Eric Davis on scientists and UFOs

[Saru]

Physicist Dr Eric Davis believes that scientists are becoming more openly involved in UFO investigation.

For years many scientists have avoided discussing their own hypothesis and research surrounding this topic of investigation. However, Dr. Davis is among many scientists who illustrate that this concept is shifting as more scientists are openly discussing UFO investigation.

Read more...

[Vaise]

Good, more science needs to be done on this subject. Maybe get some solid answers for once

[shrooma]

QUOTE-

"There are scientists who are aware of evidence and observational data that is not refutable. It is absolutely corroborated, using forensic

techniques and methodology,"

.

i wonder which pieces of absolutely irrefutable, forensically corroborated evidence he's speaking of....?

and could he show it to the rest of us.

please.

[Junior Chubb]

QUOTE-

"There are scientists who are aware of evidence and observational data that is not refutable. It is absolutely corroborated, using forensic

techniques and methodology,"

.

i wonder which pieces of absolutely irrefutable, forensically corroborated evidence he's speaking of....?

and could he show it to the rest of us.

please.

I would like to see this too, but it is answered in the next line of the article...

But they won’t come out and publicize that because they fear it. Not the subject — they fear the backlash from their professional colleagues. The impact on their career might be detrimental and they’d get bad publicity.

Forgive my ignorance of the politics of science but if I was 'aware of evidence and observational data that is not refutable. It is absolutely corroborated, using forensic

techniques and methodology' I would be publicising it asap, after all 'not refutable' is irrefutable isn't it?

[Lilly]

I can think of a couple of instances where *something* was obviously seen and was corroborated by radar. Perhaps this sort of event is what is meant there? The examples I'm thinking of are: The 2000 sighting of the Illinois triangle, the UFO seen by the Japanese airliner over Alaska, and the UFO engaged by the Iranian Airforce back in the late 70s. These all include multiple professional witnesses and radar data.

[shrooma]

Forgive my ignorance of the politics of science but if I was 'aware of evidence and observational data that is not refutable. It is absolutely corroborated, using forensic

techniques and methodology' I would be publicising it asap, after all 'not refutable' is irrefutable isn't it?

.

The above quotation was taken from the book entitled-

"how to successfully use logic to win arguments and influence people"

written by Junior Chubb and available from all good bookstores.

[shrooma]

I can think of a couple of instances where *something* was obviously seen and was corroborated by radar. Perhaps this sort of event is what is meant there? The examples I'm thinking of are: The 2000 sighting of the Illinois triangle, the UFO seen by the Japanese airliner over Alaska, and the UFO engaged by the Iranian Airforce back in the late 70s. These all include multiple professional witnesses and radar data.

.

i'm only aware of the illinois case out of your examples lilly (who isn't!), and as far as i can remember, the only evidence from it was witness testimony, and a dodgy polaroid that looked like a wobbly shot of street lights.

there were no radar traces whatsoever, despite flying close to a military airfield and the local civilian airfield.

not that i'm doubting the witness testimony, as you say, they saw "something" but it's hardly what i'd call 'forensically corroborated, absolutely irrefutable evidence'.

.

(scuttles off to the internet to check out the other two cases.....)

Edited July 22, 2013 by shrooma

[S2F]

I would like to see this too, but it is answered in the next line of the article...

Forgive my ignorance of the politics of science but if I was 'aware of evidence and observational data that is not refutable. It is absolutely corroborated, using forensic

techniques and methodology' I would be publicising it asap, after all 'not refutable' is irrefutable isn't it?

It's not so much the evidence that mainstream scientists have a problem with, it's the over-reaching interpretations offered by UFOlogy that send the subject off the rails.

[shrooma]

Again, with the japan airlines Fl. 1628 case, there was only witness testemony from the pilot, no radar trace, and no sighting from a military jet called to investigate

the pilot even attempted to take a photograph, but was 'unsuccessful'.-

.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan_Air_Lines_flight_1628_incident

.

still nothing to get a scientist calling a press conference for i'm afraid.....

[shrooma]

It's not so much the evidence that mainstream scientists have a problem with, it's the over-reaching interpretations offered by UFOlogy that send the subject off the rails.

.

the fringeists habit of declaring everything "must be aliens" as opposed to just "UFO=Unidentified" S2F....?

[S2F]

.

the fringeists habit of declaring everything "must be aliens" as opposed to just "UFO=Unidentified" S2F....?

Not just that UFO=Unidentified but the proclamation about 'intelligent control' and 'craft' which imply things that the evidence just doesn't adequately support. Dr. Davis is, I think, making the all too often seen error of working backwards from the conclusion instead of relying on the evidence to lead to the conclusion after any research or investigation.

[S2F]

Again, with the japan airlines Fl. 1628 case, there was only witness testemony from the pilot, no radar trace, and no sighting from a military jet called to investigate

the pilot even attempted to take a photograph, but was 'unsuccessful'.-

.

http://en.m.wikipedi...t_1628_incident

.

still nothing to get a scientist calling a press conference for i'm afraid.....

One of the more intriguing cases that I've seen is the 1976 Tehran UFO incident which is one of the cases Lilly referred to. There isn't enough data to conclude that it was ET but it certainly is a head scratcher.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1976_Tehran_UFO_incident

[Lilly]

I'm not saying any of the well supported cases I mentioned were ET...just that there appears to be evidence indicating there was something out of the ordinary flying around. UFO = Unidentified Flying Object, not Alien Space Craft.

[shrooma]

One of the more intriguing cases that I've seen is the 1976 Tehran UFO incident which is one of the cases Lilly referred to. There isn't enough data to conclude that it was ET but it certainly is a head scratcher.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1976_Tehran_UFO_incident

.

very interesting indeed S2F!

it would also be interesting to learn if the Civil Aviation Authority's security division have released the photo taken of the object in the 2nd reported case yet....?

[shrooma]

I'm not saying any of the well supported cases I mentioned were ET...just that there appears to be evidence indicating there was something out of the ordinary flying around. UFO = Unidentified Flying Object, not Alien Space Craft.

.

i'm not sure the first two cases you mentioned had anything i would call ' well supported' Lilly, but the third one you mentioned, the Tehran case was definitely unusual!

probably the best case i've heard of so far, thank you.....

:-)

[Tau Ceti Xeta]

Good, more science needs to be done on this subject. Maybe get some solid answers for once

The word has gone out.

"We won't threaten to pull your funding. Go ahead. "

[Tau Ceti Xeta]

One of the more intriguing cases that I've seen is the 1976 Tehran UFO incident which is one of the cases Lilly referred to. There isn't enough data to conclude that it was ET but it certainly is a head scratcher.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1976_Tehran_UFO_incident

I found another head scratcher : Belgium 1989 - 1990 Triangle starships seen in the sky. Many Witnesses.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belgian_UFO_wave

[Hawken]

This Object was spotted by USAF staff.

http://rense.com/general2/dak.htm

[Sundew]

If there are scientists who have a belief that these are real events and real objects, I would like to know if there has been any speculation or conclusion that these objects are not extra-terrestrial in the strictest sense, but rather extra-dimensional? I pose this question based on descriptions of these objects supposedly making ultra-high speed right angle turns or rates of acceleration that would seem to defy physics as we understand them. Of course again this is largely eye-witness testimony so who knows if that is accurate?

[Spacenut56]

If there are scientists who have a belief that these are real events and real objects, I would like to know if there has been any speculation or conclusion that these objects are not extra-terrestrial in the strictest sense, but rather extra-dimensional? I pose this question based on descriptions of these objects supposedly making ultra-high speed right angle turns or rates of acceleration that would seem to defy physics as we understand them. Of course again this is largely eye-witness testimony so who knows if that is accurate?

I can't recall in all the ufo/space books, literature and stuff coming across anyone who has mentioned this, but I could be wrong. Given that there is speculation now that there may be more than the 1 universe, it could be a possibility. My mind is open to it anyhow.

[dibatag]

maybe there are multipull universes ,who are we to say that we are the only one

[Ad hoc]

QUOTE-

"There are scientists who are aware of evidence and observational data that is not refutable. It is absolutely corroborated, using forensic

techniques and methodology,"

.

i wonder which pieces of absolutely irrefutable, forensically corroborated evidence he's speaking of....?

and could he show it to the rest of us.

please.

I would like to see this too, but it is answered in the next line of the article...

But they won’t come out and publicize that because they fear it. Not the subject — they fear the backlash from their professional colleagues. The impact on their career might be detrimental and they’d get bad publicity.

Forgive my ignorance of the politics of science but if I was 'aware of evidence and observational data that is not refutable. It is absolutely corroborated, using forensic

techniques and methodology' I would be publicising it asap, after all 'not refutable' is irrefutable isn't it?

Perhaps I'm cynical, but the fact that Dr. Davis talks a big game about speaking out- yet while apparently in possession of knowledge of 'absolutely irrefutable, forensically corroborated evidence' and who has done the research, doesn't reveal these earthshaking bombshells himself- makes things ring a little hollow.

Claims, claims, claims. Show me the pudding. Or something.

btw the first sentence made me lol

According to Dr. Davis, the seed reason for this lies in the fact that it is because the military operations govern this coveted research.

Think I can go a step further:

According to Dr. Davis, the seed reason for this lies in the fact that it is because of the explanation of the underlying purpose of the effect which is caused by the military operations governing this coveted research.

Edited July 23, 2013 by Ad hoc

[kwin]

Everyone wants that irrefutable proof. Yeah, like they are a bunch of rednecks out planting beer cans. I really wouldn't expect any 'luggage' or 'picnic trash' to show up any time soon.

Another laughable is "I'll believe it when they land on the White House lawn." I guess they must have missed the Wash DC encounter when the Air Force, in 1952, chased UFO's out of DC airspace, twice.

Antonio Urzi has some outstanding video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W_09AQClOIQ

There is a ton of info collaborated by professionals, radar and multiple wittnesses. If you haven't seen it, you haven't looked. Just sayin'.........

[badeskov]

Everyone wants that irrefutable proof. Yeah, like they are a bunch of rednecks out planting beer cans. I really wouldn't expect any 'luggage' or 'picnic trash' to show up any time soon.

Another laughable is "I'll believe it when they land on the White House lawn." I guess they must have missed the Wash DC encounter when the Air Force, in 1952, chased UFO's out of DC airspace, twice.

Antonio Urzi has some outstanding video. [media=]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W_09AQClOIQ[/media]

There is a ton of info collaborated by professionals, radar and multiple wittnesses. If you haven't seen it, you haven't looked. Just sayin'.........

"We" have seen it, it has been discussed extensively here at UM, and no, no sign of ET in that.

Cheers,

Badeskov

[conspiracy buff]

No one who has looked into the UFO subject can deny that it definitely warrants more serious scientific study. There have been tons of cases in which there was trace evidence left behind, numerous eyewitnesses, and pictures/videos of strange objects in which all explainable theories were ruled out. Even if you are not a believer in the UFO phenomena you would have to admit there seems to be something consistent going on with it and it does need serious scientific and objective study. Once you have science looking into these cases I'm sure we are going to find it is much more than crazy people making outrageous claims because skeptics always stereotype that.