteristics.

Extremely high strength can be made by incorporated into the design, jointless and seamless buckyballs and hexagonal lattices, which would give extraordinary strength to any vessel (boat, car, lorry, aircraft and yes, UFO)

All internal structures can be incorporated seamlessly too, tables, chairs consoles, wiring, even fibre optics can all be printed row by row, layer by layer, alternating the powdered metals and plastics as you go...no screws or bolts required...anywhere.

This is how i think they might do it, and will be how we build our vehicles and craft in the near future.

As 3D printing tech progresses, we could have massive, industrial sized printing systems churing out seamless vehicles, with ultra strength to weight ratios in just a couple of hours.

Cruise liners printed to order within a day or so, space stations and other space vehicles sections printed out while actually in space.

Not an idea on how to improve research into UFOs, but an idea on HOW UFOs might be built using technology we can recognise and use ourselves.

reply to post by IsaacKoi


Hello, and happy new year ! sorry for my bad english, my mother tongue is french.

Ufology,in my point of view, is indeed at a turn, years and years of collecting data and so few analysis. But there are so many sceptiks and pseudo sceptiks in the field and so many destructions for years too.

Fakers, scientists, and poor descriptions cases..

But in my point of view again, there is still a way to do a "good" ufology, a very hard one and a long one too.

I'm collecting cases for years, and had a database of almost 100,000 worldwide documented cases , counting form -15000 to 2014.. and modern ufology form 1890 to 2014, now from many many sources, I had a website non commercial one but decide to close it in november because the french language ufo field was contaminated by sceptiks and zeteticians and I was really annoying to give free data for the ennemies of ufology. for me we are now in a combat ufology , ufologie de combat, a combat between the loght and the shadow as always .. between hynek and usaf, between so many true ufologists and ufobusinessman , I deeply dislike ufobusiness

so for this topic, the idea is to do datamining techniques and social science techniques , and a little bit of sherlock holmes views :-) , because ufology is not a science but an art, a difficult one indeed but not an impossible one.

with the passing years I see that old cases , for example from the 1896-1897 wave are also seen in the 1950's, and that ufos of the 1990's are sometimes similar to the 1970's

So for me the ufos phenomenons ( there are many phenomenons.. because we have different visitors in my view ) are non random, there are repetitions, and logical patterns. Same ufos in same countries but in different times too

I have put part of all these world cases, from 2006 to 2013 in google earth kmz and for me there are also geographical patterns, ufos likes water, military bases, old history countries and also seems to be interested in some metals,chimical elements and crystals for example borium

this very hard work tooks me 12 internet years, but I do ufology since 1980's but I have no echoes for this research other than the elie syndroma in contact! , I'm just inexisting for the official ufo scene, destiny perhaps ?

so what can be done in 2014 after so many years of destruction and abandon ? just take the existing cases and try to binding them in many ways, with ufo types, countries, effects, colors, smells, sounds, rr3 rr4 , favorité cities in the world, repetition patterns... .data mining thus


for the analysis, the sherlock correlation technique is the good one , cases seems to be alone.. but there are not... apart from thai lanterns, planets, planes... fakes and trickery , false videos.. and so on.. there are many good cases each year in many countries, one a day in average

for example in the mufon database, for 50 cases in average in 3 days of reports, there are 9 "true" cases

so to know more in the field, just analysing the existing data and waiting for the next great wave , with chance there will be one in europe in 2014, in 2013 there was very interesting cases and local waves in usa, canada, denmark and holland , each year wave in differents countries in the word, some small ones, 10 cases in 3 days, sometimes far more impressive

so sorry again for my bad english,

WeRpeons

FIRST SLR in 1979 fully manual is that enough info for you!

reply to post by wmd_2008

 

The first Single Lens Reflex camera was invented well before 1979, more like the late 1800's, lol.

WeRpeons

You really should look at your own post I was replying to you said this

WeRpeons

For your information, I was deep into photography since the age of 16, and had my own black and white dark room. I won a scholarship for photography and was a photo major the first 2 years of college before I made the change to Advertising Management. I don't know how old you are, but I was involved in photography before digital photography made the scene.

What do you think my REPLY meant now???

josuavalley

with the passing years I see that old cases , for example from the 1896-1897 wave are also seen in the 1950's, and that ufos of the 1990's are sometimes similar to the 1970's

So for me the ufos phenomenons ( there are many phenomenons.. because we have different visitors in my view ) are non random, there are repetitions, and logical patterns. Same ufos in same countries but in different times too

I have put part of all these world cases, from 2006 to 2013 in google earth kmz and for me there are also geographical patterns, ufos likes water, military bases, old history countries and also seems to be interested in some metals,chimical elements and crystals for example borium

this very hard work tooks me 12 internet years, but I do ufology since 1980's but I have no echoes for this research other than the elie syndroma in contact! , I'm just inexisting for the official ufo scene, destiny perhaps ?

so what can be done in 2014 after so many years of destruction and abandon ? just take the existing cases and try to binding them in many ways, with ufo types, countries, effects, colors, smells, sounds, rr3 rr4 , favorité cities in the world, repetition patterns... .data mining thus

This is very interesting ! Has anything like this ever been attempted in the study of UFO's ?
I would like to see your work on this and what you have found so far (other than what you say in your reply , I mean more in detail)
This is i think a good way to go 'forward' in the research on this hard but ever fascinating world of ufology !

Alundra

josuavalley

with the passing years I see that old cases , for example from the 1896-1897 wave are also seen in the 1950's, and that ufos of the 1990's are sometimes similar to the 1970's

So for me the ufos phenomenons ( there are many phenomenons.. because we have different visitors in my view ) are non random, there are repetitions, and logical patterns. Same ufos in same countries but in different times too

I have put part of all these world cases, from 2006 to 2013 in google earth kmz and for me there are also geographical patterns, ufos likes water, military bases, old history countries and also seems to be interested in some metals,chimical elements and crystals for example borium

this very hard work tooks me 12 internet years, but I do ufology since 1980's but I have no echoes for this research other than the elie syndroma in contact! , I'm just inexisting for the official ufo scene, destiny perhaps ?

so what can be done in 2014 after so many years of destruction and abandon ? just take the existing cases and try to binding them in many ways, with ufo types, countries, effects, colors, smells, sounds, rr3 rr4 , favorité cities in the world, repetition patterns... .data mining thus

This is very interesting ! Has anything like this ever been attempted in the study of UFO's ?
I would like to see your work on this and what you have found so far (other than what you say in your reply , I mean more in detail)
This is i think a good way to go 'forward' in the research on this hard but ever fascinating world of ufology !

It is but only if the data fed into the google KMZ has weeded out misidentifications, hoaxes, etc. Not all UFO sighting reports are created equal.


Garbage in, garbage out.

What this is seems to be a Step 2 analysis when chances are no one bothered with Step 1 (filtering noise and data reduction).

WeRpeons
It's easy for skeptics and those connected with government disinformation to ridicule any photo placed on the internet.

That's absolutely correct. And why is it so easy? Because the photo evidence is all crap, and none of it is ever backed up by anything more substantial that can be independently studied and reviewed.

On one hand, it's good that our standards of proof have gotten so high and rigid. Something will have to be very significant to pass all of our tests these days.

Unfortunately, I very strongly doubt a significant event that passes our tests will happen in the upcoming year. Possibly not ever. Because in my opinion (after having an interest in the subject for 50 years now), I'm convinced more and more that we're not talking about something as simple and straightforward as creatures in flying machines from other planets, and it's very likely that we're just not smart enough -- we don't have enough intelligence as human animals -- to figure out what's really going on.

JadeStar

***EDITED FOR SPACE***

Garbage in, garbage out.

What this is seems to be a Step 2 analysis when chances are no one bothered with Step 1 (filtering noise and data reduction).

edit on 2-1-2014 by JadeStar because: (no reason given)

This has always been the case with UFO reports. It falls on to the diligences of the investigator to weed out the trash reports.

***PERSONAL STORY***

One of the reports I had to go check out was a reported landing. It was back when I was getting "trained" (A trainee had to do several investigations with a seasoned investigator). Upon arriving at the "landing site" there were notable burn marks on the ground. My trainer reported that it was clear signs on a landing. I countered that by explaining that you can still smell the gas used to make the burn marks.

After a few minutes going back and forth on this one issue, I was told that you have to have an "open mind" when dealing with these investigations. (Officially the report stated that it was a possible landing. I wrote a rebuttal to MUFON about the reported conclusion, and was told it would be reviewed. Thankfully it was changed to HOAX.)

***BACK ON TOPIC***

The point to this story is that digging through the crap is why scientifically minded field investigators, and researcher are what will pull the "money-grabbing", "New-Aged", non-tangible (i.e."Channelers") out of the field. Hard research and solid footwork are the tools that will bring new life into the field of UFO research.

If all the field of UFO research and investigation has to crappy field workers, and money grabbing researcher, then the field will continue to be laughed at as "fringe".

Blue Shift

WeRpeons
It's easy for skeptics and those connected with government disinformation to ridicule any photo placed on the internet.

That's absolutely correct. And why is it so easy? Because the photo evidence is all crap, and none of it is ever backed up by anything more substantial that can be independently studied and reviewed.

On one hand, it's good that our standards of proof have gotten so high and rigid. Something will have to be very significant to pass all of our tests these days.

Unfortunately, I very strongly doubt a significant event that passes our tests will happen in the upcoming year. Possibly not ever. Because in my opinion (after having an interest in the subject for 50 years now), I'm convinced more and more that we're not talking about something as simple and straightforward as creatures in flying machines from other planets, and it's very likely that we're just not smart enough -- we don't have enough intelligence as human animals -- to figure out what's really going on.

Agreed.

The problem with most UFO photos on the internet is that they can not be properly studied. And by properly studied I mean the recommendations of the Physical Evidence Related to UFOs panel which recommended:

The Panel recommends that, given a new alleged UFO photograph, the de- cision to invest effort into its investigation should be taken only if both of the following conditions are fulfilled:

a) the original documentation (negative, slide, videotape) is available, and b) there is at least one other independent source of information - either witness testimony or some other physical record.

If, after visual examination, the displayed object has not been identified (planet, balloon, cloud, etc.), investigation should be performed in two steps:

Step 1 consists of establishing or rejecting the authenticity of the photo- graph (or other record), taking into account evidence for unintentional false operation of equipment and various spurious phenomena that may affect the recording equipment. However, this concept of authenticity is at best relative, since in this area of investigation only negative conclusions may be considered as final, so that authenticity can never be demonstrated absolutely.

Step 2, if warranted, consists of extracting as much information as possible from the photograph or other record, so as to obtain as much information as possible about the object of interest (size, shape, distance, albedo, emitted en- ergy, spectrum, etc.).

When the original film is available and analysis seems justified, all techni- cal data concerning the site, viewing conditions, camera, film, processing, etc., must be collected. If the camera is available (in an ideal case still loaded with the original film), it must be used to perform the following calibrations:

a) Photos of density patterns for relative photometry; b) Photos of sources calibrated in intensity, in various positions in the frame (for absolute photometry); c) Photos of spatial frequency patterns, to determine the modulation trans-fer function (MTF); and d) Photos taken at the same site as the original, eventually with models to simulate the object.

The film should be processed under rigorously controlled conditions (if it has not already been processed commercially). If the camera is available but empty, the same operations should be conducted with a film of the same type as the original.

The investigator should visit the original site and make measurements con- cerning the three-dimensional geometry of the observed landscape or this in- formation should be extracted from detailed maps. If the photograph has been acquired at nighttime, an astronomical map of the sky at the time of acquisi- tion will be necessary.

The investigator should determine the meteorological conditions from the official offices or air bases in the neighborhood with par- ticular attention to the horizontal visibility. The investigator should also take into account all quantified or quantifiable elements of the witness testimony including the estimated shape, angular size, velocity, color, etc.

For analysis of the photograph, it is essential to work from the original neg- ative. This should be carefully washed and examined under a microscope to look for possible tell-tale artifacts and scratches, and to check the regularity of the grain structure so as to detect multiple exposures. The negative should be analyzed by conventional photographic instruments (enlarger, projector, etc.), and the information on the negative should be digitized by a microdensitome- ter.

Once digitized, the image may be analyzed by computer analysis, using the classical tools of contrast enhancement, noise suppression, contour detection, restoration, etc., and more specialized techniques such as maximum-entropy analysis that may be used to remove the effects of target motion and/or camera motion. Such analysis will assist in the detection of a possible hoax. For in- stance, a suspension thread may be brought into evidence through standard differential operations.

Also, one may estimate the distance (hence the size) of the object through MTF computations, based on an analysis of atmospheric diffusion and contour blurring. If there are black areas on the object, it is pos- sible to obtain estimates of the distance by comparing the luminance of such regions with other identified black parts of the scenery. If the object is nearer than the minimum depth of field, one should be able to detect geometrical dis- tortions in the image. If the operator had a slight movement while taking the picture, analysis of the corresponding blur on the object and on other elements of the landscape may allow the calculation of a possible range for the distance of the object.

In the case of a color photograph, one should carry out the above procedures in three steps using three appropriate color filters for scanning.

If an event is recorded on a cine camera, each frame may be analyzed as above. However, it is now possible to obtain additional information by com- bining and comparing the sequence of images.

In principle, images recorded by video cameras may be subjected to compa- rable analyses. However, video records suffer from one very important weak- ness: since the basic data is in electronic form, it could have been modified by the use of suitable electronic equipment, so that the authenticity of a video record will depend even more critically upon the credibility of the witness tes- timony.

In essence all modern photographs and videos posted online are worthless because they can not be properly investigated from start to finished. Coupled with the rise in model making and CGI's photos and video by themselves are not good evidence of anything happening. They can however be good supportive evidence in light of other evidence gathered to build a case that something happened.

Physical Evidence Related to UFO Reports: The Proceedings of a Workshop Held at the Pocantico Conference Center, Tarrytown, New York, September 29 - October 4,1997 - Appendix 2. Procedures for Analysis of Photographic Evidence - F. Louange Journal of Scientijic Exploration, Vol. 12, NO. 2, pp. 179- 229,1998

Alundra
This is very interesting ! Has anything like this ever been attempted in the study of UFO's ?

Yes. Jacques Vallee did a computer analysis of the available UFO data looking for patterns in contact and he actually came up with some. His conclusion was that real UFO sightings and contacts essentially follow a "teaching curve." That is, the graphed data is similar to what you get when you try to teach an animal or a person something complex.

It starts out with something simple, easy to comprehend, then goes away. After a little while, it appears again, only more complex, then goes away again. And so on, and so on. The times when it goes away gives the animal/human time to ponder, reflect, and incorporate the new information into their way of thinking. It's like something or someone is teaching us something very slowly. Vallee said that might explain why UFOs seem to exhibit flight characteristics that are ahead of our own aircraft, but not too far ahead. Just far enough ahead so it makes us think about it and possibly emulate it.

I don't agree with that hypothesis. If the "aliens" know anything about humans at all, it's that we're already highly motivated to learn something if we think we can gain an advantage as a result. We don't have to be treated like a dog learning new tricks. Teaching us is easy. Give us the information, show us how we can benefit, and we'll knock ourselves out trying to learn it.

But I could be wrong. Maybe this is the only way we can do it. Maybe it doesn't involve learning so much as getting better at thinking in a new way. Changing our consciousness. I don't know.

Hello Isaac may I also echo your wishes for a happy new year to everyone here on ATS.

Yes 2013 was a fairly bad year in Ufology but it's been on the decline for well over a decade.

I was always aware of the topic in a general way since my childhood in the 1970s but it actually feels like those big UFO cases died the day the internet hit a critical mass. The Phoenix lights was arguably the last massive global UFO event (in 1997, just as people were getting online in large numbers). I know we've had events like Stephenville, O'Hare and that Turkish UFO video but they didn't make the mainstream news across the globe.

I am also going to echo JadeStar's excellent points made earlier.

I think the problem has been for a long, long time that Ufology is lumped in with anything and everything paranormal and has long suffered because of it's association with fringe topics . This is perpetuated by many radio and TV shows who feature a UFO story alongside some pseudo-psychic or ghost story and the dubious benefits of some new chemical or treatment to cleanse our minds, our bodies or our souls. The latter is a description many would use to describe those who believe in that sort of stuff.

Ufology should be considered as a truly scientific endeavour to discover what Unidentified Flying Objects are (or at least aren't) and ultimately searching for proof that an extra-terrestrial intelligence may be controlling them. Despite the constant barracking from "noisy positivists" like Stanton Friedman, we are yet to find one iota of evidence that is globally accepted as proof that any living ET has ever entered Earth's atmosphere. It's been like that for over 60 years and possibly a fresh approach is needed. Personally I think any real ET visits are very rare and so the search is one for a proverbial 'needle in a haystack' amongst UFO cases. But it only takes one to be genuine.

Isaac you have made great strides in expanding the available information on the UFO subject available freely on the web. But what we lack is organization and collaboration. Ideally we should have a "Museum of Ufology" website containing documents, audio and video files on each case free to research for all.
However , even given the resources, even starting it is a major problem as it seems too many people already have vested interests and unshakeable beliefs on exactly what UFOs are or indeed are not.

I will admit that I still don't know.

reply to post by mirageman

Alundra
This is very interesting ! Has anything like this ever been attempted in the study of UFO's ?
I would like to see your work on this and what you have found so far (other than what you say in your reply , I mean more in detail)
This is i think a good way to go 'forward' in the research on this hard but ever fascinating world of ufology !

Hello Alundra,

I put back online the 2013.kmz, this an example of data collection in one year, each dot have description and source, and yes Jadestar data are filtered as much as I can , I'm not pretending that all those cases are trues but there are not raw data at all.

check here

www.anakinovni.org/2013.kmz
www.anakinovni.org/2009.kmz

please these files are for ufo study, not for commercial use, my french pseudo for this is anakin_nEo so it is normal to find this pseudo in the kmz files

I know it's a special way to put data on maps but the interest is to zoom on countries and zone with description of cases easily and begin to think ;-)

reply to post by IsaacKoi

Have you or will you elaborate further on this "Collective" working group idea? I'm interested in hearing more. Thanks.