UFO Research: Findings vs. Facts

SPACE.com ^ | u Jun 22, 7:00 AM ET | Leonard David

[BenLurkin]

For decades now, eyes and sky have met to witness the buzzing of our world by Unidentified Flying Objects, termed UFOs or simply flying saucers. Extraterrestrials have come a long way to purportedly share the friendly skies with us.

UFOs and alien visitors are part of our culture—a far-out phenomenon when judged against those "low life" wonders Bigfoot and the Loch Ness monster.

And after all those years, as the saying goes, UFOs remain a riddle inside a mystery wrapped in an enigma. Why so? For one, the field is fraught with hucksterism. It's also replete with blurry photos and awful video. But then there are also well-intentioned and puzzled witnesses [See Top 10 Alien Encounters Debunked].

Scientifically speaking, are UFOs worth keeping an eye on?

Unusual properties

There have been advances in the field of UFO research, said Ted Roe, Executive Director of the National Aviation Reporting Center on Anomalous Phenomena (NARCAP), based in Vallejo, California.

"The capture of optical spectra from mobile, unpredictable luminosities is one of those innovations. More work to be done here but [there are] some good results already."

NARCAP was established in 2000 and is dedicated to the advancement of aviation safety issues as they apply to, what they term Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP).

Roe said that a decade from now, researchers should have even better instrumentation at their disposal and better data on UAP of several varieties. His forecast is that scientific rigor will prevail, demonstrating that there are "stable, mobile, unusual, poorly documented phenomena with quite unusual properties manifesting within our atmosphere," he told SPACE.com.

Paradigm shifting

NARCAP has made the case that some of these phenomena have unusual electromagnetic properties. Therefore, they could disrupt microprocessors and adversely effect avionic systems, Roe explained, and that for those reasons and others UAP should be considered a hazard to safe aviation.

"It is likely that either conclusion will fly in the face of the general assertion that UAP are not real and that there are no undocumented phenomena in our atmosphere," Roe continued. That should open the door, he said, to the realization that there's no good reason to discard outright the possibility that extraterrestrial visitation has occurred and may be occurring.

"Physics is leading to new and potentially paradigm shifting understandings about the nature of our universe and its physical properties," Roe said. "These understandings may point the way towards an acceptance of the probability of interstellar travel and communication by spacefaring races."

Sacred cows to the slaughter

As UFO debunker Robert Sheaffer's web site proclaims, he's "skeptical to the max." He is a fellow of the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal and a well-known writer on the UFO scene.

Being an equal-opportunity debunker, Sheaffer notes that he refutes whatever nonsense, in his judgment, "stands in the greatest need of refuting, no matter from what source it may come, no matter how privileged, esteemed, or sacrosanct … sacred cows, after all, make the best hamburger."

Sheaffer told SPACE.com, in regards to the cottage industry of UFO promoters, there's a reason there are still so many snake-oil sellers.

"It's because nobody, anywhere, has any actual facts concerning alleged UFOs, just claims. That allows con-men to thrive peddling their yarns," Sheaffer said. "UFO believers are convinced that the existence of UFOs will be revealed 'any day now'. But it's like Charlie Brown and the football: No matter how many times Lucy pulls the football away—or the promised 'disclosure' fails to happen—they're dead-certain that the next time will be their moment of glory."

Trash from the past

"I would have to say that we're stuck in neutral," said Kevin Randle, a leading expert and writer on UFOs and is known as a dogged researcher of the phenomena. There's no real new research, he said, and that's "because we have to revisit the trash of the past."

Randle points to yesteryear stories, one stretching back in time to a supposed 1897 airship crash in Aurora, Texas, long proven to be a hoax by two con men—yet continues to surface in UFO circles.

Then there's the celebrated Thomas Mantell saga, a pilot that lost his life chasing a UFO in 1948. There are those that contend he was killed by a blue beam from a UFO, Randle said "even though we have known for years that the UFO was a balloon and he violated regulations by climbing above 14,000 feet without oxygen equipment. I mean, we know this, and yet there are those who believe that Mantell was killed by aliens."

Randle's advice is to the point: "We need to begin to apply rigorous standards of research … stop accepting what we wish to believe even when the evidence is poor, and begin thinking ahead."

Paucity of physical evidence

"I've no doubt that UFOs are here to stay," said Seth Shostak, Senior Astronomer at the SETI Institute in Mountain View, California. "I'm just not convinced that alien craft are here to stay … or for that matter, even here for brief visits. "First, despite a torrent of sightings for more than a half-century, I can't think of a single, major science museum that has alien artifacts on display," Shostak said. "Contrast this paucity of physical evidence with what the American Indians could have shown you fifty years after Christopher Columbus first violated their sea-space. They could have shown you all sorts of stuff—including lots of smallpox-infested brethren—as proof that they were being 'visited,'" he said.

When it comes to extraterrestrial visitors in the 21st century, the evidence is anecdotal, ambiguous, or, in some cases, artifice, Shostak suggested.

Calling it "argument from ignorance", Shostak pointed to the claim that aliens must have careened out of control above the New Mexico desert simply because some classified government documents sport a bunch of blacked-out text. "How does the latter prove the former?"

Sure, the missing verbiage is consistent with a government cover-up of an alien crash landing, Shostak said. "But it's also consistent with an infinitude of other scenarios…not all of them involving sloppy alien pilots," he added.

Shostak said that it is not impossible that we could be visited. It doesn't violate physics to travel between the stars, although that's not easy to do.

"But really, if you're going to claim—or for that matter, believe—that extraterrestrials are strafing the cities, or occasionally assaulting the neighbors with an aggression inappropriate for a first date, then I urge you to find evidence that leaves little doubt among the professionally skeptical community known as the world of science."

Residue of sightings

Why is there precious little to show that world of science that UFOs merit attention?

"Obviously there is not a simple answer, but part of it is reluctance of the scientific community to support such research," explained Bruce Maccabee, regarded as a meticulous researcher and an optical physicist using those talents to study photographs and video of unexplained phenomena.

Why this reluctance?

"In my humble opinion it is largely a result of 'tradition'…tradition set by the U.S. Air Force in the early years when they publicly stated that everything was under control, they were investigating…and finding nothing that couldn't be explained," Maccabee said.

Nevertheless, Maccabee observed, work on the phenomenon will carry on.

"UFO studies will continue until all the old cases have either been explained or admitted to being unexplainable—meaning a residue of sightings that could be ET related—and/or until people stop seeing unexplainable UFO-like events throughout the world," Maccabee concluded.

[aruanan]

"It's because nobody, anywhere, has any actual facts concerning alleged UFOs, just claims. That allows con-men to thrive peddling their yarns," Sheaffer said.

This isn't what allows con-men to peddle their yarns. The desire to believe, regardless of whether the object of belief exists, could exist, or not, is what allows them to thrive.

[mtbopfuyn]

What was that big wedge shape everyone in Arizona saw years ago? No, I'm not talking about those lights/flares on the hill. This apparently traveled and was seen by people hundreds of miles away from each other and in broad daylight.

[dennisw]

Escamillia is rods and cones

[dennisw]

http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&rls=GGLG%2CGGLG%3A2006-09%2CGGLG%3Aen&q=rods+++Escamilla

[little jeremiah]

I've seen one, around 1966-67 in way norther Vermont, out in a field. At night. Circular, lots of lights, different colors, it was slowly rotating. Hovered not far above the field (I was a teenager, no idea how high it was, I would judge no more than (wild guess here) three to four or five hundred feet), made ABSOLUTELY NO NOISE. I watched for a while, in fascination, then it swiftly zoomed away very, very fast, still in utter silence.

There's more to the story but I'll tell it later - I think I wrote this on another thread.

I wasn't drunk or on drugs, have decent eyesight, and am no liar.

[Quix]

Got a piece of it? If not, you have nothing.

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh, so the Hubble Telescope

has produced exactly

NOTHING

at huge cost and risk of life.

Clearly a scientific view on your part.

NOTHING, indeed.

/sar

[RightWhale]

Not interested, thnx.

[Quix]

Rejecting nonsense is not evidence of a closed mind.
- - - - -

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, but the criteria resulting in a "nonsense" label is a critical issue.

It still mystifies me that SUPPOSEDLY FIRMLY CRITICAL, OBJUECTIVE, . . . . FAITHFUL BELIEVERS IN THE RELIGION OF SCIENTISM, ETC.

WHOLESALE

MAINTAIN A DEATH GRIP ON FAVORING VERY ILLOGICALLY, UNFOUNDED A FIERCELY DEFENDED HOLD ON VULNERABILITY TO A TYPE II ERROR.

They clearly are much more willing to make themselves vulnerable to death by a TYPE II ERROR

QUITE CONTRARY TO AVAILABLE EVIDENCE

merely because OF EMOTIONAL FAITH PREFERRING A TYPE II ERROR,

they reject the available evidence supposedly because it doesn't meet their criteria as acceptable.

When, in fact, their biases make the evidence illogically beyond their consideration--not on objective bases but because of emotional, psychological based aversion to the possibilities, probabililties that the evidence points to.

I don't consider such mental gymnastics objective or scientific to the least degree.

[Quix]

And I'm not sure where the "loving other people" angle fits into this thread at all.
- - - -

Am surprised you didn't catch that.

Loving others tends to involve a host of intangibles. Given your death-grip addiction to tangibles and tangibles

ONLY

It's plausible that you might have trouble in the 'loving others and others loving you' department.

A logical extrapolation of your hostility toward accepting ANYTHING AS FACT which doesn't present to you HARD-AS-CONCRETE TANGIBLES IN YOUR OWN HAND . . . would logically infer that you'd be unable to accept as true a lot of love for you as well as very unable to accept as true that others were worth loving by you. The proof's you'd require in relationships would likely be so problematic as to keep most people at quite a distance.

Of course, you could be kind of 'schizophrenic' in such matters. Humans are great at compartmentalizing. You could lay aside your rigid, death-grip on insisting on tangibles in all matters before accepting ANYTHING as TRUTH.

Which, of course, would be more arbitrariness instead of true adherence to objectivism as a reliable route to truth.

[Dog Gone]

Okay, you see evidence and things that normal people don't see. That might make you uniquely correct, or it might make you something else.

We all have to live within our own realities.

[Dog Gone]

Well, Quix, I don't have any problem in loving other people. They may hate my guts, but I can't control their feelings.

I don't hate you. I think I even like you, although we're so different it's unlikely that we'll become great friends.

We can co-exist, each of us viewing the world in a different way. I'm cool with that. But you can't insist that everyone who sees things differently is making a Type II error. That's very presumptuous on your part.

[going hot]

I always wondered why they always have their running lights on. Running lights are to let those in the proximity know of your presence. They do nothiong for the occupants.

Now, if they really have their running lights on, and wish to announce thier presence, why are they always drawn to some remote, in the desert location, and not where there is a better chance of actually meeting us?

I am not being sarcastic, I really do wonder. I do believe extra terrestrial life forms are there. If they have the technology to get here, then their communicative abilities should be above rudimentary, and their interest in coming here in the first place would be one of exploration and interest. So, why do they sneak around in the desert. Is there some sort of prime directive, or what?

[Dog Gone]

If there were really UFOs out there, they would have conquered us and either enslaved us or eaten us.

You don't let the competition develop to a position where they can threaten you.

That's why we're so concerned about Iran.

And you take even less chances with some alien species.

[Quix]

Kelley is correct that each of us creates our own reality, but even he isn't saying that it changes physical reality. In your reality, UFOs and other psychic and prophetical things may be real, but that doesn't make them real.

I believe there's a one reality. Whether or not one is able to discern it is a different matter.
- - - - -

What Kelley's work does indicate is that when one's rigidity of constructs reaches a certain point, they become dysfunctional in terms of the percentage of predictions about "objective" reality which the overly rigid, impermeable construct system will support.

Your construct system with respect to UFO's appears to be THAT rigid and impermeable. Of course, You could check it out over say 6-18 months via:

http://tiger.cpsc.ucalgary.ca/

One can learn tons of useful stuff for relationships as well as for one's work relationships by sorting the following type of list:

1. IDEAL SELF
2. FRIEND A ON AVERAGE
3. MOTHER ON AVERAGE
4. BROTHER A ON AVERAGE
5. CO-WORKER A ON AVERAGE
6. DAD ON AVERAGE
7. BEST TEACHER ON AVERAGE
8. SELF ON AVERAGE
9. MOTHER @ WORST
10 FRIEND B ON AVERAGE
11 CLOSEST FATHER FIGURE OR FATHER AT WORST
12 BEST FRIEND ON AVERAGE
13 SPOUSE ON AVERAGE
14 SIBLING B ON AVERAGE
15 BOSS ON AVERAGE
16 BEST FRIEND @ WORST
17 SIBLING A AT WORST
18 SELF @ WORST
19 BOSS @ WORST
20 WORST TEACHER ON AVERAGE
21 MOST TROUBLESOME PERSON IN LIFE ON AVERAGE
22 IDEAL ROLE MODEL e.g. JESUS OR WHOMEVER ON AVERAGE

---

CONSTRUCTS USEFUL TO SORT THE ABOVE ON:

--MORE KIND
--MORE THOUGHTFUL
--MORE DILIGENT
--MORE OBSESSIVE
--MORE ANGRY
--MORE RELAXED
--MORE INTELLIGENT
--MORE NERVOUS, WORRIED
--MORE SCATTERED, DISORGANIZED
--MORE GENEROUS
--MORE GOOD HUMORED
--MORE CREATIVE
--MORE FAITHFUL
--MORE OBJECTIVE
--MORE LOGICAL

ETC. WHATEVER. Hair color, weight etc. are not very useful constructs to sort on.

One can rate each individual along the each row of the construct being sorted on by raiting them 1-5 or 1-8 on the trait with 1 = NONE and 5 or 8 = the MOST of the trait.

If anyone does the above, please save the resulting map to your own computer. If you want my input on what it all means, am willing to give it to FREEPERS I recognize or who are introduced as reliable folks by FREEPERS I recognize. Basically, the closer the geographic distance on the map, the closer or at least more intense the relationship is likely to be/have been. There are lots of implications for various map configurations.

Over 6-18 months, filling such out say every month or every 3-4 months, one can see how rigid vs permeable one's construct system is. The most effective construct system is one which is stable enough to be consistent, reliable but flexible enough to be adjusted depending on circumstances, changing realities.

The best construct system affords the most predictive construct system in terms of future events. Kelly taught that every individual is a mini-scientist forming hypotheses about life. Those who's hypotheses result in the most accurate predictions lead the most successful lives on a number of measures.

---

In terms of UFO's, the naysayers' construct systems seem to be incredibly rigid. They wholesale seem to have a death grip on; an addiction to being MUCH MORE VULNERABLE to a TYPE II ERROR than to a TYPE I error AND THE DELUSION that such a lop-sided, illogical state is somehow wiser and safer.

THAT'S

NONSENSE!

---

TYPE II ERROR = BELIEF THAT NOTHING IS THERE, WHEN, IN FACT, SOMETHING !IS! THERE.

[going hot]

I would concur re your points regards the ME. They are, in fact, living literally and mentally in the 7th century, where barbarism, and general death to infidals was the accepted norm.

I would venture to guess, however, that any civilization that has existed long enough to perfect star travel, and not just in an exploratory vein, but the ability to cruise around and check out other star systems, probably has been around long enough to get their civil thinking in order.

I submit most who wish to beat or conquer do so out of lust for ultimate power, or perceived threat.

I do not see how a civilization that has perfected star travel sees us as a threat. If they were lusting for power, surely they could have sent a few rays our way long ago.

Now, if the visiting civilization were islamics, that would certainly be a drag. :-)

[Dog Gone]

If something is there, I want to hit it with a hammer, look at it under a microscope, weigh it, and determine what it is.

If I can't do that, it's indistinguishable from an overactive imagination.

[Quix]

On a recent C2CAM evening, one of the better researchers cited that there have been

MORE THAN 4,000 landing trace cases. These traces usually involve such things as the circle within the craft's resting footprint on the ground shows inreased magnetic properties; microwave &/or other type heating; plant deformations related to the above; . . .

and, in one case, a mass of 100's (maybe 1,000's) of common flies kind of fused into a large tree trunk.

I recently scanned the latest crop of books etc. on Amazon. There are more DVD's now and many sport clear, sharp images vs the traditional fleeting fuzzy images. I hope to check some out in the coming months.

It does appear that the powers that be are beginning to rachet things up a bit toward disclosure.

This is a bit of a paradox. Many governmnet sources have newly started declaring that they did not believe that disclosure would EVER occur.

In terms of the debunkers, more sources are reporting that such as Sagan (whom I insisted early on was on the gov payroll) have been on the government payroll as planted debunkers all along. They are just too often too illogical and strident.

Wherner von Braun insisted to his assistant Dr Carol Rosin around 1974ish that the Soviets were going to be descheduled as the boogey man. Then would arise a war on terrorism. Then a war against Iraq. After that, would come a war with ET--which von Braun insisted was dangerous and unnecessary. He (incorrectly, I believe) considers all the ET's benign.

I think that the timing will depend on the NWO global tyrannical government folks schedule of the next World War. I assume that they have decided to schedule it for after Beijing's 2008 Olympics. Perhaps even after 2012. If so, then I don't expect war with ET before 2008. It's certainly plausible that Iraq will be drug out longer--as late as 2008.

I consider all the better known ET races to be in cahoots with satan/NWO/globalists. Some may be so reluctantly etc. Some may be merely demons in bioengineered biological robot 'suits.' But they do not do Christian things to their victims.

And, as Gary Bates found [described in ALIEN INTRUSION: UFOs AND THE EVOLUTION CONNECTION] from his polling ALL the major researchers in the field--there is a vast difference in the beliefs of the abductees. This fact has been withheld by the researchers in all their writings.

CHRISTIANS WHO ARE AUTHENTIC CHRISTIANS ARE NOT ABDUCTED. Or, if they are starting to be abducted and they say things like:

CEASE, STOP IN THE NAME OF JESUS--the abduction stops immediately.

Gary's conviction therefrom, is that ALL ABDUCTIONS are nothing more than demonic episodes, charades by Demons.

I don't believe that. I don't believe that all UFO craft are materializations of demons. I believe some may well be. I certainly believe that all the better known ET races are in cahoots with satan and the globalists toward setting up the tyrannical world Government.

I believe that the puppet masters have set it up such that ET's can be used as monsters to scare the world's citizens into a world government AND/OR call the world's citizens together into the NEW AGE managed by the 'glorious' ET's saving us from ourselves and our planet destroying pollution etc.

Either way, the satanic world government is advanced.

[Quix]

When and where?

Earth.

Before 2075

Very, very likely before 2025.

Quite probably before 2020.

But we shall see.

[Quix]

Either way, I don't give a fiddler's fugh who believes it or not; but it did change the way I believe in everything that was being spoon-fed to me as a 10 year old at that time and to this day.
- - - - -

I think the last part about paradigm shift in thinking is one of the things that the ET's are being held in reserve for. I believe that the powers that be want to maximize their effect toward support of the coerced, mandated world government. The Chinese Cultural Revolution will seem like a Sunday School picnic by comparison.

[Quix]

Thanks for your interest.