161 Page Report On UFO Video From Homeland Security (DHS)

[Han]

If I knew how to capture still frames I'd copy some from that section of the video around :30. I think you know how to do that @Han; would you tell me how to go about doing that? Thanks.

Hello Constance there are many ways to do this.
The simplest one is:

1 Open microsoft paint.
2 press the print screen button on your keyboard
3 In microsoft paint press "ctrl + v" or go to edit and select and click paste:



This will capture an image of your entire desktop (screen) including video.
Once you have mastered this go to step 4.


4. Now you can open the video and pause it at the desired frame. then press "print screen" (whilst still in full screen mode for best results)

Paste in microsoft paint (ctrl + v or select and click):


If you are happy with the capture save it (giving it a new name including a number e.g "capture1" "capture2" etc.)

Hope this helps

 

[Constance]

I'll try to get that done, incompetent as I am technically.

 

[Constance]

In the report they go through very painstaking measurements of only the object's pixel density and changes which is really quite arbitrary, when similar comparisons of other known objects in the video might have given those "heat graphs" some actual purpose in terms of what this information means.

You're probably referring to the section titled the 'Splitting Object', specifically the pixel analysis of what appear to be rearrangements of energy/heat producing capacities in the object perhaps to produce two independent locations of energy. What's fascinating there is the similarity of cell mitosis, remarked by the authors, to what appears to be going on in the object at that point underwater. This suggests that, if this object is mega-advanced technologically, whoever developed it is likely well advanced beyond our species in bionic thinking and applications. The discovery of a fourth phase of water, discussed recently in another thread here, might be connected in some way to what appears to have been engineered into this flying object.

 

[Randall]

The report says that the thermal video was taken from a De Havilland Canada (DHC)-8 DHC-8 Turboprop aircraft that was controlled by the U.S.Customs and Border Protection (CBP). The video Constance posted says it was taken from a Black Hawk Helicopter. So does the article on OpenMinds: "Researchers reportedly conferred with authorities from the Puerto Rico Joint Forces of Rapid Action (FURA), a division of the state police of Puerto Rico that coordinates operations between Puerto Rico police and U.S. federal agencies. These authorities confirmed that the UFO video was taken by a camera aboard a Black Hawk helicopter." Why the inconsistency?

 

[Constance]

 

[Burnt State]

You're probably referring to the section titled the 'Splitting Object', specifically the pixel analysis of what appear to be rearrangements of energy/heat producing capacities in the object perhaps to produce two independent locations of energy. What's fascinating there is the similarity of cell mitosis, remarked by the authors, to what appears to be going on in the object at that point underwater. This suggests that, if this object is mega-advanced technologically, whoever developed it is likely well advanced beyond our species in bionic thinking and applications. The discovery of a fourth phase of water, discussed recently in another thread here, might be connected in some way to what appears to have been engineered into this flying object.

There is No Object Splitting-It's Parallax

Ok, we can argue about this point if you like as there is no object splitting taking place as assumed in the very scientific 161 page report. The camera in question is blending electro optical and infra red images to create what our final image is. The reason why this image appears to be split into two is thanks to the parallax effect being created during this zoomed in sequence. You don't see it split in two during any other footage because it is on ultra zoom at that sequence which is pushing the limits of the technology of this camera. Working through parallax imagery during zoom of these combined image cameras is an ongoing problem that software is attempting to sort out. It did not take me too long to research this fact but I also thought it was rather obvious from looking at the image during this extreme zoom sequence that what is being seen is a visual distortion of the image and not any supernatural moment of mitosis of a UAP. This is the problem with this kind of "scientific research" as instead of asking more questions about that they are seeing, a narrative was constructed first and then research worked along those lines.

More questions about this video: What is its actual recording source? Commentary suggests it was recorded off of a laptop. How does surveillance camera footage get onto a laptop in the first place? Other commentary suggests an iPhone was used to record the image off the screen of the laptop - assuming this was done surreptitiously why is there zero frame movement across the entire sequence, or why do we not see the whole of the original video that would show edges of the laptop screen for example as opposed to this perfectly square video with no handheld shake anywhere to be seen just a full frame video? Either way there would be incredible distortions in the recording of an image off a screen and no way to make the mathematic analysis completed in this report worth much,

I noticed there were in fact internal temperature comparisons made with a field, a road, and a cow. The authors of the report cite that these are average cow, field, and road temperatures. Did they go to Aguadillo to take a series of temps measuring during similar weather conditions to get this measurement or was this pulled out of thin air?

At least in the appendix they acknowledge, despite all their trigonometry, that it could be a balloon, which is probably what it is and I wonder really why it was that these three people sunk so much personal time into this video to create this report. Something needs to be said about this as well. What actually drives UFO research and how is it driven? There are simply too many assumptions made at the outset and then incredible narratives of advanced technology that can build up energy and split objects in two unfold instead of talking about the start of parallax unfolding.

See the top of page seven for a diagram of this type of parallax: http://www.ndt.net/article/qirt2014/papers/QIRT-2014-035.pdf

 

[Sentry]

@Gene Steinberg, I think it'd be worth having someone on the show to represent the Scientific Coalition for Ufology. Morgan Beall seems to be the frontman, but others such as Robert Powell and Rich Hoffman might talk about it.
Besides discussing their controversial findings, it'd be good to hear about what the SCU is and the goals they have for it.

 

[Randall]

@Gene Steinberg, I think it'd be worth having someone on the show to represent the Scientific Coalition for Ufology. Morgan Beall seems to be the frontman, but others such as Robert Powell and Rich Hoffman might talk about it.
Besides discussing their controversial findings, it'd be good to hear about what the SCU is and the goals they have for it.

Yes, and then we can decide whether or not they should be calling themselves the "Sciency Coalition for Ufology" or the "Pseudoscience Coalition for Ufology" or if what they're doing is actually recognized as adhering to accepted standards of practice by the scientific community, and therefore deserves to be classed as real science. I know that sounds harsh, but you've got to know that the skeptics and the scientific community won't simply let scientific claims of the paranormal and UFOs go unchallenged, and simply dressing up a paper with sciencey terminology and graphics may not be sufficient to get it accepted as actual science.

Apart from the above, ufology as a field, is not a science, and it never will be, because the subject matter spans wide areas that do not fall under the purview of the scientific method. Much of it is speculative, historical, and cultural in nature, and therefore subjectivity plays an important role in the overall picture. That's not to say that science doesn't have a place in ufology ( it does ) and I certainly commend anyone with scientific credential who wants to become involved, but when they do, they need to understand what that place is. Otherwise they'll become targets along with the rest of us, and then it will be really easy for skeptics to attack what they do, and make the rest of us look bad in the process.

 

[Burnt State]

The UFO Icarus Connection

The problem that seems to remain is the desire to put a good story about an event in front of actual facts. Too often large leaps in plotlines are made despite the many holes left in the wake of IR surveillance footage analysis. The Roswell Slides, The Guardian Tape, and countless collections of misidentification and hoaxes, like the SCU's forward move, represent a complex ufological meme: Suspicious evidence crosses paths with those who feel very strongly about proving the UFO is real. Problems follow that often produce more doubt and more distrust of this thing called Scientific Ufological Methods. Lance Moody has a field day with this sort of stuff.

And it's a noble endeavor, this UFO pursuit, but as ufology said above, there is no real UFO Scientific Method - it's still being established. This is just another example of stretching too far, and the danger is always that your well meaning attempts, overwhelmed by the desire to know how the UFO flies & how high strange it is, does not always end well, usually not. And unlike the painting, some may notice but most will forget.

 

[Constance]

There is No Object Splitting-It's Parallax

Ok, we can argue about this point if you like as there is no object splitting taking place as assumed in the very scientific 161 page report.

But, as I've said, I don't want to argue about this case or about conflicting interpretations of what the IR data shows. It doesn't upset me or surprise me that there are conflicting interpretations here and concerning all other ufo cases in history. My post was not intended as a red flag to instigate an argument. Nevertheless, you present interesting information, which I appreciate and will comment on.

The camera in question is blending electro optical and infra red images to create what our final image is. The reason why this image appears to be split into two is thanks to the parallax effect being created during this zoomed in sequence. You don't see it split in two during any other footage because it is on ultra zoom at that sequence which is pushing the limits of the technology of this camera. Working through parallax imagery during zoom of these combined image cameras is an ongoing problem that software is attempting to sort out. It did not take me too long to research this fact but I also thought it was rather obvious from looking at the image during this extreme zoom sequence that what is being seen is a visual distortion of the image and not any supernatural moment of mitosis of a UAP. This is the problem with this kind of "scientific research" as instead of asking more questions about that they are seeing, a narrative was constructed first and then research worked along those lines.

You might be correct that what appears in the video output is due to parallax. I'd be interested in a technical explanation of how the DHS camera takes and combines data in two different modes simultaneously, both infrared and non-infrared at the same time. Re your charge that the SCU researchers' work is theory-laden, I think that's an overstatement. Like all serious researchers in modern ufo history they've had to entertain and weigh two hypotheses -- that the object filmed is prosaic and that it is anomalous. The ability to analyze changes in the location of heat signatures at the level of pixels provided an opportunity in this case to approach an understanding of how this ufo, like many others witnessed and filmed/videotaped/visualized by radar, can split into two or more apparently separate objects. You can reject that data as insignificant and instead claim that the separation that appears in the video must be due to confusion resulting from pressing the camera beyond its limits of resolution, but note that your decision is also theory-laden -- premised on your belief that ufos/UAP do not represent anomalies, and further that all those researchers who pursue an understanding of anomalies have destroyed ufology as a research discipline. But in fact we wouldn't be interested in ufos/UAP if they did not appear to present anomalies that challenge our physical understanding of the world in which we exist.

More questions about this video: What is its actual recording source? Commentary suggests it was recorded off of a laptop. How does surveillance camera footage get onto a laptop in the first place? Other commentary suggests an iPhone was used to record the image off the screen of the laptop - assuming this was done surreptitiously why is there zero frame movement across the entire sequence, or why do we not see the whole of the original video that would show edges of the laptop screen for example as opposed to this perfectly square video with no handheld shake anywhere to be seen just a full frame video? Either way there would be incredible distortions in the recording of an image off a screen and no way to make the mathematic analysis completed in this report worth much.

I can't answer those questions, but surely the researchers can. Why not ask them for the answers on their website? If the video we see was recorded from the output of the data to a computer screen, it might be that there is no other way to project the data visually except through a computer representation, either on a small computer screen or a larger one. If so, what did the researchers have to work with in their visual analysis of the output?

I noticed there were in fact internal temperature comparisons made with a field, a road, and a cow. The authors of the report cite that these are average cow, field, and road temperatures. Did they go to Aguadillo to take a series of temps measuring during similar weather conditions to get this measurement or was this pulled out of thin air?

I'm not seeing your point here; perhaps you can elaborate on it. Perhaps you're suggesting that IR data on the temperatures of cows, fields, and roads on another day would be different on another occasion at Aguadillo (but one having 'similar weather'?) Is it your view that the weather produced the anomalies the SCU identified in the data extracted from the IR information obtained in the sequence of underwater imaging of the object?

At least in the appendix they acknowledge, despite all their trigonometry, that it could be a balloon, which is probably what it is and I wonder really why it was that these three people sunk so much personal time into this video to create this report. Something needs to be said about this as well. What actually drives UFO research and how is it driven? There are simply too many assumptions made at the outset and then incredible narratives of advanced technology that can build up energy and split objects in two unfold instead of talking about the start of parallax unfolding.

In discussions I've read concerning this case the balloon hypothesis is dismissed for a variety of practical reasons. I'm persuaded at this point that the object was not a balloon. Your mileage may vary. The part of your comment that I've underscored concerns, again and as usual, your broad complaint that ufo research has never produced data that is sufficient to identify anomalies in ufo behavior. You're entitled to your opinion and I won't argue with you about it. I think the conclusion you want to draw from your own generalized opinions and reactions is prone to error. We still don't know enough about ufos/UAP, and the only way to learn more is through investigations and analysis of data such as the one undertaken by the SCU. Should we investigate this case further? Of course.

 

[Constance]

@Han, thank you for the detailed instructions you provided. I have a question, highlighted in red below:

"1 Open microsoft paint.
2 press the print screen button on your keyboard
3 In microsoft paint press "ctrl + v" or go to edit and select and click paste:



This will capture an image of your entire desktop (screen) including video.

{I have a question at this point: what needs to be on my desktop? A link to the video from which I access the video and run it on my computer screen, stopping at the frame I want to capture?}

4. Now you can open the video and pause it at the desired frame. then press "print screen" (whilst still in full screen mode for best results)

Paste in microsoft paint (ctrl + v or select and click):
"

 

[Randall]

... And it's a noble endeavor, this UFO pursuit, but as ufology said above, there is no real UFO Scientific Method - it's still being established ...

To be really clear. The scientific method is well established, so ufology doesn't need to reinvent it. Instead, ufologists need to recognize the limitations within the field where science is concerned, and apply science properly where and when it is applicable. For example, if a ufologist were to obtain an alien artifact, then the best approach for scientific study would be to have independent scientists study it using established scientific methods ( chemistry, engineering, physics and so on ). This arms length approach would help ensure that the results were unbiased and carried out under standards recognized by the scientific community. The subsequent report on their findings would then carry weight as scientific evidence, and could be cited by ufologists in UFO news, journals, books, with greater confidence.

 

[Han]

The first three steps will allow you to take a single "picture" of whatever is displayed on your monitor/screen at the time you press the "print screen" key.

Try to imagine an a camera that is focused on the screen of your computer, this cameras shutter is operated by pressing the print screen key, the "computer camera" will capture a digital image to your hard disk, and to "develop/see" this image you must use microsoft paint (or equivalent software).

You need to be watching/displaying the video on your screen/monitor when you take the "screenshot".


Hope this helps.


Also Here is a tutorial I found online: How to Take a Screenshot in Microsoft Windows

 

[Constance]

Yes, and then we can decide whether or not they should be calling themselves the "Sciency Coalition for Ufology" or the "Pseudoscience Coalition for Ufology" or if what they're doing is actually recognized as adhering to accepted standards of practice by the scientific community, and therefore deserves to be classed as real science.

'We' can do that? What are 'our' credentials for doing that? Like most of the ufo skeptics you refer to in your next paragraph, 'we' are not for the most part educated in the sciences required to one day account for the nature of ufos and the sources of the measureable data they generate. If you know of such a scientist here or in the skeptical community, would you ask him or her to join this forum to evaluate the proffered research on the Puerto Rico case and many, many others? Try to get John Sturrock or Bernard Haisch or someone else of that calibre.

Apart from the above, ufology as a field, is not a science, and it never will be, because the subject matter spans wide areas that do not fall under the purview of the scientific method.

I wouldn't say that ufos/UAP "will never be" investigated by scientists. Indeed, they are being investigated by scientists [e.g., NARCAP scientists], and have a long history of being investigated by scientists [e.g. Paul Hill, John Sturrock, Bruce Maccabee]. They are also being investigated by scientists employed by the government/military/MIC, whose work goes forward without report to the public. The problem, as numerous ufo researchers have pointed out for more than six decades, is that public science remains "in default" on this subject matter.

The core issues from the beginning of the modern ufo phenomenon have been "are ufos 'real'?"; "are the phenomena we witness appearances of actual objects explicable by our knowledge of the physics of the universe?"; and "do they inform us about the nature of physical reality beyond what we currently comprehend?". The research undertaken by the SCU is a step in the right direction and should be encouraged, not attacked, by people who know less than the members of that group know based on education in the sciences. Given the reactions here to the SCU's research on the Puerto Rico case, I recommend that a Paracast interview with an SCU representative should include the participation of an accomplished academic physicist whose position on ufos/UAP is genuinely neutral and who can offer his or her own analysis of the Puerto Rico data and the SCU contributions to interpreting it.

You wrote above that "the [ufo] subject matter spans wide areas that do not fall under the purview of the scientific method." Yes, by now the popular discussion of ufos spans everything from folklore to psychology to altered states produced by psychoactive substances to speculations concerning human perception to speculations concerning "control systems" that postulate the unevidenced existence of interdimensional beings possessing intentions toward us. In short, it's all theoretical and speculative. But the objective nature of that which generates ufo phenomena is another matter. It is a question that needs to be contemplated and investigated by specialists from multiple disciplines, including quantum physics, astrophysics, aeronautical engineering, optical physics, and more. There are answers to be found, and they might well change our general conception of the nature of the universe we live in.

Much of it {c: 'it' being what you define as 'ufology'} is speculative, historical, and cultural in nature, and therefore subjectivity plays an important role in the overall picture. That's not to say that science doesn't have a place in ufology ( it does ) and I certainly commend anyone with scientific credential who wants to become involved, but when they do, they need to understand what that place is. Otherwise they'll become targets along with the rest of us, and then it will be really easy for skeptics to attack what they do, and make the rest of us look bad in the process.

I don't personally give a rip about what csiscopians and other skeptics write in their attacks on 'ufology' and 'ufologists'. They want to kill the subject matter before we've understood it. Their partial and tendentious rhetoric adds to the noise of internet debates that lack substance, and all of this opinionated chit-chat contributes nothing to discerning the significance -- the objective significance -- of the signal.

 

[Randall]

'We' can do that? What are 'our' credentials for doing that? Like most of the ufo skeptics you refer to in your next paragraph, 'we' are not for the most part educated in the sciences required to one day account for the nature of ufos and the sources of the measureable data they generate. If you know of such a scientist here or in the skeptical community, would you ask him or her to join this forum to evaluate the proffered research on the Puerto Rico case and many, many others? Try to get John Sturrock or Bernard Haisch or someone else of that calibre.

It isn't always necessary for someone to be part of a specific community to be able to determine whether or not others are, and whether or not what they are saying is valid. I may not be a scientist, or an NHL player, but given cooperation and information, it wouldn't take long for me to figure out whether or not somebody else is. Simple questions like: Has any of your work been pier reviewed by members of the scientific community? go a long way toward establishing scientific credibility. So "yes we can do that" and the only credentials we need is a working brain capable of doing some basic investigative analysis.

I wouldn't say that ufos/UAP "will never be" investigated by scientists. Indeed, they are being investigated by scientists [e.g., NARCAP scientists], and have a long history of being investigated by scientists [e.g. Paul Hill, John Sturrock, Bruce Macabee]. They are also being investigated by scientists employed by the government/military/MIC, whose work goes forward without report to the public. The problem, as numerous ufo researchers have pointed out for more than six decades, is that public science remains "in default" on this subject matter.

I'm not suggesting UFOs shouldn't be investigated by scientists ( they should be when it's possible ). What I'm saying is that ufology in its entirety doesn't fit within the narrow parameters required by science to even qualify for consideration as a science, let alone have any chance of attaining that status. Ufology is more accurately described as a field of study. Perhaps someday it might become an accepted academic field of study, and I think there are a few places that offer academic ufology courses, but that's as far as it goes, and therefore pushing for it to be accepted as a science, only hurts it's chances of gaining academic status.

The core issues from the beginning of the modern ufo phenomenon have been "are ufos 'real'?"' "are the phenomena we witness appearances of actual objects explicable by our knowledge of the physics of the universe?"; and "do they inform us about the nature of physical reality beyond what we currently comprehend?". The research undertaken by the SCU is a step in the right direction and should be encouraged, not attacked, by people who know less than the members of that group know based on education in the sciences. Given the reactions here to the SCU's research on the Puerto Rico case, I recommend that a Paracast interview with an SCU representative should include the participation of an accomplished academic physicist whose position on ufos/UAP is genuinely neutral and who can offer his or her own analysis of the Puerto Rico data and the SCU contributions to interpreting it.

All research that is done should be subject to critical analysis, and any scientist worthy of their title should agree, and be happy if their work is disproved, because it marks a step forward in the direction of their research. Also, I have my concerns about any group that links science with a pro-ufology stance because that indicates a level of bias from the start that makes them harder to take seriously. As indicated before, the smartest way for ufology to utilize science is to have it work at arms length from ufology according to independent scientific standards of analysis.

This isn't to suggest that those in the ufology community or those who consider themselves to be ufologists shouldn't try to be mindful of basic science ( we should ), and that way we can weed out for ourselves a lot of the nonsense from what has a reasonable chance of being legitimate. At the same time, IMO, a well informed ufologist has a better chance of grasping the field than an scientist with no ufology background. So the two need to learn how to work together rather than competing for the same space.

You wrote above that "the [ufo] subject matter spans wide areas that do not fall under the purview of the scientific method." Yes, by now the popular discussion of ufos spans everything from folklore to psychology to altered states produced by psychoactive substances to speculations concerning human perception to speculations concerning "control systems" that postulate the unevidenced existence of interdimensional beings possessing intentions toward us. In short, it's all theoretical and speculative. But the objective nature of that which generates ufo phenomena is another matter. It is a question that needs to be contemplated and investigated by specialists from multiple disciplines, including quantum physics, astrophysics, aeronautical engineering, optical physics, and more. There are answers to be found, and they might well change our general conception of the nature of the universe we live in.

I couldn't agree more and that's why I advocate the use of real science when and where it is applicable as opposed to dressing-up all the non-scientific aspects of ufology into sciency papers and attempting to pass it off as legitimate science.

I don't personally give a rip about what csiscopians and other skeptics write in their attacks on 'ufology' and 'ufologists'. They want to kill the subject matter before we've understood it. Their partial and tendentious rhetoric adds to the noise of internet debates that lack substance, and all of this opinionated chit-chat contributes nothing to discerning the significance -- the objective significance -- of the signal.

CSICOPians? LOL That's great. It makes them sound like they're aliens from the planet CSICOP . There's no doubt that skeptics can be a challenge to deal with. I know because I've done a lot of it. I also know that they can provide useful information and counterpoint that would be foolish to simply dismiss offhand, even if they're dismissive themselves. For example, I think that what they have to say about the Bob White artifact is worth serious consideration: 11-10-12

 

[Constance]

What I'm saying is that ufology in its entirety doesn't fit within the narrow parameters required by science to even qualify for consideration as a science, let alone have any chance of attaining that status.

You're making a category error here. Public science does not have to account for every random hypothesis that has been offered by ufo researchers and afficionados in order to carry out scientific research into the physical causes of ufo/UAP phenomena. The point isn't to justify every hypothesis and dispute that has been expressed about ufos and UAPs over the last 65 years but to engage the actual means that scientists have available to make progress in understanding their objective nature.

That's what NARCAP's scientists are engaged in doing. 'Ufology' will have to adjust to whatever is eventually learned about the physical cause(s) generating the appearances of ufo and UAP phenomena. Massimo Teodorani's work is an example of this scientific work undertaken by NARCAP and similar organizations elsewhere. Many of his papers and interviews are readily available online, btw. The SCU research report on the Puerto Rico event of April 2013 might attract the interest of scientists at NARCAP. I suggest we wait and see before 'we' reject it.

... pushing for it to be accepted as a science, only hurts it's chances of gaining academic status.

Ufology has no chance of obtaining academic interest and investment in the grab-bag of speculation it currently generates. Given the aegis of physical science in the academy, the only entree for ufo research will have to come through the science departments, and that has been and continues to be forestalled by the lack of government funding for ufo research [also aided by the attitude of scientists who have not read the considerable research produced by civilian researchers and some independent scientists to date]. Follow the money: who do you think funds the high costs of university science laboratories? What academically employed scientist will or could begin this research without obtainable funding for the major equipment and staff he/she needs to have secured before his/her university will grant the space and additional facilities needed to pursue such investigation? Not to mention the academic scientist’s foreknowledge that the science journals will not publish his or her research -- thus that he/she cannot hope to advance his or her career or even maintain tenure and a personal income based on investigating this subject matter.

No, I'm not suggesting that the mixed bag of ufological history and ufological speculation must or could become a separate academic discipline, much less a separate 'science'. I'm saying that this subject needs what it does not have – funded scientific investigation. It is a fact that scientific institutions that we assume to pursue knowledge in the public interest have been in total default in not addressing the ufo/UAP subject matter over these last 65 years, and it's clear that only gradual and persistent efforts by private organizations such as NARCAP (and perhaps SCU and similar groups if they survive) can help to clarify this subject matter at this point in our blinkered history.

My interest is in the ufo/UAP subject matter that only a limited number of scientists and a considerable number of intelligent civilian researchers have addressed. I'm not happy with 'ufology' as it's discussed here or in general on the internet these days. My impression is that your interests are somewhat different -- that you rather enjoy the endless ungrounded arguments engaged on the internet. It seems to be what you do. As I see it this conversation {this point-counterpoint debate} just goes round and round in circles for the sake of argument. What fuels the endless argument is the lack of progress in scientific investigation and understanding of what we're talking about. The only way out of this is beyond it.

 

[Constance]

 

[Constance]

• 
  Of interest here, Isaac Koi's comments yesterday on the ATS thread concerning the SCU report:
  
  ISAAC KOI:
  
  "Raymundoko has made some serious allegations in vague terms about the authors of the SCUFO report, including:
  
  
  originally posted by: raymundoko
  All the people involved in the "Report" are known UFO hoaxers.
  
  
  originally posted by: raymundoko
  The team was put together by Daina Chaviano, and she is listed under the acknowledgements of the report which is a whose who of "what hoax was I involved in?"
  
  
  originally posted by: raymundoko
  several of the contributors to the report have been caught red handed embroiled in Hoaxes
  
  I have not seen Raymundoko post any evidence/links to support these serious allegations.
• 
  
  I have had the pleasure of having contact with several of the authors of the SCUFO report over the last few years, particularly Rich Hoffman, Morgan Beall and Robert Powell. I have not seen any previous suggestion that any of them is involved in any hoaxing.
  
  Can Raymundoko please post relevant evidence/links or retract the relevant allegations above?
  
  This is not, of course, to say that I agree with everything Rich Hoffman, Morgan Beall, Robert Powell and the other authors of the SCUFO report state in that document. Indeed, I fear that I may have jeopardised my friendly relationship with at least one of these individuals given his reaction to my suggestion elsewhere that there are apparent serious problems with the SCUFO report.
  
  I had some significant problems with the report at first glance. Those problems have not gone away after spending more time on it. But I'm still studying it and related material/issues, with some other people. (Some of you will be familiar with the work done by the Roswell Slides Research Group deblurring the mummy placard. Most of us in that group have formed another research group focused on critically evaluating the relevant video and the SCUFO report. We have had the pleasure of being joined by several additional researchers, including some top names in the field)."

 

[Constance]

Link to the above: UFO Video Captured By Homeland Security Analyzed, page 12

 

[Randall]

You're making a category error here. Public science does not have to account for every random hypothesis that has been offered by ufo researchers and afficionados in order to carry out scientific research into the physical causes of ufo/UAP phenomena. The point isn't to justify every hypothesis and dispute that has been expressed about ufos and UAPs over the last 65 years but to engage the actual means that scientists have available to make progress in understanding their objective nature.

You seem to still be missing the point. Please allow me to clarify. Whether or not something is deemed by the scientific community to be science rather than pseudoscience ( a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method ) is whether or not the activities being carried out adhere to accepted standards of scientific practice, central to which ( as indicated in the definition of pseudoscience ) is the scientific method. However the broad scope of ufology as a field includes history and culture, the sub-components of which e.g. UFO fairs and entertainment ( books, movies, documentaries ), fall well outside the scope of the scientific method, yet remain important facets of the field as a whole. Therefore while ufology can never fit within the narrow parameters of the scientific method, science can be utilized within ufology in certain circumstances where it can legitimately apply.

That's what NARCAP's scientists are engaged in doing. 'Ufology' will have to adjust to whatever is eventually learned about the physical cause(s) generating the appearances of ufo and UAP phenomena. Massimo Teodorani's work is an example of this scientific work undertaken by NARCAP and similar organizations elsewhere. Many of his papers and interviews are readily available online, btw. The SCU research report on the Puerto Rico event of April 2013 might attract the interest of scientists at NARCAP. I suggest we wait and see before 'we' reject it.

Don't get me started on NARCAP again.

Ufology has no chance of obtaining academic interest and investment in the grab-bag of speculation it currently generates. Given the aegis of physical science in the academy, the only entree for ufo research will have to come through the science departments, and that has been and continues to be forestalled by the lack of government funding for ufo research [also aided by the attitude of scientists who have not read the considerable research produced by civilian researchers and some independent scientists to date]. Follow the money: who do you think funds the high costs of university science laboratories? What academically employed scientist will or could begin this research without obtainable funding for the major equipment and staff he/she needs to have secured before his/her university will grant the space and additional facilities needed to pursue such investigation? Not to mention the academic scientist’s foreknowledge that the science journals will not publish his or her research -- thus that he/she cannot hope to advance his or her career or even maintain tenure and a personal income based on investigating this subject matter.

Good points, but like I said before, I've run across a couple of institutions that offer ufology courses, so I think that saying "no chance of obtaining academic interest" is too dismal an outlook.

No, I'm not suggesting that the mixed bag of ufological history and ufological speculation must or could become a separate academic discipline, much less a separate 'science'. I'm saying that this subject needs what it does not have – funded scientific investigation. It is a fact that scientific institutions that we assume to pursue knowledge in the public interest have been in total default in not addressing the ufo/UAP subject matter over these last 65 years, and it's clear that only gradual and persistent efforts by private organizations such as NARCAP (and perhaps SCU and similar groups if they survive) can help to clarify this subject matter at this point in our blinkered history.

Sure. For example I'd like to see @Christopher O'Brien get more funding for his SLV camera project. But at the same time, there's just not a lot of evidence for scientists to examine scientifically, so that's probably why so little is being done. I think that if a UFO crash landed at MIT, they'd be clamoring all over it to figure out how it works.

My interest is in the ufo/UAP subject matter that only a limited number of scientists and a considerable number of intelligent civilian researchers have addressed. I'm not happy with 'ufology' as it's discussed here or in general on the internet these days. My impression is that your interests are somewhat different -- that you rather enjoy the endless ungrounded arguments engaged on the internet. It seems to be what you do. As I see it this conversation {this point-counterpoint debate} just goes round and round in circles for the sake of argument. What fuels the endless argument is the lack of progress in scientific investigation and understanding of what we're talking about. The only way out of this is beyond it.

Part of making progress in any field is having well defined parameters and that means establishing certain standards. The reason I continue to engage people here and on the USI website is in an effort to do just that, and therefore when I encounter issues that I feel are problematic, I make a written contribution. Sometimes that involves repeating stuff I've already been through with other people, or ends up in a debate of point and counterpoint, but that is a tried and true time-honored method of exploring issues in an effort to lead us toward the truth. It may not be your style of exploring issues, but it's far from mere, "endless ungrounded arguments". Here's a brief article: Point Counterpoint--A Method for Teaching Critical Thinking

Here's a Fine Example - Point Counterpoint - SNL

​