Question for dB

[swatcher]

David,

If you had unlimited funds to assemble a team dedicated to the study of the "UFO" phenomenon what experts, or branches of science, would you like to bring aboard? Do you believe that science, without any restrictions (national security, economy, current form of society, religion) could actually quantify the phenomenon?

Thank you in advance.

 

[Rick Deckard]

Do you believe that science, without any restrictions (national security, economy, current form of society, religion) could actually quantify the phenomenon?

This would be a true test of science. The proof would be in the pudding - there is a strong possibility that the UFO phenomena may not be easily quantified using today's scientific methods.

Would science adapt? Probably not - there appears to be an enormous amount of 'inertia' in the scientific community. Major changes to current understanding are resisted - better to ignore the 2 or 3 percent of phenomena that isn't easily explained, than throw away mathematical 'models' that have been carefully honed over decades of study.

See 'Dark Matter' versus Newton's laws of gravity.

See Einstein's General Theory of Relativity versus Quantum Mechanics.

See the conflicting theories of aerodynamics - they can see the affect of air-streams passing over a wing, but there isn't yet a single agreed theory to explain what causes the 'lifting' effect.

 

[swatcher]

Rick,

Thank you for your post.

I'm not aware that the "mechanics" of why a 747 can lift off are in question. Could you point me to a source on the web? I'm intrigued and would like to learn more.

Thanks in advance.

 

[Rick Deckard]

I'm not aware that the "mechanics" of why a 747 can lift of are in question. Could you point me to a source on the web? I'm intrigued and would like to learn more.

I'll get back to you - most explanations only really show the cause-and-effect - a lot of science is repeatable observations of an expected effect. But, the underlying principals of WHY the effect is observed can only be theorised and agreed upon. Even if a theory is accepted that doesn't necessarily mean that is what is actually happening in reality...

...anyway, I'll go dig out a discussion from somewhere and post a link later.

 

[mike]

does a modern med student know more about anatomy than a 5th century witch doctor ? of course he does.
does he know everything there is to know about the human body, and how it functions.? not quite but just about
science is more often about closng the gap than it is about providing a definatve answer.

im certain that science can significantly close the gap on the ufo question. frankly i dont see any other viable alternative.

the i ching ?, owl retchings ? patterns in the guts of a ritually killed chicken ?

 

[David Biedny]

I think that our current level of scientific and technological sophistication is overstated, if we make the assumption that there are much older, more advanced species and lifeforms in the Universe. The problem is that we assume we have a deep level of understanding of the nature of this Universe, which I feel is far from true. Older, more developed forms of life - especially life that has a completely different evolutionary history than humans - are probably closer to having a deeper grasp of the actual workings of everything. I strongly feel, if it doesn't already come across on the show, that we're essentially a bunch of children looking to grow up, but not willing to admit that we're not there yet. We're a young species, and we've got soooo much to learn. As much as we'd like to believe that we can imagine the vast possibilities of the underlying truth of reality, I'm sure that it's far wilder and more bewildering than anything that we have imagined.

But maybe we're due for an evolutionary step forward. Maybe it's the beginning of something that doesn't look like anything that came before it. Perhaps the paranormal is the breakdown between our Universe and other realities that are here with us, separated by the thin veil of time and space, on the edge of our perception. Humans are changing, if for no other reason than prolonged exposure to The Screen. Movies, tv, computers, celphones, it's all an extension of our senses, a visual feedback loop. It's changing us, in ways we don't fully understand, and towards some end that we can't yet see. A part of our brain has been cooking, and it's starting to boil over.

OK, the task of putting together a research team for any kind of meaningful stab at the UFO problem is really tough, because you would really want to address the underlying framework that facilitates the UFO phenomenon. The total separation that currently exists between "hard" science and "soft" science needs to be tweaked, as both are part of the same spectrum of understanding of reality. We know how a bunch of particles interact, but not squat about why. Until we collectively take a breath and agree that there is easily more that we don't know than anything we do understand, we're not going to make the kinds of gains that we so desperately need. Factor in the situation with the planet we live on, and I might be convinced that the Earth is trying to tell us that we need to wake up, using any means it can come up with to break us from the state of denial and complacency.

And for anyone willing to tell me that the planet is not alive, enough already. We are unaware of the majority of species of life on this planet, so get over yourselves.

Getting back to the team, it would consist of around 12-15 folks or so, with representation from physics, geology, engineering, astronomy, imaging, genetics and a couple of "alternate" fields, perhaps a Jesuit priest. I could get more specific some other time, I'd have give it lots of thought and do the research.

If only...

dB

 

[Rick Deckard]

im certain that science can significantly close the gap on the ufo question...

Wow, really? Based on what?

 

[mike]

Wow, really? Based on what?

based on the gap its closed in the field of anatomy over the last 200 years.

our knowledge on any given subject can range from complete ignorance to complete understanding and everywhere in between.

if the underlying physics of the universe are a "fixed" reality then its simply a matter of working through the data and given time we will understand it all.

the human body is a "fixed" reality in anatomical terms when applied to the last 1000 years, yet our understanding of it has gone from blaming evil spirits for sickness, to modern drugs and surgery.

all that changed is our understanding of the topic and the jargon

 

[swatcher]

... top of post deleted by swatcher ...

Getting back to the team, it would consist of around 12-15 folks or so, with representation from physics, geology, engineering, astronomy, imaging, genetics and a couple of "alternate" fields, perhaps a Jesuit priest. I could get more specific some other time, I'd have give it lots of thought and do the research.

If only...

dB

David,

Thank you very much for your reply. I appreciate your thoughtfulness. May I bother you one more time?

Let's say funding is not an issue, and we are able to assemble a world-class team of 12. Would a time frame of 5 years produce some tangible, irrefutable results in your opinion? Would we know more about: who are they, why are they here and what is their objective?

I have no doubt whatsoever that the MIC (military-industrial-complex) has started this project about 70 years ago. It's the only logical conclusion IMHO. Can you imagine, given the funding and brain power involved, what they really know!? Unfortunately, the information is classified.

So could a "rogue" team of 12, only dedicated to disclosing the truth, make a difference? Also, would you be willing to consider that the truth is "unbearable"? Meaning that it must be contained for the greater good of society?

Sorry, I just wanted to ask one question, but it opened a can of worms.

Thank you in advance.

 

[Rick Deckard]

if the underlying physics of the universe are a "fixed" reality then its simply a matter of working through the data and given time we will understand it all.

That's exactly why I'm NOT certain that science 'can close the gap' - it hasn't been established that the same (man-made) laws of physics apply throughout the universe.

So, how far has science progressed in it's quest to explain UFOs? I suspect not very far. Why? Because the scientists have taken a 'nothing to see' attitude.

Until ufology becomes an 'accepted' branch of mainstream science it will remain the domain of amateur enthusiasts and pseudo-scientists and therefore be undermined by it's lack of credibility (as defined by the mainstream sciences).

 

[swatcher]

Wow, really? Based on what?

based on the gap its closed in the field of anatomy over the last 200 years.

our knowledge on any given subject can range from complete ignorance to complete understanding and everywhere in between.

if the underlying physics of the universe are a "fixed" reality then its simply a matter of working through the data and given time we will understand it all.

the human body is a "fixed" reality in anatomical terms when applied to the last 1000 years, yet our understanding of it has gone from blaming evil spirits for sickness, to modern drugs and surgery.

all that changed is our understanding of the topic and the jargon

It is a "fixed" reality, manifesting through infinite phenomena. Hence you would need an infinite amount of sensory organs to quantify "it".

 

[Rick Deckard]

Could you point me to a source on the web? I'm intrigued and would like to learn more..

Okay, well for a start:

• Lift (force) on Wikipedia - seems to focus on one explanation, but offers links to discussions about competing / conflicting theories
• NASA's Theory of Lift - they say "There are many explanations for the generation of lift found in encyclopedias, in basic physics textbooks, and on Web sites. Unfortunately, many of the explanations are misleading and incorrect." and then they go on to give their explanation and point to 3 other 'incorrect' theories

It's a complex topic and requires more time than I'm willing to give it to get to the bottom of it. My original point was that science offers a theory and as long as that theory appears to predict a repeatable 'effect', then it really doesn't matter what the reality is - planes will still get off the ground whether we know the actual mechanism or not.

Of course having a reliable theory (even if it's not the correct one) allows you to make predictions and therefore gives you the ability to create more efficient planes.

 

[mike]

Mr Vallee made a similar point during his interview, that being that the topic itself puts off serious researchers, for fear of ridicule.
that if the same "processing power" were applied to the UFO question as say to the anatomy question, then we would have a better understanding of the topic.

the UFO question should be no more of a dilema to us than the question of how and why the human body works, which was until only recently just as profound a mystery to man.

If the autopsy reports as published in Mr Streibers majestic are accurate then the data would indicate we are dealing with "fixed" realitys. albiet strange ones

 

[Rick Deckard]

Mr Vallee made a similar point during his interview, that being that the topic itself puts off serious researchers, for fear of ridicule.
that if the same "processing power" were applied to the UFO question as say to the anatomy question, then we would have a better understanding of the topic.

Would you not agree that potentially getting to the bottom of the 'UFO' question could lead to some HUGE scientific discoveries.

So, why isn't science looking at it?

 

[mike]

Science is looking at it, the question is one of magnitude.
there are even examples of scientists who started off skeptics..........
but found enough compelling evidence to become believers.

the process is sound, it worked/is working in the field of medical science, it will work on this topic too it just needs the time and resources.

the history of modern microbiology is a classic case

and as is often the case instruments like the microscope give us the technological augumentation to go from a state of ignorance to one of knowledge.

youd be amazed at how much practical knowledge weve gained just by sticking things under the microscope..........................

 

[Rick Deckard]

youd be amazed at how much practical knowledge weve gained just by sticking things under the microscope..........................

I used to own a microscope - lots of bugs in rain puddles...

Science is looking at it, the question is one of magnitude.
there are even examples of scientists who started off skeptics..........
but found enough compelling evidence to become believers.

Mainstream scientists are looking at the 'UFO' question? Where? Do you have an links to sites that show their findings? Seriously, I'm interested to know.

 

[swatcher]

Mr Vallee made a similar point during his interview, that being that the topic itself puts off serious researchers, for fear of ridicule.
that if the same "processing power" were applied to the UFO question as say to the anatomy question, then we would have a better understanding of the topic.

Would you not agree that potentially getting to the bottom of the 'UFO' question could lead to some HUGE scientific discoveries.

So, why isn't science looking at it?

The answer for mainstream science is very simple.

Scientist needs to eat --->Scientist needs funding ---> Scientist mentions "UFO" --> Scientist is declared crazy ---> Scientist is denied funding ---> Scientist is hungry ---> Repeat

Of course this doesn't apply to the MIC. Research goes "black" and we'll never see the results publicly. Rest assured HUGE, paradigm-shifting-advances have been made. It's only logical to conclude this from my previous post about the MIC. At least I think so

 

[Rick Deckard]

The answer for mainstream science is very simple.

Scientist needs to eat --->Scientist needs funding ---> Scientist mentions "UFO" --> Scientist is declared crazy ---> Scientist is denied funding ---> Scientist is hungry ---> Repeat

Absolutely - I'm in agreement there and have stated the same thing many times on these forums. But, I'm not sure Mike would agree with that.

Of course this doesn't apply to the MIC. Research goes "black" and we'll never see the results publicly. Rest assured HUGE, paradigm-shifting-advances have been made. It's only logical to conclude this from my previous post about the MIC. At least I think so

Well, that is one explanation - and I'm not disagreeing with you there.

I'm trying to get Mike to tell me why he is certain science will 'close the gap' on the 'UFO' question, when the 'official' stance appears to be that they're not interested.

 

[mike]

Mainstream scientists are looking at the 'UFO' question? Where? Do you have an links to sites that show their findings? Seriously, I'm interested to know.

i almost feel bad, like taking candy from a baby.......

Rick, try the paracasts front page

a lot of the names there are those of "scientists" including the most recent guest.

its this sort of work

http://ufodna.com/articles/articles/hill.htm

that will take us from a state of ignorance to one of knowledge.
its the process in the above that will give us a framework of reality that we can work with.

if you want to book an operating theatre for your next kidney transplant and staff it with shamans, witch doctors and faith healers thats your call.
me i'll trust science and its body of knowledge, i think its the wiser choice myself

im certain the process will close the gap, because its done so with other topics of no less mystery or complexity

 

[Rick Deckard]

if you want to book an operating theatre for your next kidney transplant and staff it with shamans, witch doctors and faith healers thats your call.
me i'll trust science and its body of knowledge, i think its the wiser choice myself

I think that sort of sentiment is unnecessary - we are talking about UFOs not medical science.