Eric Davis on scientists and UFOs

[scowl]

That's a very unconvincing argument, if that's what the scientific community really think. Research through science should apply to anything that can be studied regardless of your perception of it. Science should be objective and staying a potentiel field of scientific research for this kind of ideological reason is ridiculous.

The problem is that science can't be very objective when the only evidence is blurry photos which are open to interpretation and witness testimony that is unreliable.

After all, according to the Bible, the world was created in a few day in many and follower preached this idea. This hasn't stopped many scientifics to study the Universe and making discoveries which changed our views.

That's because there was (and still is) compelling physical evidence that Biblical creation never happened. There has been no compelling physical evidence of extraterrestrial spacecraft.

At any point in their careers scientists could be studying a vast number of exciting fields. Why would they choose to waste years of their lives studying something that has proved to be a dead end? The only way people can make a living at it is to unconditionally side with the UFO nuts who have taken over the field.

[scowl]

That is perhaps the most stereotypical and shallow view of ufology I have ever read/seen.

But instead of defending UFOlogy by showing us how that view is wrong, you quickly point the finger at...

By the same token, debunkers don't have a leg to stand on either because they ridicule and scoff at UFO related topics without the reasoning of legit research. Ufology is not poison but the debunker themselves that are the poison because they refuse to allow serious research to be conducted. Until such time that mainstream science can drop its obvious bias the debate between believers & debunkers will continue and the field will never have any serious research done which is a shame in my view.

Please tell us how debunkers have the power to "refuse to allow serious research to be conducted"? No one is preventing anyone from researching anything or making money from it.

The reason the field isn't taken seriously is that it is dominated by the kooks and profiteers that Ad Hoc is talking about. They are the poison. The debunkers are just exposing them for what they do.

[Occult1]

The problem is that science can't be very objective when the only evidence is blurry photos which are open to interpretation and witness testimony that is unreliable.

That's why they should start their own researches and gather evidences of their own. But I disagree, many testemony of UFO sightings are made by credible witnesses from Air Force pilots to... scientists!

That's because there was (and still is) compelling physical evidence that Biblical creation never happened. There has been no compelling physical evidence of extraterrestrial spacecraft.

These evidences have been gathered and studied through scientific research at it's early stage! The Galileo and Copernic of this world have come across great difficulties to make their points.

To me, there is compelling evidences of Unidentified Flying Objects in the sky and close encounters with otherworldy beings mostly through abductions. Various material footage and testimonies if we let aside many cases of hoaxes and pranks are evidences that something is going on for decades and perhaps much further back. That's a starting point in which to begin.

At any point in their careers scientists could be studying a vast number of exciting fields. Why would they choose to waste years of their lives studying something that has proved to be a dead end? The only way people can make a living at it is to unconditionally side with the UFO nuts who have taken over the field.

Alas it will remain a dead end if no great minds works on it. Just like our understanding of the Universe through physic and cosmology would have remained a dead end if it was not for the contribution of great researchers. But I understand your point even though by this way of thinking not much progress would have been made in science.

Edited July 26, 2013 by sam_comm

[scowl]

That's why they should start their own researches and gather evidences of their own.

They won't because they will come to the same unpopular conclusion that the previous batch of scientists came to.

But I disagree, many testemony of UFO sightings are made by credible witnesses from Air Force pilots to... scientists!

The first thing you learn in science: observations by witnesses in uncontrolled situations are not evidence. I learned this in the 7th grade.

These evidences have been gathered and studied through scientific research at it's early stage!

Early stage? This crap has been going on for fifty or sixty years!!!

The Galileo and Copernic of this world have come across great difficulties to make their points.

Wrong. They both had something essential in science: tools to verify that their observations are correct and reproducible results which proved their theories.

If you don't understand that, you don't understand how science works.

[Ad hoc]

That's a very unconvincing argument, if that's what the scientific community really think. Research through science should apply to anything that can be studied regardless of your perception of it. Science should be objective and staying a potentiel field of scientific research for this kind of ideological reason is ridiculous. After all, according to the Bible, the world was created in a few day in many and follower preached this idea. This hasn't stopped many scientifics to study the Universe and making discoveries which changed our views.

Which is why I addressed that in the next paragraph beginning:

If all the fuss surrounded a clear set of testable phenomena, it would be a different matter and the idiocy of ufologists would be irrelevant

This is a point I must disagree on simply because it is very oblivious in nature and not what true science is all about. Science is question, testing, and coming to conclusions and ufology is a field which needs more objective study. Science has an obligation to investigate the fields that warrant such investigation and ufology is a field that has long needed serious study to validate or dismiss whatever claims are made.

It's not like it's a black and white issue, but by constantly wagging your finger at these idealized scientists that should be working on everything in the world that anyone thinks is important, regardless of potential yield, you are forgetting that most scientists are interested in getting into a field where they feel there are real breakthroughs and discoveries to be made- and why shouldn't they?

That is perhaps the most stereotypical and shallow view of ufology I have ever read/seen. By the same token, debunkers don't have a leg to stand on either because they ridicule and scoff at UFO related topics without the reasoning of legit research. Ufology is not poison but the debunker themselves that are the poison because they refuse to allow serious research to be conducted. Until such time that mainstream science can drop its obvious bias the debate between believers & debunkers will continue and the field will never have any serious research done which is a shame in my view.

Oh, debunkers stop serious research? heh... I love how you think exposing holes and logical fallacies is an unreasonable response to extraodinary claims. Perhaps you meant debunkers stop silly reasearch.

By the way, I said it's dominated by flaky people, not that it's to a man. But I do think that anybody with a brain will soon see how much unsupported fantasy there is in the field of ufology (i.e. most of it's conclusions about everything) and subsequently move away from thinking of themselves as a 'ufologist' and towards being as a person who has their own thoughts about certain phenomenon in this world.

This last quote is a clear cut case of ridicule by someone who doesn't objectively view anything. You are convinced there is nothing to ufology and dismiss it as fantasy or nonsense when clearly there is something to the phenomena. Science is obligated to investigate ufology simply because of the overwhelming number of cases on historical record for decades and the ones still on-going. Closed minded individuals are the reason why this field doesn't have legit scientists looking into the issue and that should change so that we can get to the bottom of the legit cases and expose the frauds/hoaxes because not every case is hoax and not every case is legit. Study is warranted whenever the magnitude of cases are that high and frequent and open minded, objective science should be at the forefront to legitimize ufology so that these cases can be either debunked or validated.

lol, I thought the last was the bit with the least ridicule. I was just talking about practical reality- the anecdotal evidence that's floating around just isn't enough to turn into systematic scientific study. It wasn't even meant to be exaggerated for comedic effect. And this is why scientists tend to focus on nature, rather than the purported activities of intelligent beings. Just how should they approach it? It's hard to see what they should do- which brings me back to individuals, and project managers, who don't want to waste their lives chasing extremely tenuous leads.

Lastly, I am not convinced there is nothing to the phenomenon. I have even seen my very own thing that can only be described as a ufo, so gold star for me I guess.

I'm just convinced that the ufology community at large is too busy telling themselves elaborate stories about aliens and government conspiracies to ever have an open mind about the odd stuff that happens in this world.

[Occult1]

@Scowl You dissected my previous post and kind of got some of my answer out of context. When I mentionned that ''These evidences have been gathered and studied through scientific research at it's early stage!''

I meant by Gallileo, Copernics and other great minds of old.

As for: ''The first thing you learn in science: observations by witnesses in uncontrolled situations are not evidence. I learned this in the 7th grade.

I'll quote an interesting document I've read and which I agree with:

Recently, Peter Sturrock authored a scientific study of UFOs that was published in the Journal of Scientific Exploration which concluded that there exists a significant body of evidence about UFOs that demands a thorough scientific investigation.

So what do scientists need to conduct a serious investigation of the UFO phenomenon? Scientists need: (1) a physical phenomenon to observe;

(2) the formulation of a hypothesis about the phenomenon;

(3) experiments to test the hypothesis; and

(4) conclusions based on the results of the tests that confirm, refute or modify the hypothesis.

The UFO phenomenon meets all four of these scientific requirements

source: http://www.ufoeviden...ents/doc569.htm

Edited July 27, 2013 by sam_comm

[conspiracy buff]

Which is why I addressed that in the next paragraph beginning:

It's not like it's a black and white issue, but by constantly wagging your finger at these idealized scientists that should be working on everything in the world that anyone thinks is important, regardless of potential yield, you are forgetting that most scientists are interested in getting into a field where they feel there are real breakthroughs and discoveries to be made- and why shouldn't they?

Actually the issue itself is pretty black and white simple. Whenever there are literally thousands or even hundreds of thousands of cases where phenomena was observed and witnesses are credible, science should be investigating. As long as bias exists we will never get to the bottom of the UFO topic and that's a real shame to all serious ufologists and skeptics alike because we will never truly know for sure who is correct. I am convinced that both are right in their own ways although it doesn't look like you put much stock into objective research which is only cemented each time you reply.

Oh, debunkers stop serious research? heh... I love how you think exposing holes and logical fallacies is an unreasonable response to extraodinary claims. Perhaps you meant debunkers stop silly reasearch.

By the way, I said it's dominated by flaky people, not that it's to a man. But I do think that anybody with a brain will soon see how much unsupported fantasy there is in the field of ufology (i.e. most of it's conclusions about everything) and subsequently move away from thinking of themselves as a 'ufologist' and towards being as a person who has their own thoughts about certain phenomenon in this world.

It has been analyzed through research that 90% of UFO cases are explainable as misindentified crafts or other occurances which can be debunked logically. However if the other remaining 10% cannot be explained then what is science for? That's right, EXPLAINING. You clearly see ufology as some sort of fantasy when history has time and time again shown it is anything but that. I love how you rope hoaxes and fantasy into the same category as the legit cases in which very real phenomena happened and could not be explained within convincing reason. Again, I respect the need for actual hands on tangible proof and understand some will never believe it until the proof is right in front of them. However, there is a big difference between being a healthy skeptic and outright ignoring the obvious which most debunkers are guilty of. It is comparable to someone stick their heads in the sand and ignoring something simply because they don't believe in it. Just because a certain individual or group of individuals are convinced that there is nothing to the field of ufology does not mean the cases are any less real or that the phenomena is any less legit. Because if you objectively view the circumstantial evidence that has existed throughout recorded history you see the UFO phenomena has existed for centuries and even millennia.

lol, I thought the last was the bit with the least ridicule. I was just talking about practical reality- the anecdotal evidence that's floating around just isn't enough to turn into systematic scientific study. It wasn't even meant to be exaggerated for comedic effect. And this is why scientists tend to focus on nature, rather than the purported activities of intelligent beings. Just how should they approach it? It's hard to see what they should do- which brings me back to individuals, and project managers, who don't want to waste their lives chasing extremely tenuous leads.

Once again, this is an example of bias over objectivity. Just because the debunkers wish to ignore ufology does not mean that invalidates all the unexplained cases that clearly indicate something consistent that has been going on since history has been recorded. If this were any other field than ufology and as much evidence existed for that field as is the case with ufology, science would be all over it without hesitation or question to whether one believes in it or not. But because our society has been programmed to ridicule all things UFO related there has been no effort to involve science as an investigation tool which is sad. How do you explain all these cases in which credible witnesses the world over have reported almost identical crafts, beings, and events? That seems to only indicate the validity of this phenomena as legitimate and that it warrants further study.

Lastly, I am not convinced there is nothing to the phenomenon. I have even seen my very own thing that can only be described as a ufo, so gold star for me I guess.

I'm just convinced that the ufology community at large is too busy telling themselves elaborate stories about aliens and government conspiracies to ever have an open mind about the odd stuff that happens in this world.

This is the point at which junction that debunkers and believers are clearly separated by. You dismiss ufology simply because you don't believe in it and science is clearly a process by which you can either confirm or eliminate that possibility. Personal opinion is one thing but serious research is not based on what one thinks. Once the earth was thought to be flat. It was once believed that the sun revolved around the Earth. These theories were all proven wrong thanks to the advancements of free thinkers who didn't limit themselves to popular opinion or the influence of those who ridiculed and scoffed at them for believing. It is kind of the same deal with the field of ufology. We must be more open to serious scientific study if we ever hope to find out what this phenomena represents and what our roles as humanity is in that. You believe that ufology is all conspiracy theorists and myth when clearly history and the evidence does not support that viewpoint.

[Occult1]

Great post here above. Also if I might add, there have been some great Ufologist over the years doing some serious work gathering data and trying to understand and expose the facts and truths behind this phenomenon. So I think it is unfair to labelled all people involved in Ufology as charlatans. Aimé Michel, Jacques Vallé, Joseph Allen Hynek, Claude Poher , Stanton. T. Friendman, Peter A. Sturrock to name but a few who have each brought a contribution as they could in this field.

Edited July 27, 2013 by sam_comm

[S2F]

What about astronomers? Of either the professional or amateur variety? There are scientists looking up at the night sky making (you guessed it!) scientific observations all around the globe 24/7. Yet there is barely a peep from astronomers about alien craft. I'm sure some of you have rationalized that little fact away as some sort of extension of a grand cover up or some notion of career suicide for mentioning 'UFO' in scientific circles but I don't buy it. Scientists build their careers around 'that one breakthrough discovery'. If an astronomer had solid evidence of an honest to goodness nuts and bolts extraterrestrial vehicle (and honestly, there is no group better equipped to get said evidence) they would go down in the history books ranking right up there with Newton or Einstein for their discovery. Scientists are looking but what they find isn't what the ETH'ers want to hear so they pretend that scientists are turning a blind eye to UFOs. Look at Hessdalen valley. A tried and true UFO hotspot however when scientists started looking into the phenomena and found atmospheric plasma to blame instead of little green men the ETH crowd pretended like it had nothing to do with UFOs in the first place. Eth'ers only want validation and instead of taking an objective look at their own belief they blame others for not agreeing with their interpretations. Never once does it occur to them that they might be wrong and they want to scold scientists for hubris? There should be a word that combines hypocrisy and irony... I can't think of one that wont show up as asterisks.

Edited July 27, 2013 by Slave2Fate

[Occult1]

What about astronomers? Of either the professional or amateur variety? There are scientists looking up at the night sky making (you guessed it!) scientific observations all around the globe 24/7.

Amateur astronomers do see Unidentified Flying Objects in the sky at night.

Here's an astronomy forum I like to go peep in at times, you can easily find threads about UFOs sightings.

http://www.astronomy...d-ascot-uk.html

http://www.astronomy...r-seen-ufo.html

http://www.astronomy...-sightings.html

Anyway, even though they watch the sky like no one else, their stories and accounts are drowned or diluted among all the others around the world. There is also those amateur who think there is something very strange here and other skeptical about it.

Edited July 27, 2013 by sam_comm

[itsnotoutthere]

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

And how does one get solid answers when no evidence exists. ?

[Ad hoc]

Once the earth was thought to be flat

Hmm. you seem to be responding to all the specific points I was making with the same generic: "Ufology has lots of evidence, scientists should be working on it but society is biased"

So this is where I step out.

Once again, my position is not that there is absolutely nothing to the phenomena observed.

I'll quote an interesting document I've read and which I agree with:

Recently, Peter Sturrock authored a scientific study of UFOs that was published in the Journal of Scientific Exploration which concluded that there exists a significant body of evidence about UFOs that demands a thorough scientific investigation.

So what do scientists need to conduct a serious investigation of the UFO phenomenon? Scientists need: (1) a physical phenomenon to observe;

(2) the formulation of a hypothesis about the phenomenon;

(3) experiments to test the hypothesis; and

(4) conclusions based on the results of the tests that confirm, refute or modify the hypothesis.

The UFO phenomenon meets all four of these scientific requirements

source: http://www.ufoeviden...ents/doc569.htm

Although I read through the first four paragraphs and was not impressed with the same trite illogical arguments I've heard a million times- such as 'we believe life can survive in all sorts of places, so why don't you take ufo's-as-alien-spaceships seriously?'

It does look like there are some interesting references and threads of info drawn in, so I think I'll be having a sift through. （。.°）

[scowl]

@Scowl You dissected my previous post and kind of got some of my answer out of context. When I mentionned that ''These evidences have been gathered and studied through scientific research at it's early stage!''

I meant by Gallileo, Copernics and other great minds of old.

Well, UFOlogy is not in the early stage of anything so your comparison is meaningless.

Recently, Peter Sturrock authored a scientific study of UFOs that was published in the Journal of Scientific Exploration which concluded that there exists a significant body of evidence about UFOs that demands a thorough scientific investigation.

The body of evidence in the 50's and 60's did go through a scientific investigation and came to no conclusions other than UFOs demonstrate no pattern and are most often misinterpretations of known objects and effects. Nothing has changed.

So what do scientists need to conduct a serious investigation of the UFO phenomenon? Scientists need: (1) a physical phenomenon to observe;

(2) the formulation of a hypothesis about the phenomenon;

(3) experiments to test the hypothesis; and

(4) conclusions based on the results of the tests that confirm, refute or modify the hypothesis.

The UFO phenomenon meets all four of these scientific requirements

No, they don't have (1) or (3) and (2) is questionable.

There is one actual case where scientists did extensive studies of a UFO-like phenomenon in Norway called the Hessdalen Lights. Even though they had dozens of observations, they still weren't able to come to a conclusion. Everything suggested that they were seeing some kind of natural effect and whatever it is, it could explain many other UFO reports around the world.

Of course this was a completely unacceptable statement to those who believe extraterrestrial spacecraft are roaming our skies so you won't be reading about this study in UFO books or TV shows.

Edited July 27, 2013 by scowl

[scowl]

Amateur astronomers do see Unidentified Flying Objects in the sky at night.

They sure do. I and two other amateur astronomers saw an incredible boomerang spacecraft silently approach us while we were comet-watching several years ago. We heard no engines and saw no lights so it was not a plane. We were so dumbfounded (and a little spooked) that none of us thought to look at it through our telescopes or binoculars. We were practically frozen in our tracks as we saw that the craft was going to pass directly overhead. We didn't know what to do.

When it passed over our heads, we decided that geese are probably not extraterrestrial.

If the geese hadn't come close enough for us to hear them and see individual birds, this would have been a typical UFO report that would have been accepted by the UFO community as a probable sighting of a unknown flying structure, probably of extraterrestrial technology.

[Ad hoc]

They sure do. I and two other amateur astronomers saw an incredible boomerang spacecraft silently approach us while we were comet-watching several years ago. We heard no engines and saw no lights so it was not a plane. We were so dumbfounded (and a little spooked) that none of us thought to look at it through our telescopes or binoculars. We were practically frozen in our tracks as we saw that the craft was going to pass directly overhead. We didn't know what to do.

When it passed over our heads, we decided that geese are probably not extraterrestrial.

If the geese hadn't come close enough for us to hear them and see individual birds, this would have been a typical UFO report that would have been accepted by the UFO community as a probable sighting of a unknown flying structure, probably of extraterrestrial technology.

heh heh. Reminds me of last summer, when I was standing on my balcony in the evening/ night, and just as I looked up into the sky, a huge glowing white oval moved silently into view from directly above my own roof. My blood froze, and I gawped for a few secs before thinking: Hang on, it's the opening night of the Olympics and I live really close to the stadium- could that be a blimp? And that's what it was, as it moved on and I could see its sides, its blimp features became clear. seems they'd trained the stadium lasers onto it to make it glow like a... well, like a ufo.

Not surprisingly, there was a whole fuss and mass of ufo reports the next day from people who were too far away to discern its details. I could see from the pictures it was the same thing, and then of course there was a whole bunch of ufology pretzel logic as to why it couldn't have been the goodyear blimp.

[Occult1]

No, they don't have (1) or (3) and (2) is questionable.

To further quote the document I've mentionned above: (http://www.ufoeviden...ents/doc569.htm)

(1) There is a physical phenomenon to observe. UFOs have been seen worldwide for over 50 years and captured on still and motion picture film and on videotape. There are a number of databases available, each of which contains tens of thousands of documented reports of UFO sightings.

(2) Hypotheses have been formulated. There are many variations of a simple hypothesis: UFOs are intelligently-controlled, physical craft not of Earthly origin.

(3) There is physical evidence that can be scientifically tested. Physical evidence of UFO operations in and around the Earth's atmosphere, as well as on the surface of the Earth, exists and has been studied scientifically (e.g., soil samples, radiation effects, electromagnetic activity).

I'll have to agree with that as far as I am concerned.

As for your UFO account, I am glad to hear that you were able to debunk what you and you friend saw. I am sure at least 80% of all claims of UFO sightings could find a rational explanation. Misinterpretations, psychological issues are factors which can explain and debunk many cases. But there remains a 20% which find no satisfying explanation and do not appear to be of known Earthly origin.

Edited July 27, 2013 by sam_comm

[conspiracy buff]

Hmm. you seem to be responding to all the specific points I was making with the same generic: "Ufology has lots of evidence, scientists should be working on it but society is biased"

So this is where I step out.

Once again, my position is not that there is absolutely nothing to the phenomena observed.

Science is not a field based on what one person thinks but rather what can be proven. When there is such a clear intent and pattern with these UFO cases all over the world it is not a matter of opinion but a question of whether science is willing to investigate to get real answers. It is good to question things and that's not the problem I have with your logic. You are saying science has no obligation to investigate ufology all because you don't personally believe there is anything to the phenomena. If science had that approach to all fields of investigation just because one does not believe then our society would not have the knowledge it does today.

Although I read through the first four paragraphs and was not impressed with the same trite illogical arguments I've heard a million times- such as 'we believe life can survive in all sorts of places, so why don't you take ufo's-as-alien-spaceships seriously?'

It does look like there are some interesting references and threads of info drawn in, so I think I'll be having a sift through. （。.°）

So you dismiss what believers think just because you don't happen to agree with them? That is the root problem with debunkers because they ridicule and scoff at ufology when there is clearly study needed to explain the unexplainable. Science cannot dismiss ufology simply because there have been too many legit cases in which there were no concrete answers for UFO events. Until such time that due diligence and real scientific studies replace ridicule and outright denial then this topic will remain a very controversial one.

[S2F]

heh heh. Reminds me of last summer, when I was standing on my balcony in the evening/ night, and just as I looked up into the sky, a huge glowing white oval moved silently into view from directly above my own roof. My blood froze, and I gawped for a few secs before thinking: Hang on, it's the opening night of the Olympics and I live really close to the stadium- could that be a blimp? And that's what it was, as it moved on and I could see its sides, its blimp features became clear. seems they'd trained the stadium lasers onto it to make it glow like a... well, like a ufo.

Not surprisingly, there was a whole fuss and mass of ufo reports the next day from people who were too far away to discern its details. I could see from the pictures it was the same thing, and then of course there was a whole bunch of ufology pretzel logic as to why it couldn't have been the goodyear blimp.

Just the other day I saw my first iridium (satellite) flare. I knew what they were already however as I watched for a few minutes the thought that mostly went through my head initially was 'what the hell is that?' I finally worked out what it was and did some further research afterwards by watching comparison videos to confirm my suspicion.

[scowl]

(1) There is a physical phenomenon to observe. UFOs have been seen worldwide for over 50 years and captured on still and motion picture film and on videotape. There are a number of databases available, each of which contains tens of thousands of documented reports of UFO sightings.

Yes, we have lots of blurry photos that may not have been faked. Unfortunately the amount of information that can be extracted from these photos is nearly zero. Remember, it's not the quantity of evidence. It's the quality. Even the best photos of UFOs could have been faked. Why would any scientist ever waste his or her time on evidence that may been falsified? Scientists have ruined their careers by basing their studies on faked evidence. No scientist would ever stake their reputation on any evidence that wasn't collected through accepted scientific methods. Billy Bob's cell phone photo ain't gonna cut it.

These databases like ufoinfo.com are a perfect example of why a scientific study is impossible. I've read thousands of these "documented reports". The reports have absolutely no pattern. People have reported virtually everything you can imagine. I have laughed at a lot of them. Like I said, it's the quality of evidence that counts and almost all of these reports would be useless in a scientific study. No reputable scientist would ever cite these Ripley's Believe-It-Or-Not stories in a published paper.

(2) Hypotheses have been formulated. There are many variations of a simple hypothesis: UFOs are intelligently-controlled, physical craft not of Earthly origin.

OK. There is no evidence that UFOs are intelligently-controlled physical craft not of Earthly origin.

Next hypothesis...

(3) There is physical evidence that can be scientifically tested. Physical evidence of UFO operations in and around the Earth's atmosphere, as well as on the surface of the Earth, exists and has been studied scientifically (e.g., soil samples, radiation effects, electromagnetic activity).

That's true. There were dozens of soil samples collected by scientists in the 50's and 60's. They all had natural explanations. Case closed.

As for your UFO account, I am glad to hear that you were able to debunk what you and you friend saw.

What do mean "debunk"? We saw geese. There was no bunk to debunk.

[scowl]

Science is not a field based on what one person thinks but rather what can be proven. When there is such a clear intent and pattern with these UFO cases all over the world it is not a matter of opinion but a question of whether science is willing to investigate to get real answers.

Thousands of UFO cases were scientifically studied for almost twenty years. No "clear intent and pattern" was found in them whatsoever.

That said, you can rest assured that no more study is needed.

[Ad hoc]

Science is not a field based on what one person thinks but rather what can be proven. When there is such a clear intent and pattern with these UFO cases all over the world it is not a matter of opinion but a question of whether science is willing to investigate to get real answers. It is good to question things and that's not the problem I have with your logic. You are saying science has no obligation to investigate ufology all because you don't personally believe there is anything to the phenomena. If science had that approach to all fields of investigation just because one does not believe then our society would not have the knowledge it does today.

One last reply, as this is actually comical.

Once again, my position is not that there is absolutely nothing to the phenomena observed

you could do with re-reading the post prior to that, too.

So you dismiss what believers think just because you don't happen to agree with them? That is the root problem with debunkers because they ridicule and scoff at ufology when there is clearly study needed to explain the unexplainable. Science cannot dismiss ufology simply because there have been too many legit cases in which there were no concrete answers for UFO events. Until such time that due diligence and real scientific studies replace ridicule and outright denial then this topic will remain a very controversial one.

The specific point I made was that despite the fact there were some ludicrous arguments, there appeared to be some interesting information so I would be open to looking through it.

One day, Conspiracy buff... you might actually stop knee-jerking for long enough to read what others are saying properly- instead of just slotting it into a binary paradigm and providing a generic response.

Edited July 27, 2013 by Ad hoc

[Occult1]

OK. There is no evidence that UFOs are intelligently-controlled physical craft not of Earthly origin.

Next hypothesis...

No evidences? something that flies, defy the laws of physics, chase Airforce pilots and let physicial traces on the ground is what I called serious evidence of intelligent-controlled objects which as far as we know cannot be found in our environments on Earth. If you choose not to give any heed to credible witnesses and their testimonies let alone some very interesting footage that is up to you but in doing so collectively we may be terribly wrong. What I think is true is that we have no material proofs of a craft and that's why it still remain an hypothesis.

That's true. There were dozens of soil samples collected by scientists in the 50's and 60's. They all had natural explanations. Case closed.

You seem to lack informations about close encounter cases. For it is not a phenomenon of the 50' and 60' solely but to decades after decades up to years 2000 which in many of these cases no convincing explanation can be given. So you may want to check that out. The case is far from closed.

Ted Phillips of the Center for Physical Trace Research, has collected over 4,000 UFO physical trace cases from 91 countries.

Source: http://www.noufors.c...cal_traces.html

Here is an interesting article also: http://www.abovetops...hread461414/pg1

What do mean "debunk"? We saw geese. There was no bunk to debunk.

I mean that you saw what appeared to be an Unidentified Flying Object in the sky and have quickly been able find a rational explanation to it: it was a geese.

Edited July 28, 2013 by sam_comm

[scowl]

No evidences? something that flies, defy the laws of physics, chase Airforce pilots and let physicial traces on the ground is what I called serious evidence of intelligent-controlled objects which as far as we know cannot be found in our environments on Earth.

That's correct. It was Venus. Pilots have chased and been chased by this planet many times. It doesn't defy the laws of physics. If you see something that does appear to defy them then the scientific conclusion is that your observations are flawed.

The "physical" traces have all been examined and all have natural explanations.

There is nothing left to study and there is no reason to believe that another twenty year study will come to a different conclusion. This is why science has left the field to the kooks and profiteers who can spin exciting tales with no fear of looking foolish.

If you choose not to give any heed to credible witnesses and their testimonies let alone some very interesting footage that is up to you but in doing so collectively we may be terribly wrong. What I think is true is that we have no material proofs of a craft and that's why it still remain an hypothesis.

And that's why it's a complete waste of time, money and effort to do another twenty year study of thousands of reports with no physical evidence.

You seem to lack informations about close encounter cases. For it is not a phenomenon of the 50' and 60' solely but to decades after decades up to years 2000 which in many of these cases no convincing explanation can be given. So you may want to check that out. The case is far from closed.

You seem to lack information about close encounters from the 50's and 60's. People then also claimed to have been invited into spacecraft by alien creatures and flown around the solar system returning observations that were proved completely false which proved that they were total fabrications.

The more recent close encounter reports are no different, only more ridiculous. The most convincing explanation is that they're lies just like the ones from earlier decades. Case closed. There is no reputable scientist that would waste their time on these Ripley's Believe-It-Or-Not tales.

I mean that you saw what appeared to be an Unidentified Flying Object in the sky and have quickly been able find a rational explanation to it: it was a geese.

You need to learn the definition of "bunk".

[Occult1]

That's correct. It was Venus. Pilots have chased and been chased by this planet many times. It doesn't defy the laws of physics. If you see something that does appear to defy them then the scientific conclusion is that your observations are flawed.

I hope you'll pardon me and all these witnesses if they do not subscribe to this simplistic but very inacurate explanation of what they saw and describe and what many footage shows.

The "physical" traces have all been examined and all have natural explanations.

Unfortunately, that is not true of all cases. There remains a small percentage of physiscal traces which have not even been identified and that should not be negligable. Ground marking and electromagnetic effect after an allegeded close encounter do not always if not often find a natural explanation. But I am not saying that it must be a spacecraft coming from another planet. It is but one hypothesis among others. It appears nonethless in some cases, to be an unknown phenomenon.

There is nothing left to study and there is no reason to believe that another twenty year study will come to a different conclusion. This is why science has left the field to the kooks and profiteers who can spin exciting tales with no fear of looking foolish.

The null hypothesis is clearly what appears to me to be a denial. Even though I respect your opinion and that of others who share this view I think it is quite narrow-minded and overlooking evidences and patterns of a phenomenon which is worldwide and not from yesterday.

You seem to lack information about close encounters from the 50's and 60's. People then also claimed to have been invited into spacecraft by alien creatures and flown around the solar system returning observations that were proved completely false which proved that they were total fabrications.

But that is not what you mentionned above:

''That's true. There were dozens of soil samples collected by scientists in the 50's and 60's. They all had natural explanations. Case closed.''

Which mean either you were overlooking on purpose the physical traces cases (which most have nothing to do with abductions or invitations in a craft) and took place the following decades or you simply were not aware of them.

Anyway, as for people who claimed to have been aboard ship in the 50' and 60', frauds and psychological issues is to be considered up to the 21st century. That is why the data have to be carefully gathered and for the investigators it's important to have a skeptical approach towards these claims.

To quote a catalogue article by Ted Phillips:

This summary is based on only a partial listing of the catalogue as many of Phillips' cases appear extremely dubious in nature. Cases from the early 1950s are particularly unreliable because many of the early UFO books were written by people who automatically assumed that they were describing encounters with alien spaceships. Jenny Randles tells me that cases reported in the "hysterical" Spanish and South American media should be treated even more skeptically because these cases were often complete fabrications! Furthermore many of the early cases have no proper source, e.g. Phillips quotes Vallee describing cases which appear to have been anecdotally reported to Vallee. This means that we often have no idea whether or not a specific case was investigated by anyone, let alone whether it was a contemporary investigation or whether the investigator was in any sense someone capable of undertaking an objective scientific evaluation.

source: http://www.ufocasebo...tracecases.html

Edited July 28, 2013 by sam_comm

[badeskov]

I hope you'll pardon me and all these witnesses if they do not subscribe to this simplistic but very inacurate explanation of what they saw and describe and what many footage shows.

Sadly, many pilots and others are fooled by Venus. Whether you like it or not, that is a fact. For instance, from this link:

On Jan. 14 of last year, an Air Canada pilot flying from Toronto to Zurich, Switzerland, woke up from a nap to see an alarming sight out the cockpit window: what appeared to be a flying object (presumably another plane) flying directly at him. The first officer alerted the pilot, who correctly identified the light and told him not to worry about it, but the first officer almost immediately saw a second set of lights and took evasive action, sending the jet into a steep, sudden dive that injured 16 people and almost resulted in a midair collision with another aircraft flying 1,000 feet lower.

It was a terrifying, bizarre event over the Atlantic Ocean, but what makes it even stranger is that, according to a new report from the Transportation Safety Board of Canada, the initial light that first officer saw was an optical illusion. He thought it was a UFO — quite literally, an unidentified object flying at the plane. Yet there was no aircraft, identified or otherwise: he had instead seen reflected sunlight from the planet Venus. (The second set of lights—the ones that caused the evasive action—were actually from another aircraft the pilot mistakenly believed was on a collision course with the Air Canada flight.)

Emphasis mine.

This is just one example of this happening. The first officer took Venus for a UFO, whereas the Captain correctly identified it for what it was. Moreover, from same link:

Robert Sheaffer, a columnist for Skeptical Inquirer magazine and veteran UFO investigator, told Discovery News that "there is a long history of Venus (or some other bright planet or star) being perceived as something that it isn't. Even the UFO proponent Jacques Vallee wrote back in 1966 that "no single object has been misinterpreted as a 'flying saucer' more often than the planet Venus."

In fact, Sheaffer noted, "During World War II, B-29 crews making night bombing raids in Japan reported being followed by a 'ball of fire' that turned out to be Venus. Since then, numerous police officers and pilots have made the same mistake, as did Jimmy Carter, who reported seeing a UFO back in 1969 that turned out to be in exactly the same place as Venus."

Emphasis mine. So, if I were you I would be a little careful with such statements and actually go through the literature on the subject matter before brushing off such Earthly explanations. That said, nobody is claiming that Venus is the culprit in every sighting, it is a mishmash of different causes.

Unfortunately, that is not true of all cases. There remains a small percentage of physiscal traces which have not even been identified and that should not be negligable. Ground marking and electromagnetic effect after an allegeded close encounter do not always if not often find a natural explanation. But I am not saying that it must be a spacecraft coming from another planet. It is but one hypothesis among others. It appears nonethless in some cases, to be an unknown phenomenon.

Please do list a few cases with physical traces that have not been identified.

The null hypothesis is clearly what appears to me to be a denial. Even though I respect your opinion and that of others who share this view I think it is quite narrow-minded and overlooking evidences and patterns of a phenomenon which is worldwide and not from yesterday.

No, it is a known fact for those that knows how science works. There is simply nothing whatsoever to work with, hence only the kooks and charlatans are left.

But that is not what you mentionned above:

''That's true. There were dozens of soil samples collected by scientists in the 50's and 60's. They all had natural explanations. Case closed.''

Which mean either you were overlooking on purpose the physical traces cases (which most have nothing to do with abductions or invitations in a craft) and took place the following decades or you simply were not aware of them.

Again, please list a few of the unexplained physical trace cases.

Anyway, as for people who claimed to have been aboard ship in the 50' and 60', frauds and psychological issues is to be considered up to the 21st century. That is why the data have to be carefully gathered and for the investigators it's important to have a skeptical approach towards these claims.

To quote a catalogue article by Ted Phillips:

This summary is based on only a partial listing of the catalogue as many of Phillips' cases appear extremely dubious in nature. Cases from the early 1950s are particularly unreliable because many of the early UFO books were written by people who automatically assumed that they were describing encounters with alien spaceships. Jenny Randles tells me that cases reported in the "hysterical" Spanish and South American media should be treated even more skeptically because these cases were often complete fabrications! Furthermore many of the early cases have no proper source, e.g. Phillips quotes Vallee describing cases which appear to have been anecdotally reported to Vallee. This means that we often have no idea whether or not a specific case was investigated by anyone, let alone whether it was a contemporary investigation or whether the investigator was in any sense someone capable of undertaking an objective scientific evaluation.

source: http://www.ufocasebo...tracecases.html

Precisely, this has to be done under controlled conditions, which is simply impossible. And whether you like it or not, witness testimony carry no weight whatsoever in scientific circles, only hard data matters. I can claim I have an experiment that have photons travel faster than light, but unless I have hard data to show for my claims, I have nothing. Same with UFOlogy, if science is to get involved, we need hard data obtained under controller conditions, which is an impossibility as it currently stands. If you disagree, I would very much like to hear how you suggest that be done.

Cheers,

Badeskov