Scientist Explains Why UFO's Are Not Investigated

[Steve Zalewski]

To Lance,

First of all you made an error, I recommended two books. The first book that I recommended was The UFO Experience A SCIENTIFIC Inquiry, by Dr. J. Allen Hynek. Hynek was the Air Force's Astronomy consultant, and he was an astronomer at Northwestern University, and his book is still one of the best books, that describes UFO characterists based on observations, and the types of UFO reports that are made. When Hynek was alive, he was an world renowned authority on the UFO phenomenon.
2. The second book that I recommended was The UFO Controversy In America, by Dr. David M. Jacobs. This book is a doctorate thesis in UFO history, published by Indiana University Press.
Now for three references from peer reviewed journals:
A .) J.A. Hynek, "The Condon Report and UFOs" Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 25 (1969): 40 Referenced in UFOs A Scientific Debate, page 231 Softcover edition, Norton Press. ISBN 0-393-00739-1
B.) Baker. "Observational Evidence of Anomalist Phenomenon." Journal of the Astronautical Sciences, 15, 31 (1968). Referenced in The UFO Experience A Scientific Inquiry, by J. Allen Hynek, page 78, paperback edition.
ISBN 0-345-27361-3
C.) "Unusual Aerial Phenomenon" Journal of the Optical Society of America, April 1953. Referenced in Hynek's book page 241, same ISBN number listed above.
Steve Zalewski
Syracuse, NY

 

[Steve Zalewski]

September 2, 2013

Here's another peer reviewed UFO listing.

William Markowitz, The Physics and Metaphysics of UFOs Science 157 (1967): 1274.
Referenced in UFOs A Scientific Debate, page 33, same ISBN number as earlier posted.

Steve Zalewski
Syracuse, NY

 

[Steve Zalewski]

September 2, 2013

Yes, I have read them when I was assembling the database. W. Reid Thompson examined ALL of the material that I showed him in Syracuse, and before he left I gave him a file folder that was about 5" thick filled with scholarly UFO data. It took 5 hours to complete the process. Based on the fact that Thompson was Sagan's assistant, and Thompson was impressed with my data gathering, he asked me to speak to Cornell's UFO Group. Thompson was the faculty advisor, he also wrote two letters on Cornell letterhead to Onondaga Community College's Library praising that the collection was critically assembled. Based on who Thompson was, and his scientific prestige made the collection I assembled so extremely, extremely, extremely, difficult for anyone to refute. Thompson's letters still impress people nearly 17 years after his death when they read them. I also have copies of the envelopes that he mailed them in, with the postmarks on them, so no one can accuse me of fabrication.

By the way, Thompson was also an astronomer at Cornell, Thompson also did research on the chemical composition of Titan, (a satellite of Saturn) plus Thompson worked on the Galileo and Voyager 2 spacecraft imaging team. Thompson was involved with the American Astronomical Society, The American Geophysical Union, The Division for Planetary Sciences, and Sigma Xi. (Reference source on Thompson's professional research work was his obituary notice published in the Ithaca Journal, April 24, 1996 page 4A.)

Steve Zalewski
Syracuse, NY

 

[Steve Zalewski]

While, Sagan dismissed UFOs in public, Reid Thompson admitted to me at Cornell that Sagan had not done case investigations. However, Sagan WAS involved in creating the 1969 American Association For The Advancement of Science UFO symposium in Boston. That symposium was one of the factors that led to the publication of UFOs A Scientific Debate. I will be the first to admit that Ted Philips, and other researchers of credibility do good work, but the only point that I was attempting to prove is that SCIENTIFIC UFO literature exists, but it needs more exposure. By the way, I don't think Cornell would have bothered to look into the UFO phenomenon if it was ALL nonsense.

Steve Zalewski,
Syracuse, NY

 

[Randall]

While, Sagan dismissed UFOs in public, Reid Thompson admitted to me at Cornell that Sagan had not done case investigations. However, Sagan WAS involved in creating the 1969 American Association For The Advancement of Science UFO symposium in Boston. That symposium was one of the factors that led to the publication of UFOs A Scientific Debate. I will be the first to admit that Ted Philips, and other researchers of credibility do good work, but the only point that I was attempting to prove is that SCIENTIFIC UFO literature exists, but it needs more exposure. By the way, I don't think Cornell would have bothered to look into the UFO phenomenon if it was ALL nonsense.

Steve Zalewski,
Syracuse, NY

Hey Steve, you migt be interested in this brief article: http://www.ufopages.com/Content/Reference/Sagan-01a.htm

 

[Steve Zalewski]

Thank you for the posting about Sagan, I met him in 1984, when he spoke in Denver, about nuclear winter.

According to one of Hynek's associates Sagan told Hynek that he knew that UFOs existed, but Sagan would not talk about them for fear of losing funding. Allegedly, Sagan met with Hynek back stage on the Tonight Show when Hynek was alive, so this happened prior to Hynek's illness.

Steve Zalewski
Syracuse, NY

 

[Randall]

I was hoping you might point out the kind of papers that "shut up" the skeptics ...

Lance, you know as well as I do that no paper is going to shut up the skeptics. Documents may be interesting, but ultimately they're not substantial enough to demonstrate the material existence of UFOs ( alien craft ). Is there anything short of a mother ship cruise that would be sufficient? Even then I wouldn't be surprised to see some skeptics refusing to admit the reality of their own experience, claiming that they were the victim of rye mold hallucinations or temporary insanity.

 

[Steve Zalewski]

September 3, 2013

In regards to my comments about shutting up UFO debunkers, some skeptics complained to me in Syracuse that they could not refute my research because I made it so difficult. I received a series of harrassing angry letters from a local CSI member, who ranted about drug smugglers, bird droppings, and other nonsense, after he found out that Thompson praised the quality of my research. He could NOT refute what Thompson stated and DID shutup, and did not respond after I criticized the CSI member for sending me such emotional, foolish, illogical, and idiotic letters. I also filed a complaint against the CSI member with CSI in Buffalo, NY, but the debunker did not believe me.

Steve Zalewski,
Syracuse, NY

 

[Steve Zalewski]

September 3, 2013

To Lance,

I came across another reference from Sagan's and Page's UFOs A Scientific Debate.

Thornton Page, "Photographic Sky Coverage for the Detection of UFOs," Science 160 (1968): 1258.
Referenced in UFOs A Scientific Debate, page 10. Same ISBN # as referenced earlier.

 

[Steve Zalewski]

September 3, 2013
To Lance,
Here is one more scholarly UFO reference. The paper is 4 pages long and it is on line.

Quo Vadis?
Science and the UFO Problem
Joachim P. Kuettner
World Meterological Organization
Paper presented at the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
(AIAA) Meeting
Pasadena, CA January 20, 1975.

 

[Michael Allen]

In Steve's mentioned posting, he takes the position that the best way to shut up skeptics (apparently something very important to him) is :

I agree (but one more "extremely" would have shown me that you were really serious!).

Steve makes the the claim that:


Really?

Can you cite UFO articles of any value from peer-reviewed scholarly journals in three of the above fields (picking folklore, psychology, or psychiatry might not support your basic point, however!). Please don't cite crackpot paranormal journals that are of disputed scientific value like The Journal of Cosmology or the Journal of Scientific Exploration since that definitely runs counter to your proposal.

I should note that Steve's posting goes on and on about how much great data exists (it also goes on and on about Steve Zalewski) but never cites even one bit of it, instead referring readers to several general interest UFO books.

Thanks,

Lance

I am sure your reaction to this link will be instructive to the rest of us

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

 

[Michael Allen]

Lance,

Are you done wasting your time arguing against UFOs and other paranormal phenomenon? Does it not bother you that you've spent so much time on something that could be intentionally released to occupy brilliant minds as yourself?

This is a question I once asked myself--quite frankly if I wasn't so darned entertained by all of this, I wouldn't give it any effort at all one way or another (or perhaps it doesn't matter that I am entertained...the result is the same)

This of course coming from an individual who thinks that ETH is more probable than not.

 

[Steve Zalewski]

September 3, 2013
To Michael Allen,

Thank you for the recent link. I will look at it.

To Lance,

I think I gave you enough data references to establish that scientific UFO data exists. Some skeptics flat out refuse to look at it, because it shakes up their paradigms and in addition, many scientific concepts were ridiculed by scientists, rocks that fell from the sky were ridiculed, The Astronomer Royal once said that space travel was "utter bilge", but later these ideas were proven to be correct.
Steve Zalewski,
Syracuse, NY

 

[Randall]

Steve then trots out some hearsay bullshit about Sagan believing in UFO's.

Lance, your point on the scientific validity of most UFO documentation is well taken, however according to the Biography of Carl Sagan by Ray Spangenburg & Diane Moser, ( page 25-26 ), Sagan once openly defended the idea that UFOs represent alien craft of some kind. It's also well documented that Sagan supported the scientific study of UFOs. It's also clear from a more detailed look at Sagan's life, that his reserved stance on UFOs was due in no small part to the politics in the scientific community. To write this information off as mere BS and hearsay is not responsible skepticism. If you think it isn't true, you need to find some valid counterpoint. For example, show us something to disprove Spangenburg & Moser's research.

 

[Steve Zalewski]

September 3, 2013

To Ufology,

Thank you for your comments. Another example of Sagan's UFO comments was his claim that there are no cases that are reliable and interesting, and no cases that are interesting and reliable. Hynek showed some cases that are reliable and interesting, and interesting and reliable in his book The Hynek UFO Report.
So much for Sagan's poor quality UFO comment above which Hynek established was not accurate.
Now comments to Lance,

I made reference to data footnoted in Science, the AIAA, The Journal of the American Optical Society, and to Sagan's and Hynek's books and Jacobs thesis. I can post more peer reviewed paper references, but as usual UFO debunkers will just scoff at them, but probably not read them. I guess that some UFO debunkers are afraid of actually learning something by reading them.

I tell you what, send me your address and I will send you copies of Thompson's letters, photocopies of the envelopes, and the documentation that Thompson was Sagan's assistant, AND also an astronomer at Cornell. Thompson also did research into the chemistry of Titan (a satellite of Saturn), plus he was a member of the Galileo and Voyager 2 imaging teams.

While I know that you consider, The Journal of Scientific Exploration to be worthless, and that The Journal of Cosmology is worthless, I assume that you feel the same way about the Journal of UFO Studies. However, these journals are still much higher in quality then the cultist UFO junk on the internet and some of the other UFO postings on this website.

Steve Zalewski
Syracuse, NY

 

[Steve Zalewski]

To Ufology,

I forgot to mention that debunkers, skeptics, and pseudoskeptics attack the people when they can't refute the data. It has been an hour or more and now Lance has not responded. It is also interesting, how debunkers, pseudoskeptics and skeptics view science as a type of religion. Some people who are skeptics have also developed a "scientific thought police" mentality and that they act like they know what is best for everyone else. Thank you again, for your great rebuttal about Sagan in that biography. Maybe your comments shook Lance up.
Steve Zalewski, Syracuse, NY

 

[Michael Allen]

Hi Michael,

I, too am sometimes entertained by the proceedings and it is my time thus probably up to me what I do with it, yeah? I notice that your link contains tons of articles from the very journals that I specifically called out as dubious (created by paranormal believers FOR paranormal believers with no real scientific standing) as well as stuff from NARCAP. NARCAP is the epitome of the kind of pretend science that apparently comforts believers. Recently NARCAP supported the silly UFO videos from South America that almost everyone non-insane agrees are insects. I have elsewhere critiqued a paper or two by NARCAP UFO zealot, Richard Haines--you should be able to find those here in these forums.

You apparently miss the point. Steve Z claimed that he has research that would shut up the skeptics. He instead delivers lackluster papers that do nothing of the kind...including at least one paper that was actually anti-UFO. Steve then trots out some hearsay bullshit about Sagan believing in UFO's. Hearsay is the kind of evidence that UFO believers love. Next he'll say that Darwin recanted evolution on his deathbed! That's the kind of science we are dealing with here.

Steve, I know that there are papers that have been published with the word, UFO, in their title. That was never in question. There are surveys of UFO reports, etc. that don't further the case for UFO's but are neutral, for instance. You claimed that you had forgotten/unknown papers that would shut up the skeptics. But your links are run-of-the-mill milquetoast efforts that have led to exactly nothing scientifically in making the case for UFO's.

Do you really think that the paper from Science, which is anti-UFO, somehow furthers the case for UFOS?

Lance

Well I knew you would call in a marker on your self-inseminated inoculations...

I doubt seriously you are prepared to list the ones that lay outside the boundary of your vaccine (challenge...that's um...a challenge, right?).

And yet still you labor under the pretense that there's something worth debating here--basically waiting to bushwhack someone when they point out something tangible that is not on your list. Either we are the virus mutating and you're the antigen or the other way around--there's a game afoot.

You apparently miss the point. Steve Z claimed that he has research that would shut up the skeptics. He instead delivers lackluster papers that do nothing of the kind...including at least one paper that was actually anti-UFO. Steve then trots out some hearsay bullshit about Sagan believing in UFO's. Hearsay is the kind of evidence that UFO believers love. Next he'll say that Darwin recanted evolution on his deathbed! That's the kind of science we are dealing with here.

Not really, but I am going to pretend that I did anyways ... But before I move on, I must say that even I wouldn't be stupid* enough to call to attention the very criterion for your victory--i.e. saying things like "this will shut you up..." etc. That's just giving away the game. Or is it? Perhaps its part of the engineering of the UFO/paranormal MEMEPLEX....it will infect and keep you busy and there is no escape. Now there's a thought (a meta-thought actually, because its a thought about the effects of other thoughts ... I think....)

[this is where a fool says I have changed the subject, when I am drawing parallels...another foolishness will be to poke holes in the parallels as if the entire scope of the comparison applied ... see I can inject antigens too you know]

Let's get down to brass tacks...would you claim that the IPCC was enough to shut up the skeptics on AGW? What if Steve** is on a fools errand? Are you going to admit he's on a fool's errand?

No? Well, does it matter? Apparently not (regardless of your position on AGW), since we have plenty of people calling into question the research, the equipment, the methods, the people behind the research, the people behind the equipment, the people behind the methods, the politics of the people behind the equipment, the politics of the people behind the people (administrators), the politics....the tax returns of the people behind the people behind the methods and the equipment and the ... (infinite amount of noise here) ... the dog owned by a person behind the people behind the methods behind the....ad nauseam.

In short, we have thousands of people who have no idea what AGW is aside from what they've taken as hearsay from others...they have no idea on the intricacies of science and the rigor needed in the search for truth. But they all have opinions on what is right and wrong and not a goddamned on of them gives a **** about peer reviewed papers and periodicals that disagree with them (or more likely they don't understand...and never will understand)

So no...I (know I wasn't really asked...but anyways) won't make any claim about papers or other materials helping skeptics along--they've already made up their minds, we'd do best to just play around and milk them for all the entertainment they are worth and move on to the next task of importance which of course is continuing the labor of defeating the skeptics of course is getting back to reading and analyzing the materials under scope and working out the possibilities.


One Two solitary footnote(s):
*Sorry Steve, no offense intended here
**Again...Steve, purely hypothetical here...

 

[Michael Allen]

To Ufology,

I forgot to mention that debunkers, skeptics, and pseudoskeptics attack the people when they can't refute the data. It has been an hour or more and now Lance has not responded. Thank you again. Maybe your comments shook him up.
Steve Zalewski, Syracuse, NY

Steve, just so you know who you are dealing with...Lance is quite tenacious

 

[Steve Zalewski]

September 3, 2013

I noticed how Lance did not adequately respond to the comments, about Sagan's UFO remarks that were published on pages 25 and 26 of the biography mentioned earlier. Lance did not respond to my comments about sending him copies of Thompson's letters, which if he read them would have really shook him up. Plus he did not respond to my comments about debunkers, skeptics, and pseudoskeptics, attacking the people who do the research when they can't refute the data.

Steve Zalewski,
Syracuse, NY

 

[Randall]

Steve, just so you know who you are dealing with...Lance is quite tenacious

That must be why he is "out of this thread". Lance and I have had more than one exchange in the past and his tactic when faced with solid information that contradicts his position has been to withdraw, usually after making some flippant comment. His response to my comment on Sagan is yet another example. Sagan was an adult in College at the time he expressed his pro UFO views, not child who naively believed in Santa Claus.