Does the Phenomenon deserve study

[Ron Collins]

I had intended to put Lance on the spot and ask him this in another thread. But, I figured that this should be a question everyone has the opportunity to answer.

Does the UFO Phenomenon deserve study? Why or Why not. If, yes, then by whom and why.

 

[mike]

A resounding Yes from me.
I believe something is happening and as such it warrants study.

There are no forums dedicated to discussing people seeing 200 foot long japanese Koi Fish floating in the sky which then disapear, there are no forums dedicated to discussing the odd photo of said flying monster fish.
Thats an example of course . its hard to illustrate a "null" concept.
But it makes the point, UFO's are not a null concept, people see them, sometimes photograph them and capture them on radar.
Until we understand what they are, we will keep asking questions, keep seeking data.

As to the Who should do the research, i think anyone with a passion for it will do so.
Many of the worlds inovations came from backyard enthusiasts, people with a passion for invention and exploration.
I think well funded state sponsored research is a good thing, but the toolshed inventer will always have a place in inovation and research too.

My personal take is that non UFO related scientific research will eventually provide us with the language base, the technical jargon necessary to properly describe and define the UFO enigma.
That until we ourselves discover and understand the base principles that underpin the UFO reality, we wont have any better descriptions of ,or understanding of the reality than the "chariots of the gods" answers of our ancestors.

 

[The Pair of Cats]

The mere fact that these forums exist means that the phenomena is being studied. As for does it deserve to be, yes.
With the amount of evidence out there already, whether it be anecdotal or physical, the UFO phenomena is not going to go away any time soon despite the fondest wishes of the naysayers and scoffers. It amuses me that there are people out there who spend so much time in trying to disprove a subject that they deem to be ridiculous and abject fantasy. Why not just ignore it and move on to something the proves more productive in your life rather than spend your waking hours paying any attention at all to this field.

 

[Hotkafka]

Yes. Perhaps learning from the multiple dead ends of past research will help inspire and illuminate new angles of approach.

 

[pixelsmith]

I have been studying the phenomenon since I was 10. It certainly deserves to be studied by anyone interested.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

I think that people investigating the claims is indeed happening. The problem lies in the fact that so many people can't agree and actively dislike the ideas that other have.
A good example is that of the rendlesham forest case. People have made good arguments that it could be the lighthouse - valid ones, but not 100% conclusive. However, those that are CERTAIN it was an alien object get extremely angry at the mention of a lighthouse.

The problem comes with the polarization in the subject. It's very political, as many topics are.

Look at someone like Ray Stanford. Apparently he has conclusive proof but he refuses to share it. Nothing can move forward like that.

 

[tyder001]

Yes it can be studied..I guess. But, my knee jerk reaction is similar to the points Lance makes. I don't see any real evidence that we can get our teeth into. But, then again I'm a little prejudice on the subject. The idea of nuts and bolts u.f.o.'s and the arguments are the least interesting (to me) of all estoteric subjects. I find my eyes wanting to fall out of my head after hearing case after case after case after caseaftercaseaftercase... of "witness" testimony of lights in the sky. I don't doubt something is going on and I think Leslie Kean and others are doing a great service to the public by putting serious work and questions out there. But, I honestly lean toward the military explanation to an extent. The one thing that gives me pause about that is this. The silly ancient alien series on t.v. not withstanding. There are some things on ancient cave walls and in paintings that cause me to admit the "possibility" that people have had interactions with some presence not of this world. But, I only admit the possibilty of it not the belief in it. So, yeah it should be studied. But, it will more than likely need to be privately funded because although we have the "science" to promote health care and grow food and heal the sick. We spend most of our resources fighting wars and arguing over prestige and chasing the money.

 

[Sean Elifritz]

I think that when you call it a "phenomenon" that implies right at the beginning that it's real and therefor deserves to be studied. For me the question has always been is it even real or not? Have I been kidding myself to satisfy some childhood desire of mine? Undoubtedly 99.99% of this stuff is bs. At one time I would have said 95%. If even one of these incidents is the real deal then yes, it certainly deserves study. But at the end of the day it's entirely possible that Earth has never been visited by anything anymore interesting than a meteorite.

 

[RJHark00]

Absolutely this deserves study, but it needs to be level-headed. I think most people involved with these forums would agree with this, and this is why this is the only forum I bother with.

Paranormal studies has always been "on the outside looking in" with respect to other, "mainstream" disciplines. Many paranormal researchers will appeal to the language and credibility of science only when it suits them and then get pissed that they aren't respected by the mainstream disciplines when they won't submit to the standards of scientific or critical discourse. In the worst cases, they blame the illuminati/government/alien/fill-in-the-boogeyman agenda for keeping them marginalized. There are people involved in ufology who purport to be open-minded but are actually more dogmatic than any religious fundamentalist.

So what I'm getting at is that a big part of the problem with the marginalization of paranormal studies, as I see it, isn't necessarily the subject matter -- it's the personalities. There are a lot of people out there searching for something and, for whatever reason, people are always drawn to the lurid stories because they want to believe. Take the guy with the skull from Mexico : he comes on the show making huge claims, babbles a lot of scientific sounding things, promotes signed copies of his book, brushes off questions about performing more rounded research, then blows a gasket about being asked tough questions. Sometimes the human attention span is too short to admit that we don't have all the answers or that there is so much we don't know, and the charlatans of the world are right there ready to sell you their book or workshop or DVD to fill the void, and true paranormal researchers have let themselves be overshadowed by these types in the public eye. This has been happening from the very beginning of ufology and paranormal studies.

The silly ancient alien series on t.v. not withstanding.

This is a great example of what I mean. The show "ancient aliens" is beneath contempt as far as I'm concerned. It's a circus, and people involved in actual study of the ancient world scoff at it.

 

[Kieran]

A good example is that of the rendlesham forest case. People have made good arguments that it could be the lighthouse - valid ones, but not 100% conclusive. However, those that are CERTAIN it was an alien object get extremely angry at the mention of a lighthouse.

The disagreement I have with the lighthouse theory, is the fact, nobody in that area has had a similar experience since that has involved the lighthouse! There really should by "Right" be a number of obvious and, repeat performances over a short space of time. It hasn't happened. Look for me the lighthouse theory, was too convenient for Skeptics, and look, debunking a UFO case like this is fine by me, as long as the argument put forward is sensible and thoughtful .

 

[Ron Collins]

I think that people investigating the claims is indeed happening. The problem lies in the fact that so many people can't agree and actively dislike the ideas that other have.
A good example is that of the rendlesham forest case. People have made good arguments that it could be the lighthouse - valid ones, but not 100% conclusive. However, those that are CERTAIN it was an alien object get extremely angry at the mention of a lighthouse.

I think the weeding out of cases would go easier if there was an official resource dedicated to the study and that resource was official appointed/recognized. The issues you bring up I think are mostly caused by competition inside the field. No researcher wants to share all their information. They have to agree to keep large portions secret or overgeneralize things in order to protect sources. Much of that goeas away with an official investigative service. They would be able to collect and sort the data unencumbered. At least in theoretical Ron World.

A quick aside, I will always put inherently more trust in testimony from what I consider credible sources. It is just who I am. I consider Halt a very reliable source. My issues with the "lighthouse" or many of the other theories of Rendlesham is that you have to start by calling all of the guys that have come forward bold face liars. There is no other route around it. Either they are all lying or they saw what they saw. I just can accept that they are all lying and would continue the lie for 20+ years. It just makes no sense to me.

The problem comes with the polarization in the subject. It's very political, as many topics are.

Look at someone like Ray Stanford. Apparently he has conclusive proof but he refuses to share it. Nothing can move forward like that.

I get your point and I agree. The field is far too ego driven. look in the book "Witness to Roswell". A damn fine book and worth a very close read. But, you have to wade through the ridiculous posturing and ego padding.

Another aside... The only person that knows what Ray Stanford has is Ray Stanford. AND, he is the only person that will ever know. Period. I have had enough contact with Ray to feel pretty certain that he has data/video/images of things. But, I am equally as certain the he continuously and dramatically overstates the clarity and conclusiveness of that data. I think that Ray knows this and that it plays into his refusal to show the things he has.

---------- Post added at 05:26 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:10 PM ----------

I think that when you call it a "phenomenon" that implies right at the beginning that it's real and therefor deserves to be studied. For me the question has always been is it even real or not? Have I been kidding myself to satisfy some childhood desire of mine? Undoubtedly 99.99% of this stuff is bs. At one time I would have said 95%. If even one of these incidents is the real deal then yes, it certainly deserves study. But at the end of the day it's entirely possible that Earth has never been visited by anything anymore interesting than a meteorite.

As far as I know, Santa and the Easter bunny have never shown up on radar. I call it a phenomenon because we have many accounts of eyewitness sightings that can be confirmed as a physical craft by ground and/or airial radar systems. That is empirical data. Thus, in my mind, it can be studied and quantified.

 

[mike]

To the question if it can be studied, yes it can.
The real question is can we draw any meanigful conclusions from the data. Thats the heart of the matter.
At present we cant draw any conclusive answers from the data, but then history is replete with that very same scenario.
To use a favourite example, we have been studying the stars for thousands of years, its only recently we are drawing meaningful conclusions, thanks to modern technology and the associated language.

Thousands of years ago, those who studied the stars concluded they were the campfires of the dead, and holes in the sky letting light from the other side in.
They didnt have a periodic table of elements, let alone spectro analysis.
Today we have resolved that question (what are the stars) with meaningful conclusions including the life stage of individual stars , their type , size etc etc.
Thats just one example, there are plenty like it, only recently doctors could only speculate what caused infection, then microbes and bacteria were discovered as the cause.

a doctor in Vienna called Ignaz Semmelweis made a discovery that was very important but not accepted at all at the time

http://www.typesofbacteria.co.uk/how-when-were-bacteria-discovered.html

All to often those who's research and discoverys are laughed at and considered not important or invald, turn out to be right.....................

This same model of observed data, speculation, discovery, understanding applies here with Ufology
Ufologys Semmelweis may be here now, or he/she may not yet be born.

It can be studied, but the conclusions are still anyones guess, but history shows that eventually given enough time, meaningful conclusions/answers will be found, in each of the two examples i cite, new technology played an important role in making that leap from ignorance to knowledge

 

[Sean Elifritz]

A good example is that of the rendlesham forest case. People have made good arguments that it could be the lighthouse - valid ones, but not 100% conclusive. However, those that are CERTAIN it was an alien object get extremely angry at the mention of a lighthouse.

And it's in instances like this that I cannot agree with you and Lance about some things. Sometimes you guys take things too far. The lighthouse is NOT a valid argument because the witnesses claim to have seen the object dripping molten metal, shooting a pencil-like beam to the ground, and breaking into 5 pieces that independently flew away. Reflections of lighthouse beams bouncing off of plates are not prone to behavior like that. Now, that doesn't mean dishonesty is out of the question. These men could have lied about what they saw. In fact, it's even feasible that it started with the lighthouse and for whatever reason being out there and seeing it inspired them to lie about all of the other details of the sighting. In that case the lighthouse wouldn't be relevant as an explanation anymore, the dishonesty would be. But that they honestly mistook it for something dripping metal, shooting beams to the ground, and breaking into multiple pieces is IMPOSSIBLE and it never ceases to astound me when y'all try pretending that such things are rational. Putting forward a notion like that is no less silly than believing in aliens in the first place.

 

[Terjarv]

The answer is YES

 

[Sean Elifritz]

To elaborate on my Rendlesham/lighthouse post: Sometimes celestial bodies like Venus get confused for UFOs. It's even happened with the moon but much more rarely. Just to make things easier I'm going to pick the moon for my example. Suppose you're looking at the moon and for whatever illogical reason you think it might be something mysterious. Additionally, suppose you are so excited you hallucinate a beam shooting out of it down to your feet. Then you also hallucinate it dripping molten drops of metal to the ground followed by hallucinating it breaking into 5 white objects, each of which flies off. On top of all of that, suppose you've got a dozen other previously-believed-to be-sane-and-healthy people with you and they all hallucinate each of the same things at the same time you did. Is this at all believable? Can you actually see it happening in the real world? Aren't shared hallucinations every bit as much a myth as anything else?

The lighthouse theory simply isn't tenable. To entertain it demands accepting as possibilities things that simply cannot happen. That doesn't automatically mean the witnesses saw something extraordinary. They could have seen something none of us have thought of yet or they could be liars. Considering Penniston's ever-evolving stories that seems more like a possibility than it did in the past. I don't know if they're being honest or not but I do know that a lighthouse honestly mistaken as a UFO dripping metal, shooting beams to the ground, and breaking into multiple objects isn't even a starter.

 

[PararealitySaint]

I had intended to put Lance on the spot and ask him this in another thread. But, I figured that this should be a question everyone has the opportunity to answer.

Does the UFO Phenomenon deserve study? Why or Why not. If, yes, then by whom and why.

An excellent question Ron.

I believe that the U.F.O. phenomenon is something which cannot be ignored. The fact that this is occurring to supposedly many people throughout the world, is something which in and of itself, bespeaks to something much larger than handling a mere fad.

The question I'd rather ad here is, "are we handling the U.F.O. question correctly today?" This I venture is best answered with a most emphatic, NO!

Simply put, there are too many "extra-terrestrial" wannabes involved in the investigations. They muddy the waters of real investigatory work, and instead of presenting the world with honestly backed data, tend to stretch the situation into one of their well wishes.

The same can be said for the opposite side of the tracks as well. The inter-dimensionalists, the "spiritualists", the govt. conspirators, and all the added crap which isn't good for this clearly scientific necessity.

I for one respect investigations which leave the end result to the people to conclude. They report what happened and show any evidence, if any, and leave it at that.

So Ron, in conclusion, this field is a very important one which has become no less than a circus act because for the majority of its life its been left in the hands of mediums and those who think they can further their own private agendas. On any good day you can look up into the sky and see the Star Seeds, the Venutions, The Pleadians, The Ancient Aliens....But an actual Unidentified Flying Object.....nothing more nothing less....

Good luck.

 

[Hotkafka]

Out of sheer boredom of the moment, I think I'll go ahead and elaborate on my original response. I think most of you by now know that I have a bit of a dog in the race when it comes to viewing this "phenomenon" from a psychological angle. But I think when you consider the history of this field, any and all attempt to build on the prevailing theories have all fallen flat at the same point. Evidence. Painstaking and tireless efforts to produce it, validate it, contrive it out of thin air through various creative and interpretative measures, all, absolutely none of it has proven fruitful, and mostly for good reason. In my view the moment has arrived for research in this area to make a sharp left turn while hitting the e-brake: Why not assess what WE CAN address; i.e the situational and psychological makeup of the people whom are making the claims. Perhaps we will find a pattern that has something to say about the nature of the phenomenon. Or the nature of the people whom have been privy to encountering the phenomenon. I'll leave it at that.

 

[Trajanus]

... In my view the moment has arrived for research in this area to make a sharp left turn while hitting the e-brake: Why not assess what WE CAN address; i.e the situational and psychological makeup of the people whom are making the claims. Perhaps we will find a pattern that has something to say about the nature of the phenomenon. Or the nature of the people whom have been privy to encountering the phenomenon....

Oh that's been done for some time. To my knowledge, the bulk of witnesses are highly credible. They've long been known to include professors, pilots, astronomers, businessmen, even astronauts. IMO that says much about the phenomenon despite attempts by others to muck it up. And of course the phenomenon is worth studying--if ANYTHING is. It doesn't even necessarily matter if it's ET, ED or whatever; it's obviously something extremely advanced and capable, and could have an enormous impact on our future. Despite all the difficulties, we had BETTER study it.

 

[Keiko]

Yes, I think this subject deserves study. But I agree with Lance here that the nature of the phenomena renders it unstudiable (is that even a word according to current scientific principles and rationalities. Basically our brains aren't hardwired to be able to make sense of the data as we are perceiving it, whatever it is.

As for who should study it, anyone who feels so inclined. But it should (and probably does at this stage) come with a big warning sign...Surgeon General - Studying UFOs may seriously damage your health (mental health anyway!)

I think it would be great if some government/scientific bodies seriously studied it. I guess some already have in a way (Bluebook, COMETA) but that's not quite the same as an office/program dedicated to the study...something like Leslie Kean is trying to bring about. Even if that happens, the 'woo-woo' stuff will still be observed and studied by others because while I admire a nuts-and-bolts attitude to studying this thing...it's definately not a nut-and-bolts phenomena.

I think what Mike said is really pertinent. Despite the apparent chaos of the field, we will eventually create the language needed to start asking the right questions.

 

[Trajanus]

Yes, I think this subject deserves study. But I agree with Lance here that the nature of the phenomena renders it unstudiable (is that even a word according to current scientific principles and rationalities. Basically our brains aren't hardwired to be able to make sense of the data as we are perceiving it, whatever it is.

Too pessimistic IMO.

I think it would be great if some government/scientific bodies seriously studied it. I guess some already have in a way (Bluebook,

No, KDR is convinced that was just a whitewash.

Even if that happens, the 'woo-woo' stuff will still be observed and studied by others because while I admire a nuts-and-bolts attitude to studying this thing...it's definately not a nut-and-bolts phenomena.

Considerable evidence argues it is and even that which suggests otherwise could still stem from nuts and bolts e.g. holographic projections.

I think what Mike said is really pertinent. Despite the apparent chaos of the field, we will eventually create the language needed to start asking the right questions.

How can that be if we aren't hardwired to make sense of it?