New French aerospace report endorses reality of UFOs

[sergejsh]

If you have what to share with the world, you will probably wright the books. But that not necessarily means everything you are saying after that is because of "vested interests". Otherwise we should dismiss big part of science, because scientists wright the books too.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

If you have what to share with the world, you will probably wright the books. But that not necessarily means everything you are saying after that is because of "vested interests". Otherwise we should dismiss big part of science, because scientists wright the books too.

Oh yeah, I totally get what you're saying, and I think the same applies to pretty much everything.

 

[Kandinsky]

I do see Angelo's point that listing a prolific(yes, 3 books makes you prolific) UFO author on the team can suggest a slanted thesis.

It does suggest a 'slanted thesis' or bias. It's an argument that's often used to imply the objectivity of the person is questionable. In stronger incidents it's used to undermine the credibility of commentators, researchers and witnesses. Their interest might dictate a lower standard of evidence? Maybe a UFO fan saw a UFO because he had a 'will to believe?' The interest is used to add doubt to accounts through a possibility they are 'predisposed' to imagine or misinterpret UFO sightings.

Oberg, Klass and Menzel have been prolific writers on the UFO subject. You can see where I'm going here?

 

[Angel of Ioren]

It does suggest a 'slanted thesis' or bias. It's an argument that's often used to imply the objectivity of the person is questionable. In stronger incidents it's used to undermine the credibility of commentators, researchers and witnesses. Their interest might dictate a lower standard of evidence? Maybe a UFO fan saw a UFO because he had a 'will to believe?' The interest is used to add doubt to accounts through a possibility they are 'predisposed' to imagine or misinterpret UFO sightings.

Oberg, Klass and Menzel have been prolific writers on the UFO subject. You can see where I'm going here?

I agree with that assessment - we have to look at all sides and each form our own opinion. I have my opinion, I think it's correct based on what I have read about this particular incident. That doesn't mean it's right.

---------- Post added at 07:33 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:30 PM ----------

If you have what to share with the world, you will probably wright the books. But that not necessarily means everything you are saying after that is because of "vested interests". Otherwise we should dismiss big part of science, because scientists wright the books too.

The thing with scientists that some seem to forget is that what they write about is often, although not always, based in scientific theory and not speculation. If you read Brian Greene's Elegant Universe, a lot of wht he discusses in it has been proven to be true through experimentation. Read a book about Roswell, and there's nothing but anecdotal evidence.

 

[dyingsun]

I still wonder what a person 'drives' out to the public if they don't have a book or/and movie to promote.

 

[Skymon876]

Sorry I started a few threads lately that have turned into FORUM DONUTS, going round and round.

I guess when starting a thread I should be more careful.

 

[dyingsun]

It's ok from my point of view.

 

[Kandinsky]

I agree with that assessment - we have to look at all sides and each form our own opinion. I have my opinion, I think it's correct based on what I have read about this particular incident. That doesn't mean it's right.

It's just something that bugged me last week. I'm not rigid enough to be a technical skeptic and I'm too skeptical to be a believer. Due to this, I'm sometimes sensitive to both sides. Last week I read someone like Oberg taking a potshot at someone's credibility due to their interest in UFOs...or possibly it was Ridpath? It's an argument I've heard for years without really paying attention. A sort of accepted 'truth.' When I saw it in use last week, I saw for the first time what a hypocritical argument it can be.

The worst thing is, I've been guilty of it for years. I hope it wasn't taken out of context in Ron's post, because it wasn't Ron, you are I was making the point about.

 

[Ted Roe]

Hello Everyone,
I am new to the forum here at Paracast and, generally, tend to stay out of forums on the UFO topic. However, we are trying a new track at NARCAP and this subject of divining the motivations of those who publish in this field is of interest to me.
Most science is driven by meditations and speculations first. People do a lot of work of various kinds to develop ideas into working hypothesis. Is someone to be discarded because of their earlier work on a subject or should the individual study stand or fall on its own merit? Further, some work is simply intended to open the discussion in hopes of it leading to a hypothesis. Of course, testing it is a whole other can of worms.
When studies like this one, or the COMETA Report, or many of our reports at NARCAP are published, they are not intended to "prove" anything. In many situations they are case studies that simply document events as described. Anything beyond that becomes extrapolation or hyperbole even, and is not really the intended outcome of the work. Thus our disclaimers on our web site.
When we publish a case study we are doing our level best to bring documentation that bears out or disqualifies the event with respect to significance. When we do a larger study like Project Sphere we are offering analysis that further illuminates our initial contention- which, in our case, is simply that UAP exist and are not resolved. The Project Sphere study was simply an examination of one type of UAP report. Some of us did quantitative analysis, I did with my USA section 3.1.6, whereby the hope was to identify trends in the data and to plot a course for further inquiry. Others presented case studies and still other members of the team presented related research like radar transparency, for example.
It is a matter of setting the stage to dig for nuance. Not all UFO are objects. Many are lights. Are they the same thing? Most of UFOlogy behaves like they are though they clearly have not made the effort to validate that position.
A report like this one, or the COMETA, should be viewed as what it is intended to be, a call for more research. Neither of them offer a definitive position but both offer provocative commentary and both imply that a more complete and honest engagement of the data is necessary to validate or rule out those possibilities.
We say the same thing at NARCAP and science bears us out.
Blue Book and Condon failed to predict the discovery of poorly documented natural phenomena that might account for some pilot reports. Further, pilots had been reporting vertical electrical discharges that were dismissed by science for decades until the "discovery" of Blue Jets, Sprites and other phenomena. Same goes for Ball Lightening. They were right about their observations, in other words. So why are they wrong when they describe objects with unusual qualities? Is the bias with the pilot or with the people they talk to? I address some related problems in my Project Sphere contribution.
We have many reports from pilots of orange balls of light... we also have reports of orange balls of light that are related to "earth lights" and have been documented at sites like Hessdalen, Norway and elsewhere. Are they the same phenomenon or are they two separate phenomena?
Again, the issue is nuance.
Quantitative studies at this point are far more productive than individual case analysis, in my opinion, yet we can't get to nuances without engaging well-scored data sets...
Ted Roe
Executive Director
NARCAP.org

 

[Ted Roe]

I respectfully disagree... and call your attention to studies underway by CIPH-SOHO using Hessdalen, Norway as a laboratory. Originally the UAP at Hessdalen were reported by local people who were making anecdotal reports. Enough analysis led to setting up an automated observatory and, voila, we have pics and data that bear out the claims of the original witnesses... Also, my example about pilots and Blue Jets still stands. Anecdotal stories leading to science and documentation of new phenomena that are consistent with witness reports.
From those reports we now have a body of work by Renzo Cabassi, Massimo Teodorani, and others that are leading to more inquiries...
Sure, you can find people who will say anything but its those who have something to lose that we need to pay attention to. Military pilots, commercial aircrews, air controllers, etc... who deal with this in the course of their careers are a lot different from the situation you are describing, LanceMoody... If you create a scene of "strangeness" then abuse those who report it, what are you really proving?

 

[Ted Roe]

If you examine the Hessdalen matter via the internet you can see the evolution of science about the subject in chronological order beginning with the first claims of anecdotal observations to the establishment of preliminary data collection schemes to the current research and projected efforts... all beginning with eye witness testimonials.
http://www.hessdalen.org
http://www.itacomm.net/ph/embla2001/embla2001_e.pdf

http://www.itacomm.net/ph/hess_e.pdf

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009siaa.rept....1T

and a new track of inquiry beginning this year with... eyewitness testimony and photos...
http://www.nat-hazards-earth-syst-sci.net/10/967/2010/nhess-10-967-2010.pdf
Abstract. A seven-month collection of testimonials about the 6 April 2009 earthquake in Aquila, Abruzzo region, Italy, was compiled into a catalogue of non-seismic phenomena. Luminous phenomena were often reported starting about nine months before the strong shock and continued until
about five months after the shock. A summary and list of the characteristics of these sightings was made according to
20th century classifications and a comparison was made with the Galli outcomes. These sightings were distributed over a
large area around the city of Aquila, with a major extension to the north, up to 50 km. Various earthquake lights were correlated
with several landscape characteristics and the source and dynamic of the earthquake. Some preliminary considerations
on the location of the sightings suggest a correlation between electrical discharges and asperities, while flames were
mostly seen along the Aterno Valley.

---------- Post added at 09:41 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:29 PM ----------

These are just some highpoints in the papers tracking the development of science with respect to Hessdalen, Norway and the UAP reported there.

My question to you is "What is a UFO supporter"? And why does that apply to me?

You have yet to engage my example regarding pilot reports of vertical lightning discharges that eventually were proved out as Blue Jets after years of being dismissed by those who "knew better" and Blue Books failure to predict their discovery in its blanket dismissal of anything unusual in our skies....

Frankly, if you doubt the existence of UAP then you are not current with the research. You haven't read any of the current studies, even back ten years, that more than clearly document the existence of UAP with instruments and the consistency of those studies with reports that continue to this day.... Take a look at the Earthquake lights reference here, http://www.nat-hazards-earth-syst-sc...0-967-2010.pdf
examine the photographs of the UAP and compare that with NARCAP Tech Report 12
http://www.narcap.org/reports/012/uap_photo_7-3-05_PaloAlto.pdf

 

[Ted Roe]

The problem with Blue Book was the blanket dismissal of UFO reports as known phenomena. It was myopic, perhaps intentionally, and that failure is obvious as we continue to have reports and good documentation supporting some of them as well as the field studies being done at various sites around the world... Further, the UAP reports I offered were in response to your contention that there is no value to anecdotal reports and eyewitness testimony which is counter-intuitive as everything begins with an idea or observation first then an attempt to resolve it as fact or fiction...
In your defense, I agree that there is little of value to be gained from the majority of UFO databases out there. NARCAP member Massimo Teodorani engages that rather directly in his paper here:
A Comparative Analytical and Observational Study of North American Databases on Unidentified Aerial Phenomena
Massimo Teodorani, Ph.D. Astrophysicist, Researcher, Science Writer, NARCAP Research Associate, Italy, November 2009
http://www.narcap.org/reports/CompAnal/ONNYCT_Paper_MT_2009_REVISED.pdf
The reasons for these data sets being so weak involves terminology and other failures by investigators who do not strive for precise descriptions or simply collect raw reports with no effort to categorize or resolve them. The NUFORC database managed by Davenport is a great example of a nearly useless database...it is simply a collection of comments and has very little data that can be collated into something useful with any confidence.
The real problem is having a strong data set to start with... it doesn't have to be caste in iron, just solid enough to develop a preliminary inquiry. Analysis of that effort will guide further research.
LanceMoody, please take a look at the references in this thread and those on the NARCAP.org home page... you are a bright guy and you might find something to stimulate your intellect...