Posted on 06/24/2006 9:27:30 AM PDT by 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.
Well put.
Got a piece of it? If not, you have nothing. If you have a piece of it, call Art Bell. Call Hoagland, but he doesn't believe in these things so he'll probably hang up.
Will be interesting . . . would be interesting . . .
to see the line your gums and lips form when you see such up close.
And you will.
for the ping list, I think.
Oh, I think I have quite a lot more than you . . . a construction on reality much broader; less rigid; less narrow; less brittle; more applicable to what is.
I have been watching the sky for 60 years, amateur astonomer. Every day, every night. Seen a lot of things--no UFOs. Present any hard evidence, an ashtray, a handtowel, a pillow mint, anything.
IOW, no hard evidence.
You sure sound like a high priest of the religion of Scientism.
Fascinating.
You keep right on being super cautious about them thar TYPE II ERRORS. I hear tell it's much more fun to die from a TYPE II error. Some rumors are that absolute dismembered, decapitated death from a TYPE II error doesn't REALLY leave you dead. But, then, you know how rumors are.
If you have hard evidence, present it.
I could probably think of a few thousand folks I'd rather present it to first.
I'm not overly fond of chipping through the hard outer layers to get info in. If it doesn't at least seep in--even if slowly, I'm more likely to decide it's not worth the struggle.
But, like I said . . .
You go right on keeping that DEATH GRIP on your preferred way to die--via a TYPE II error.
All the while saying louder and louder in your own mind your favorite beloved mantra:
"THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A TYPE II ERROR!"
"THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A TYPE II ERROR!"
"THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A TYPE II ERROR!"
"THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A TYPE II ERROR!"
"THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A TYPE II ERROR!"
"THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A TYPE II ERROR!"
"THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A TYPE II ERROR!"
"THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A TYPE II ERROR!"
"THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A TYPE II ERROR!"
"THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A TYPE II ERROR!"
"THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A TYPE II ERROR!"
"THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A TYPE II ERROR!"
"THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A TYPE II ERROR!"
"THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A TYPE II ERROR!"
"THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A TYPE II ERROR!"
"THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A TYPE II ERROR!"
"THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A TYPE II ERROR!"
"THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A TYPE II ERROR!"
"THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A TYPE II ERROR!"
"THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A TYPE II ERROR!"
"THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A TYPE II ERROR!"
"THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A TYPE II ERROR!"
"THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A TYPE II ERROR!"
"THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A TYPE II ERROR!"
"THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A TYPE II ERROR!"
"THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A TYPE II ERROR!"
"THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A TYPE II ERROR!"
"THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A TYPE II ERROR!"
"THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A TYPE II ERROR!"
"THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A TYPE II ERROR!"
"THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A TYPE II ERROR!"
"THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A TYPE II ERROR!"
"THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A TYPE II ERROR!"
"THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A TYPE II ERROR!"
"THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A TYPE II ERROR!"
"THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A TYPE II ERROR!"
"THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A TYPE II ERROR!"
"THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A TYPE II ERROR!"
"THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A TYPE II ERROR!"
"THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A TYPE II ERROR!"
"THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A TYPE II ERROR!"
"THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A TYPE II ERROR!"
"THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A TYPE II ERROR!"
"THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A TYPE II ERROR!"
"THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A TYPE II ERROR!"
"THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A TYPE II ERROR!"
"THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A TYPE II ERROR!"
"THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A TYPE II ERROR!"
Please God, let there be no such thing as a TYPE II ERROR. My pride couldn't stand it.
Oh, that's right. High priests of Scientism don't believe in God either.
My error.
No hard evidence. Case closed.
The case is far from closed.
Now minds are another matter.
L
W
It's one thing to have an open mind, and quite another to believe ridiculous crap.
To reject ridiculous crap is an internal mental assessment of the evidence.
Rejecting nonsense is not evidence of a closed mind.
Oh yeah, and that moment was witnessed by a Senator who happens to be a vampire.
Have you ever examined George Kelly's ROLE CONSTRUCT theory etc.
There's the issue of personal constructs. No individual nor culture has ever been found anywhere which used more than 26 constructs with which to construe, define, channel reality.
Permeability is an interesting concept within that body of data.
So is the breadth of . . . scope of applibility of the primary constructs.
Anyway--have been quite happy with mine on all such scores.
I might hazard some guesses about yours. But you're only interested in tangible evidence.
Not sure what you do about loving other people . . . that pesky intangible stuff . . .
I'm not familiar with George Kelly or his theory.
It sounds as if he, and perhaps you, believe that reality can be tailored to your personal taste. Is that accurate?
And I'm not sure where the "loving other people" angle fits into this thread at all.
It sounds as if he, and perhaps you, believe that reality can be tailored to your personal taste. Is that accurate?
-- - - - -
NO! NOT AT ALL in the sense that you seem to mean. 0.00% accurate.
Perhaps you're that accurate in your assumptions about UFO's, too.
Loving people . . . perhaps that one's worth pondering some more.
Not waiting for a response, I went ahead and did some research.
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.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.