Does the Phenomenon deserve study

[RJHark00]

Uhhh, dude I got bits of metal in my yard.....Oh no run Ethel we got a Alien in our backyard.

I all seriousness, the will to believe in something becomes more evident the more time I spend here. Maybe I'm more of a skeptic than I thought. I wish I were a government debunker/disinformation agent -- I could really use the healthcare.

 

[Trajanus]

Does the UFO phenomenon deserve study? Yes. Everything deserves study if you can find out more about it -- even just for the sake of finding out more! (Curiosity, and all that.)

However...

There are priorities.
* Sort out welfare, education, and public health insurance.
* Make sure your kids know how to pronounce the names of small countries before you decide to bomb them!!
* Get enough set aside to insure against unexpected natural and other disasters.
* Do what you can to help people get enough to eat.

And several other things. Then UFOs.

Study is potentially very practical, even if the phenomenon poses no threat. Some claim that UFO technology will replace polluting fossil fuels.

 

[stphrz]

If someone had asked me this question just a few months ago, I would have said yes.

Now, I'm not so sure. I'm starting to think that the physical reality or non reality of ufos is irrelevant.

Why? Because Roswell endures. Because MJ12 endures. Because even recent hoaxes (like the Dome of the Rock video) work their way into the mythology. This despite all the evidence that blows them to hell.

Perhaps the mythology is what should be studied. It may reveal more about who we are and where we are going. It may also reveal more about the actual phenomenon whatever it may, in reality, be.

Belief systems built around ufos are affecting people in subtle and profound ways, just like other religeous belief systems. The archetypes and symbolism are pervasive and powerful.

Real or not, ufos are changing the world.

 

[Ron Collins]

As anyone familiar with the topic knows, the number of unknowns in relation to the full number of reports is much lower (5% is often cited, I am not sure if this accurate). This does not mean 5% are saucers as the dullest of enthusiasts might imagine--it just means that certain, (many?) cases are rather hard to track down for lots of reasons. Since many cases are just lights in the sky, I would expect this number to actually be larger since pinning down a explanation for those kinds of cases is not easy.

Agreed. But, even the cases that are "identified" are only the best guess given the available data. Even given your stance on the validity of the phenomenon, would you not agree that the Condon report had serious problems? Also, I would imagine, you might agree that Blue Book, with a such a massive staff and expansive budget, was far to limited in investigative scope to do a good and thorough job most if any of those cases.

The quality and reliability of the stats are only as good as the quality and reliability of the data used to calculate them. As any DBA will tell you, crap data in equals crap data out. Neither side of the phenomenon debate will stand if trying to build on a foundation of Blue Book data.

 

[Trajanus]

If someone had asked me this question just a few months ago, I would have said yes.

Now, I'm not so sure. I'm starting to think that the physical reality or non reality of ufos is irrelevant.

Why? Because Roswell endures. Because MJ12 endures. Because even recent hoaxes (like the Dome of the Rock video) work their way into the mythology. This despite all the evidence that blows them to hell.

So you're saying Roswell shouldn't endure because MOGUL has been proved? Or maybe the horton craft, lol? For the most part, MJ12 does not endure. They're two separate issues. Most UFOlogists don't despair of the whole phenomenon because of the adamskis and meiers. There are hoaxes in every field.

Belief systems built around ufos are affecting people in subtle and profound ways, just like other religeous belief systems. The archetypes and symbolism are pervasive and powerful.

Real or not, ufos are changing the world.

Sure, acceptance of the presence of ET, or at least the idea of ET, is growing.

 

[boomerang]

At the end of the day, it doesn't matter whether we regard ufos and other high strangeness intrusions into
this culture's canonized mythology as worthy of study and contemplation. Humans are wired to seek the mysterious. As long as extraordinary things continue to be perceived by credible people, curiosity will endure and hypotheses will be formulated.

Sometimes I mull over high strangeness sightings and the way in which these things seem to pop into and out or our reality at will, and I think of sophisticated theme parks, such as Disneyworld. The park is a skillful illusion run by engineers and other employees who "know how the sausage is made". They design and maintain the rides, the animatronic magic, and apparently travel the park unseen by a system of underground tunnels. That's sort of what this feels like.

 

[stphrz]

I don't know if some folks fully got the gist of my earlier post, so I would like to be more clear. I wasn't simply talking about the mythology of the true believers. I wasn't talking about just the whacky conspiracy theories. That is only a small part of it. I didn't use the term mythology in the sense to mean as in unreal, non existant or a fairy tale like Santa or the Easter Bunny. When I said the archetypes and symbolism were pervasive and powerful I meant it.

These symbols have permeated every level of our lives. The products we buy and the advertising that sells them. They have infiltrated our entertainment, our psychology, philosophy and religious belief systems. They are changing the way we think, live and relate to one another. This is something that affects everyone. This is big. Really big.

Although the cause is doubt, the effects are not. The effects can be seen, documented and studied in a way that the cause seems to elude us. There has been zero advancement in research into the phenomenon after decades of trying. Maybe we are going about it all wrong. Maybe the phenomenon will always defy scientific scrutiny.

A better understanding may come from observing the phenomenon indirectly. There has been little succcess in getting hard scientists on board because quite frankly there isn't anything for them to look at. However, there is tons of stuff for sociologists and psycologists to study. Right now, they are for the most part, blind to it.

I want to know how we are being influenced rather than what is influencing us. I want to know where we are going rather than who is leading us there.

 

[stphrz]

Hey stphrz ...

Call me a true believer ... but I still understand the difference between fact and myth, and I find your post thought provoking, perhaps because I also find the anthropological facet of ufology interesting. In fact, the disconnect you are trying to clarify in your post actually illustrates part of the sociology. What might your comments be on the parallels between, Biblical myth, Cargo Cult psychology and the UFO phernomenon in modern culture?

Do you? Do you really understand the difference? I wonder, but I won't get into it. I have no interest in getting mired in the debate over the specifics of what constitutes evidence or facts or what they mean. I'll let lance tussle with you over that.

Of course there are clear parallels between biblical mythology, cargo cults and the ufo phenomenon.

In fact one poster in this very thread postulated that the study of of ufos is important because we may learn how to tap a new clean and abundant energy source by doing so. Or something along those lines. A rather stunning specific real world example. Also the salvation mythology that ufos are piloted by advanced space brothers who are here to save us from ourselves by the grace of their benevolent and selfless nature. This has obvious connection to the grace and glory of an almighty god.

However, those are just specific examples of extreme beliefs in the overall scheme of things. What interests me most is the subtle influence of the phenomenon over society and the small changes that occur over time. I'm also interested by the ever changing nature of the phenomenon to accomodate new advancements in our technology. I believe it is this characteristic differentiates the ufo phenomenon from the more static mythologies of judeo-christianity and cargo cults.

 

[Keiko]

A better understanding may come from observing the phenomenon indirectly...I want to know how we are being influenced rather than what is influencing us. I want to know where we are going rather than who is leading us there.

I think that's an interesting viewpoint. Sometimes by studying something indirectly we can learn alot...like learning about the sun through the light and shadows it creates. But you can also risk getting lost in the study of the light and shadows and forgetting to look up and contemplate their source. I think it is important to look at how we are being influenced but just as (if not more) important to study the 'what'.

 

[mike]

I'm also interested by the ever changing nature of the phenomenon to accomodate new advancements in our technology. I believe it is this characteristic differentiates the ufo phenomenon from the more static mythologies of judeo-christianity and cargo cults.

Personlly i think its our Technology thats changed, not the phenomena,
And that as a result of the language that comes with the new technology we are better able to describe the reality of the phenomena.

In just 300 years we have gone from the first practical steam engines to experiemental fussion reactors.

The quarterly report for the period October 1 - December 31, 2010 states "WB-8 device construction is completed. The first plasma was generated successfully on Nov. 1, 2010."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polywell

Terms such as magnetic containment fields and plasma, are imo likely to be very useful in eventually describing the reality of how these craft operate, where the language associated with steam engine technology could not.

 

[mike]

Well put,

I couldn't agree more that the more we understand about science, the closer we come to understanding UFO technology. The problem is that ufology has been so stigmatized that serious scientists have to work on it in their closet, In his new book, John B. Alexander refers to it as the tar baby factor. Once you become associated with it you become similarly stigmatized. Take Condon for example, despite the fact that he was a total debunker skeptic and didn't really want anything to do with UFOs, what is he remembered most for? Certainly not his most important scientific work ( for which he was apparently quite brilliant ).

About the only scientist to really pull it off was Sagan, who of course is as well known for his popular TV series Cosmos and his pioneering work ( pardon the pun ) on early space probes.

Another scientist who is less well known was NASA scientist Paul R. Hill who was among the first to theorize that UFOs somehow harness the force of gravity. This has also been a pet theory of mine since I was a kid. In my own musings on how it might be done, I use exactly the kind of phrasing you refer to. An antigravity drive might be created by generating a rotating electromagnetic wave within a superconducting energy containment ring. I put this to some scientists on one of those nerd-chat boards about 16 years ago. There were some MIT guys, a couple of Russians and some Norweigian and/or Finnish guys They just laughed, so I challenged them to try it and measure the results using a basic magnet, scale and liquid nitrogen. Alledgedly someone actually tried it and supposedly found a correlation between rotating superconductors and gravity ... but I couldn't tell you where to find it, and there is no way I could verify it was my idea even if you did. But you might find it useful in your urban myth collection, because it is exactly what you are talking about.

Anyway ... back on topic, I wonder if any descriptions of ancient and pre-modern sightings that used the language at the time e.g. "wheel within a wheel", "pillar of fire", "flaming shield", actually lead to any such inventions? Like did the "wheel within a wheel" lead to the helicopter? Or the "pillar of fire" to rockets?

J.R.

How strange, i did a search on ufo plasma after my last post and found hills work

http://www.hyper.net/ufo/physics.html

http://www.iprimus.ca/~mallet/paulrhill.shtml

the so-called Gravitomagnetism (the subject of field effects caused by moving matter, it has nothing to do with magnetism despite its name) and in particular any connection of gravitation with superconductivity, the purported "enhanced or boosted Gravitomagnetism". I am inclined to also include claims made in the 1990s by Russian materials scientist E.Podkletnov of "gravity shielding" effects when experimenting with rotating superconductors in a magnetic field, characterised "controversial" and apparently had a negative effect to his carreer. In Mar-2006, an experiment by Austrian physicist M.Tajmar et al funded by ESA (European Space Agency), reported generation of a toroidal (tangential, azimuthal) gravitational field in a rotating accelerated (time dependent angular velocity) superconducting Niobium ring.

 

[stphrz]

Please elaborate. Are you saying that UFO sighting reports tend to parallel the technology of the day? Or are you saying that UFO sighting reports tend to provide inspiration for new developments in technology? Or both? The confusing part here is your use of the word "accomodate" which should be spelled "accommodate". If you are trying to suggest that the UFO phenomenon acts as a stimulus for change, then perhaps you might consider the word "catalyst" .

J.R.

Please excuse my typos and spelling mistakes. I lost my reading glasses. I like that your posts are big and easy to read

Yes. I think UFO sighting reports tend to parallel the technology of the day, with the UFO tech always appearing far more advanced. I'm also of the opinion the phenomenon has been with the human race since the beginning. If you believe it all started sometime in the 1940's we are so not on the same page.

As for UFO sighting reports providing inspiration for new developments in technology, eh, not really so much. Not in the short term anyway. After all, we don't zip around in flying saucers do we?

Any changes inspired by the phenomenon are not obvious, drastic and immediate. Catalyst is probably too strong a term. I'm talking very long term here. I also think the changes are more spiritual, psychological and sociological than technological.

My hope here is some really smart people (much smarter than me) can study the phenomenon's very long history, find some patterns and form a hypothesis that can make predictions on how the phenomenon will present itself in the future. You know, a real falsifiable hypothesis. Even though it won't answer the question of what the phenomenon is, it will be way better than what we have now.

 

[stphrz]

Actually your initial impression was correct. I don't think ET is among us. I don't know the origins and nature of the phenomenon. It may come from multiple sources, including our own minds. I can't totally exclude the possibility that some of it may ET related but there is no physical/scientific evidence I have seen that convinces me of that. The ET hypothesis is not falsifiable. There is no possible way to design an experiment or make predictions with it.

In theory at least there is always a way to test for a control system. It's just a matter of figuring out how to do it. It may turn out the phenomenon is not a control system, but the test will reveal that.

 

[tyder001]

but there is so much good work done by others out there, that anyone, including skeptics, can figure this out for themselves without having an experience of their own.

I have to disagree on that one. I have seen things I can't "explain" in the sky. But, I didn't feel I was looking at something "otherworldly" although one sighting did and still does give me a moment of pause. But, I would absolutely have to see and touch and interact with a u.f.o. or a space alien to beleive in it. Sorry, but "trace" landings and "metal" are not proof of anything except that there was an indention on the ground and metal? Metal? Yeah ya don't see that everyday. (However, that was not your argument so I digress) I am not a true died in the wool cynic nor am I a debunker. Matter of fact I have my own "stuff" that I have no proof that I can give to a dyed in the wool skeptic. The thing is I don't trot it out and try to beat somebody down with rhetoric and then call that proof. (Again, not actually talking about you but just the field and folks here in general.) I don't know what the U.F.O. expereince really is. I don't even know that alien abduction and the lights in the sky are related. They are in popular myth but in reality? I don't know.

 

[RJHark00]

Actually your initial impression was correct. I don't think ET is among us. I don't know the origins and nature of the phenomenon. It may come from multiple sources, including our own minds. I can't totally exclude the possibility that some of it may ET related but there is no physical/scientific evidence I have seen that convinces me of that. The ET hypothesis is not falsifiable. There is no possible way to design an experiment or make predictions with it. In theory at least there is always a way to test for a control system. It's just a matter of figuring out how to do it. It may turn out the phenomenon is not a control system, but the test will reveal that.

This sums up my view eloquently. I think there is a lot of good reason to look at ufo's and myth together, and I don't mean myth as a descriptor of true or false. Alien abductions are particularly interesting in this respect when we consider the history of human interactions with "the Other." I think there's an important part of our psyche that needs this and looks for or manufactures it. Even if abductions happen, the way that they usually go down is familiar in some primal ways and strange in others.

I'm not trying to marginalize the study of aerial phenomena, as there are definitely a lot of unidentifiable sightings out there, only suggesting that it can be supplemented with a broader approach in the absence of what most would consider solid evidence.

 

[boomerang]

You don't have to run the numbers too closely to know Blue Book was a crock.

It should be obvious that thousands of credible people see utterly incredible things. I've known only one personally, but he happens to be a retired Air Force Colonel who was a crew member of a B-52 in the Minot incident. I only learned of his involvement from his testimony on the Jennings documentary. The Minot witnesses saw high strangeness things that rocked their world views. The Blue Book explanation was standard Condon baloney: stars! As Col McCaslin notes on the documentary, those crew members didn't see stars! This is an insult to men of that caliber and to the American public.

So--the usual pattern. A) Highly credible people with more to lose than to gain come forward, often in later years, with stories we cannot ignore. Many are now on camera. B) The physical evidence and much of the documentation "we" should have gets "lost" in the shuffle. This is a hurdle that must be overcome before scientific research might begin. Until the gap between A and B is bridged, there is little basis for scientific study. At least in the public domain.

 

[Trajanus]

Actually your initial impression was correct. I don't think ET is among us. I don't know the origins and nature of the phenomenon. It may come from multiple sources, including our own minds.

How odd that "multiple sources" all started acting up, or never attracted much attention, until the 1940s.

I can't totally exclude the possibility that some of it may ET related but there is no physical/scientific evidence I have seen that convinces me of that.

There is a plethora of evidence which points to ET even if it (i.e. what's known to laymen) doesn't conclusively prove it. If all that evidence doesn't impress you, you're either unaware of it or biased against the ETH. For all its apparent flaws, the ETH is still the best explanation and will likely remain that way.

The ET hypothesis is not falsifiable.

Of course it is, in theory. If it can be shown that the odds against life appearing, even on an earthlike world, are billions to one against, so life here was an incredible fluke, virtually impossible to replicate elsewhere, that would do it in. Or, if all landed saucer, humanoid sighting, crash retrieval etc cases were ever proven to be some kind of elaborate scam, by the government, or some conspiracy, that too would finish it.

There is no possible way to design an experiment or make predictions with it.

It makes at least one prediction we may test before long--habitable extrasolar planets exist, in older star systems.

 

[PararealitySaint]

How odd that "multiple sources" all started acting up, or never attracted much attention, until the 1940s.

And this because of the tests we began to work in earnest with the ex Nazi scientists around 46' and beyond. Strange lights in the skies, "saucers", all a phenomenon of the 50's and 60's drive-in theatres and nothing more.

There is a plethora of evidence which points to ET even if it (i.e. what's known to laymen) doesn't conclusively prove it. If all that evidence doesn't impress you, you're either unaware of it or biased against the ETH. For all its apparent flaws, the ETH is still the best explanation and will likely remain that way.

LOL! "We have proof, just don't look at it too closely, because when it truly stands up to scrutiny, it sorely lacks in anything but theory and nothing more."

Over 60 years now and no magic rubber metal, no crashed saucer, no little gray alien bodies to see....NOTHING but Mork wannabes who haunt the forums on a nightly basis panning God and spewing forth nonsensical "doesn't impress you" and "unaware" BS.

Of course it is, in theory. If it can be shown that the odds against life appearing, even on an earthlike world, are billions to one against, so life here was an incredible fluke, virtually impossible to replicate elsewhere, that would do it in. Or, if all landed saucer, humanoid sighting, crash retrieval etc cases were ever proven to be some kind of elaborate scam, by the government, or some conspiracy, that too would finish it.

No it's not falsifiable to people such as Trajanus because of the limited depth of perceptive reality utilized by the sheer disdain for anything remotely different than E.T. and only E.T. You could spend a millennial time frame with research, actual govt. findings, etc. and of course:

A. The govt. is in on it.
B. The research was tainted by naysayers
C. The proof is in the many eye witnesses and that should be enough because I, "Trajanus" say so!

It makes at least one prediction we may test before long--habitable extrasolar planets exist, in older star systems.

And what would this prove? That God made other planets with other life forms? That other planets can sustain life? What possible intention could this allow for in the context of an intelligent extraterrestrial life forms unless we actually found that life form's trace history or some archeological sustenance.

And even so, this proves ABSOLUTELY nothing when it comes to E.T. visiting or crashing to earth in 1947. Their just might be intelligent life out there in the universe....But just because some creative Hollywood Directors played up on the saucer/man from space idea after the Roswell debacle, and then the world became hysterical as to the idea that little gray aliens have somehow visited us and been here all along, is just ridiculous.

Keep the study of this phenomena to a scientific investigatory reasoning only, and that is to record the eyewitnesses, take data and observe. Show the truth (85% anomaly and 15% unexplainable, probable govt. or other) and disallow the fanciful notions of a few Martian wannabes.

 

[stphrz]

How odd that "multiple sources" all started acting up, or never attracted much attention, until the 1940s.

This is wrong. If you really believe the phenomenon got its start in the 1940's you are far outside the thinking of even the most hardcore ETH supporters.

There is a plethora of evidence which points to ET even if it (i.e. what's known to laymen) doesn't conclusively prove it. If all that evidence doesn't impress you, you're either unaware of it or biased against the ETH. For all its apparent flaws, the ETH is still the best explanation and will likely remain that way.

Right back at you. There is a plethora of evidence that points to not ET. Are you selectively biased against all that evidence? My view is that it is just not possible to pin down what the phenomenon is based on the available evidence. Instead, I propose we look at what effect the phenomenon is having on society. If we can't decide what it is, maybe we can discover what it is doing.

Of course it is, in theory. If it can be shown that the odds against life appearing, even on an earthlike world, are billions to one against, so life here was an incredible fluke, virtually impossible to replicate elsewhere, that would do it in. Or, if all landed saucer, humanoid sighting, crash retrieval etc cases were ever proven to be some kind of elaborate scam, by the government, or some conspiracy, that too would finish it

It makes at least one prediction we may test before long--habitable extrasolar planets exist, in older star systems.

Those things would not finish the ETH. I don't think you understand what the terms "hypothesis" and "falsifiabilty" mean.

 

[mike]

And this because of the tests we began to work in earnest with the ex Nazi scientists around 46' and beyond. Strange lights in the skies, "saucers", all a phenomenon of the 50's and 60's drive-in theatres and nothing more.



LOL! "We have proof, just don't look at it too closely, because when it truly stands up to scrutiny, it sorely lacks in anything but theory and nothing more."

Over 60 years now and no magic rubber metal, no crashed saucer, no little gray alien bodies to see....NOTHING but Mork wannabes who haunt the forums on a nightly basis panning God and spewing forth nonsensical "doesn't impress you" and "unaware" BS.



No it's not falsifiable to people such as Trajanus because of the limited depth of perceptive reality utilized by the sheer disdain for anything remotely different than E.T. and only E.T. You could spend a millennial time frame with research, actual govt. findings, etc. and of course:

A. The govt. is in on it.
B. The research was tainted by naysayers
C. The proof is in the many eye witnesses and that should be enough because I, "Trajanus" say so!



And what would this prove? That God made other planets with other life forms? That other planets can sustain life? What possible intention could this allow for in the context of an intelligent extraterrestrial life forms unless we actually found that life form's trace history or some archeological sustenance.

And even so, this proves ABSOLUTELY nothing when it comes to E.T. visiting or crashing to earth in 1947. Their just might be intelligent life out there in the universe....But just because some creative Hollywood Directors played up on the saucer/man from space idea after the Roswell debacle, and then the world became hysterical as to the idea that little gray aliens have somehow visited us and been here all along, is just ridiculous.

Keep the study of this phenomena to a scientific investigatory reasoning only, and that is to record the eyewitnesses, take data and observe. Show the truth (85% anomaly and 15% unexplainable, probable govt. or other) and disallow the fanciful notions of a few Martian wannabes.

Again this sort of response is hilarious, you talk about mork wannabes, then use the G word as if its a proven fact god exists.

God is an imaginary being and people who believe in imaginary beings are delusional

As has been pointed out, when a ground based radar operator gets a radar return, and then a plane is sent up which also gets a return and the pilot then sees a craft, which outruns him, then that is clear evidence there is something there.

There is more evidence for the existance of UFO's then there is for god, yet your views are completely at odds with the evidence.
I think the obvious answer to this is for your God to be real, UFO's cant exist, and thats the basis for your denial of the reality.
Your taking the evidence of modern day witness's and technology based radar data, and trying to fit it into a model cooked up by bronze age tribesmen thousands of years ago, people who would not have been able to accurately describe a TV set or helicopter. But their model of a magic sky creator and demons is the one you embrace as being the correct one ?

Apply your "scientific investigatory reasoning " to the god myth and the answer as shown above, is that god is imaginary and doesnt exist