Understanding the dogmatic skeptic - a first hand account from a former skeptic

[Burnt State]

I think that somewhere in the posts I mentioned my estimate but the whole thing from first noticing her face watching the objects, watching one descend, hold, move along the line of houses, hold, join with the other, float to a new holding point a couple blocks away, hold there again and then fly upwards to the stars, finally dissolve into two pinpricks and then gone was about 3-5 minutes. In my memory each section was a stunning amount of time to watch these two craft do their thing.

To my recollection I never spoke with the babysitter's daughter about it, and my friend who went inside, saw from the window the one glowing object with lights near us and then the angle was lost on it. He never saw the second one. I never knew those adults that well that owned the house and can not recall speaking with them about it again.

As previously mentioned it stimulated a summer of UFO hunting.

In retrospect, since my more recent interest in the field, after a 20 year or so gap, I wish I had then time to document, investigate, interview, etc. - that's all lost now. Nothing but my memory and the place where the tree used to be.

 

[Randall]

Thank you for the link. I'll be reading it in a moment.

No problem. If you have any questions, feel free to ask.

I think we've been dancing around the semantics of "as a science unto itself," and as result not achieving clarity on the nature or definition of a scientific discipline. Perhaps you'd agree with the following.
How do we determine what is a discipline and what not? (I don't think there are any hard and fast rules here, although historians and philosophers of science might have some good guidelines to help make that judgment.) It seems to me there are 4 components that could help decide the question of "a science unto itself"--assuming you mean by this what we're referring to conventionally when we say 'discipline' in science: 1) subject matter, 2) methods used. 3) the generation of new methods, experiments, questions, hypotheses, models, theories, etc.--i.e. it's knowledge-generating capacity, 4) time (disciplines don't arise overnight).
So, with this framework, I think you're correct in saying the study of UFOs is not at the moment a discipline, a "science unto itself." However, it seems reasonable to me that were certain conditions met like those above, it certainly could be over time. Sound reasonable?

It's more a case of there will always be some areas where if there was sufficient evidence, valid science could conceivably be performed, and there will always be cultural activities, critical thinking, philosophy, and knowledge from firsthand experience that are outside the bounds of accepted science. The key is for ufologists to recognize the difference. IMO it will serve ufology much better to leave the science to the scientists, and to focus on creating a solid independent foundation for academic ( as opposed to scientific ) ufology.

This seems confused to me. Isn't it the case that we can only acquire "scientifically valid evidence" by using scientific methods?

Exactly, which is why I say we should leave the science to the scientists. Let's take a hypothetical example: A ufologist receives a report about a UFO and goes off to investigate. At this point it's not science that's being done, it's ufology. The ufologist arrives on the scene and much to his or her surprise finds a strange object on the ground that on first impression looks like an alien craft of some sort ( a downed UFO ). At this point, the primary role of the ufologist should be to do little more than secure the perimeter ( like the police do with warning tape ) and call in independent scientists ( like the police do with a forensic team ). This would minimize contamination of the scene and provide a valid chain of independent scientific evidence.

The next thing the ufologist should be prepared to do is document everything relevant that takes place, preferably by HD video in combination with investigative journalistic skill. This includes acquiring copies of the completed scientific studies and preparing a report. Provided that such a report wasn't presented as a scientific report, and no unfounded conclusions were drawn based on the valid science, then there would be no defensible reason to call such a report pseudoscientific. Nevertheless, it would still have scientific value, and it would no-doubt earn respect for ufology from the scientific community ( and the public at large ).

Your position, as written, is self-refuting. If one is investigating UFOs, but not claiming to do so with scientific methods (i.e., critical thinking, rationality, method, objectivity, etc.), then there's really nothing left that could establish any credibility as a way to do actually conduct research. In other words, if you eschew science either in practice and/or as a label, you're inviting the very label you hope to escape.

The scientific method may use the principles of critical thinking, but critical thinking may not always employ the scientific method. It's strength is that it can take over when there isn't sufficient evidence to apply the scientific method. The model I've chosen and supported by USI is one developed by the Foundation for Critical Thinking and outlined here: Learn the Elements and Standards

I'll also reiterate for clarity by quoting again from the USI article on ufology:

"The study of ufology is an independent field of inquiry that is multidisciplinary in its approach, utilizing elements of science, history, religion, mythology, philosophy and anything else that can advance an understanding of the phenomenon. Within this context, ufology studies are too wide to make use of the scientific method alone. Therefore use of critical thinking is of key importance to ensure that the varied elements that make up ufology as a whole are considered and presented within their proper context."​

Anyway, thanks for taking the time to flesh these issues out with me. I'm most appreciative.

And here I thought we were just getting started . I still think your idea to win over an ambassador is an excellent strategy, and to do so, it is exactly these types of ideas that need to be hashed out. That way, when the prospective candidate is approached, we can say we've resolved those issues. I think that with you on one side of the equation saying that from a skeptical point of view, you are satisfied that after our discussions, ufology has been misunderstood and misrepresented by skeptics, and that with me backing your position with the depth and type of reasoning found here, we might actually have a shot at it. But it won't be easy.

Perhaps your suggestion was more of an armchair response than something you actually wanted to actively pursue? If so that's still cool, but I would still like to win your respect and support for the position I've outlined .

 

[Constance]

Burnt State, following up on Eric's question and the information you posted at these two links . . .

It's a two-parter - quest away.

Two Metallic Craft Visit a Northern Ontario Ice Rink Pt. 1 | The Paracast Community Forums

Two Metallic Craft Visit a Northern Ontario Ice Rink Pt. 2 | The Paracast Community Forums

I've posted the following in the thread where your Pt.2 is posted and want to comment and ask you here the same question I posted there:


This was an outstanding sighting, Burnt State -- multiple witnesses from two different perspectives in a close encounter with two anomalous lighted discs (25 feet in diameter) that left very significant trace evidence. Quoting from your pt. 2:

As I looked out across the yard I saw that the top fifth of the tree, the half closest to the garage where the UFO had hovered above it, was completely singed and blackened. The entire top of the tree was also burnt. No leaves grew on that portion. . . . The roof of the garage was another story. In a radial arc about fifteen feet long at its deepest penetration of the roof. including the whole far right corner of the garage's roof, the one closest to us in the photo, all the shingles had been burned and upturned. It was plain to see, this entire patch of shingles that occupied almost a full third of that side of the roof's slope that had been damaged. In my mind i remember that absolute feeling of confirmation that set in as i saw the curved outline of the saucer burned into the roof. We had in fact seen something technological that night and it left a mark. It had left trace evidence here on the roof, and in the burned tree. That was quite a feeling, seeing that curved shape.

It also looks like the saucer you observed hovering over that tree and garage roof was hovering over a power line. Did that saucer move along over that power line before it took off with the other saucer and almost immediately blended in with the stars? Over the last six decades innumerable ufos have been sighted over power lines. And many have left ground traces (burnt circles of grass) and burned the tops and branches of trees. Paul Hill's important analysis of ufos, published after he had retired from NASA, attended at length to ufo lighting, the different colors exuded by ufos as whole bodies during various activities, and the increase in lighting when the ufos powered up and took off at astronomical speed toward the outer atmosphere. May I suggest that you send your two-part report to the MUFON chapter in Ontario and also to Peter Davenport's ufo-reporting database, NUFORC? It may be that one or more other reports were made of these two ufos in the area at the time of your sighting. Thanks for the detailed information.

Link to the Hill book:

 

[EricTheRed]

I think that somewhere in the posts I mentioned my estimate but the whole thing from first noticing her face watching the objects, watching one descend, hold, move along the line of houses, hold, join with the other, float to a new holding point a couple blocks away, hold there again and then fly upwards to the stars, finally dissolve into two pinpricks and then gone was about 3-5 minutes. In my memory each section was a stunning amount of time to watch these two craft do their thing.

To my recollection I never spoke with the babysitter's daughter about it, and my friend who went inside, saw from the window the one glowing object with lights near us and then the angle was lost on it. He never saw the second one. I never knew those adults that well that owned the house and can not recall speaking with them about it again.

As previously mentioned it stimulated a summer of UFO hunting.

In retrospect, since my more recent interest in the field, after a 20 year or so gap, I wish I had then time to document, investigate, interview, etc. - that's all lost now. Nothing but my memory and the place where the tree used to be.

Thanks for the reply.

Specifically I was wondering about the time of ascent. You wrote, "...zap upwards at incredible speeds..." What kind of time frame do you estimate? A minute? A few seconds?

Thanks again!

 

[EricTheRed]

Perhaps your suggestion was more of an armchair response than something you actually wanted to actively pursue? If so that's still cool, but I would still like to win your respect and support for the position I've outlined .

I think at some point I would like to pursue something--and I appreciate your offer and will seriously consider it--however I still need to do a ton of homework on this topic. I think I'm making some progress on the analytical structure of the disagreement between skeptics and others, but there are considerable gaps in my knowledge of the history of UFOs. I do remain open to your position, despite any appearance to the contrary.

 

[Randall]

I think at some point I would like to pursue something--and I appreciate your offer and will seriously consider it--however I still need to do a ton of homework on this topic. I think I'm making some progress on the analytical structure of the disagreement between skeptics and others, but there are considerable gaps in my knowledge of the history of UFOs. I do remain open to your position, despite any appearance to the contrary.

Fantastic discussion. I hope we can pick it up again some time down the road and that we can look forward to more of your posts in the future .

 

[Constance]

Ufology, I agree with Eric's point:

Your position, as written, is self-refuting. If one is investigating UFOs, but not claiming to do so with scientific methods (i.e., critical thinking, rationality, method, objectivity, etc.), then there's really nothing left that could establish any credibility as a way to do actually conduct research. In other words, if you eschew science either in practice and/or as a label, you're inviting the very label you hope to escape.

You counter with a statement from your website:

The study of ufology is an independent field of inquiry that is multidisciplinary in its approach, utilizing elements of science, history, religion, mythology, philosophy and anything else that can advance an understanding of the phenomenon. Within this context, ufology studies are too wide to make use of the scientific method alone. Therefore use of critical thinking is of key importance to ensure that the varied elements that make up ufology as a whole are considered and presented within their proper context.

Scientists involved in ufo research have themselves argued that "science is in default" concerning the ufo phenomenon (James McDonald in Congressional Hearings on ufos in 1968, and Bruce Maccabee in a paper entitled "Science Still in Default" within the last several years). The same point of view has been expressed by scientists who had been members of the Condon Committee, by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, by the panel of scientists assembled by Peter Sturrock to consider the question whether science should investigate ufos {Pocantico NY}*, by physicists such as Bernard Haisch, Edgar Mitchell, and others. That the ufo phenomenon has interested scholars from historical, cultural, paranormal, and other disciplines does not relieve science of its primary obligation to investigate the nature of the ufos to the best of its current ability based on the evidence assembled from radar evidence, multiple witness evidence including military witnesses and pilots, demonstrated disabling EM effects generated by ufos on aerial and ground vehicles, physical ground trace evidence, and historical documentation both official (when we can get it) and civilian. This powerful and intimidating country of ours (in the US) lags behind increasing numbers of countries in which ufo information is disclosed to the public. The preeminent example is the French COMETA Report, available online at the two links below. The French scientists and aeronautical experts who prepared that report, now about ten years ago, directly challenged the US to follow their example. It is we and our scientific institutions that remain in default.

COMETA

PART I COMETA report part1

PART 2 COMETA report part2

Ask yourself why the Cometa Report has been published in many countries and many languages, achieving a wide readership elsewhere, but has never been published in book form by a US publisher.

*LINKS concerning the Sturrock conference at Pocantico:

Sturrock Panel - UFO Evidence

 

[Randall]

Ufology, I agree with Eric's point:

Then you are agreeing with a point made on a faulty premise. You and Eric both appear to have missed the point that I never claimed, ( to paraphrase Eric's assertion ), that I endorse: "... not investigating UFOs with scientific methods (i.e., critical thinking, rationality, method, objectivity, etc.)." To substantiate that position I cited the article on ufology from my website, last updated back in January 2013. Once again, the point I'm making is that the field of ufology is too wide for the scientific method to be applied to all facets of it, including those facets that are critical to the identity of the field, particularly informal historical accounts and investigations. So when science cannot be applied, then history, journalism, critical thinking, philosophy, and anything else that can advance our understanding of the phenomenon can take over. There is no "self-refuting position" in this approach.

 

[Burnt State]

Thanks for the reply.

Specifically I was wondering about the time of ascent. You wrote, "...zap upwards at incredible speeds..." What kind of time frame do you estimate? A minute? A few seconds?

Thanks again!

From the time they were hovering over the highway intersection till they moved upwards to stars I can't see it taking more than seven-ten seconds as i remember we did stand there together for a while watching these two lights disappear. but i think saying 5 seconds could even be closer to an estimate. Compared to how long and slow, to the point of almost being laconic, their floating, seamless movements in the field were, to a slightly faster motion to get to the next pause point over the highway, this was a sudden rush of movement as if the "hyper drive" had been engaged, so to speak. if pressed for a range, i would say anywhere between 3-7 tops.

 

[Constance]

Fascinating about the Phoenix lights provoking you on a quest to understand more. I wonder how many other share your experience. Did you seem them yourself, or was it the case that that event was the trigger for your subsequent reading?

I was not in Phoenix (or in the other five Arizona cities in which ufos were observed that night) so did not witness any of the events. I read about the events when USA Today published a two-page spread about them four months later.

What among your readings would you say were the most influential for you or the most important for the curious member of the public? Most but not all of my reading about the subject has been online.

I've jotted down some sources I suggest for a basic grounding in the history of the modern ufo phenomenon in the US since the 1940s as well as some of the best book-length studies over the years and in recent years. I think it's important to read some of the early books and the databases maintained over the years for an understanding of the scope of the various waves of sightings, the chaos in the military and government in 1947, the 3,000+ pilot accounts over the years, the trace evidence accumulated, and the Blue Book unknowns now catalogued by Brad Sparks. The early accounts of the first wave in the 40s and the Air Force's confusion and varying responses at the time, by Major Donald Keyhoe and Captain Edward Ruppelt, are available online at the NICAP website along with Ted Bloecher's database of newspaper reports of ufos around the country in '47. NICAP has one of the best websites on the net concerning ufo history. Another very good website concerning ufo history and analysis is at the following links (going first to its page citing significant published sources of information and next to its introductory page.) This entire website is worth exploring:

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

Project 1947 and its website by the same name is an ongoing research inquiry into the 1947 and earlier 20th century sightings of anomalous aerial phenomena.
Welcome to PROJECT 1947
PROJECT 1947 - Articles

At the NICAP site, under 'online books', you will find early reporting from the insiders Keyhoe and Ruppelt and some other early researchers. I recommend these books linked at NICAP for starters:

Flying Saucers Are Real - TOC
rufo cover
Report on UFO Wave of 1947 Menu

Brad sparks, Catalog of 1,600 Project BLUE BOOK UFO Unknowns @ Center for UFO Studies

From booksellers:

Ann Druffel, Firestorm: Dr. James E. McDonald's Fight for UFO Science

Richard Hall, The UFO Evidence, vols 1 and 2

J. Alan Hynek et al, Night Siege: The Hudson Valley Sightings

Don Berliner, UFO Briefing Document: The Best Available Evidence {note: this is also available in a PDF downloadable from this page http://www.hyper.net/ufo/summary.html

Thomas Carey, Witness to Roswell: Unmasking the Government's Biggest Cover-up

Paul R. Hill, Unconventional Flying Objects: A Scientific Analysis Paperback

Richard Dolan’s trilogy:

vol 1, UFOs and the National Security State: Chronology of a Coverup, 1941-1973
vol 2, The Cover-Up Exposed, 1973-1991 (UFOs and the National Security State, vol 3, in progress

Grant Cameron, UFOs, Area 51, and Government Informants: A Report on Government Involvement in UFO Crash Retrievals

Leslie Keane, UFOs: Generals, Pilots, and Government Officials Go on the Record

Robert Hastings, UFOS and Nukes

Michael Swords et al, UFOs and GOVERNMENT: A HISTORICAL INQUIRY

Can be accessed online:

Richard Haines's and Dominique Weinstein’s catalogues of pilot sightings

Ted Phillips’s catalogue of trace evidence


No doubt other posters here have other suggestions for you as well.

 

[Constance]

Then you are agreeing with a point made on a faulty premise. You and Eric both appear to have missed the point that I never claimed, ( to paraphrase Eric's assertion ), that I endorse: "... not investigating UFOs with scientific methods (i.e., critical thinking, rationality, method, objectivity, etc.)." To substantiate that position I cited the article on ufology from my website, last updated back in January 2013. Once again, the point I'm making is that the field of ufology is too wide for the scientific method to be applied to all facets of it, including those facets that are critical to the identity of the field, particularly informal historical accounts and investigations. So when science cannot be applied, then history, journalism, critical thinking, philosophy, and anything else that can advance our understanding of the phenomenon can take over. There is no "self-refuting position" in this approach.

I see that point and gather that you mean that scientific investigation of ufo evidence and analyses (official and unofficial) cannot also subsume all of the historical and prehistorical, cultural and sociological, and theoretical and futurist thinking and writing about ufos. But only science can help to ascertain the physical reality of some of the well-investigated ufo cases, as you yourself have recognized, based on radar and EM data, trace evidence, and reports by expert and up-close witnesses. Why should science not have participated to the extent it could over these 65 years in guiding our thinking about the physical reality of some ufos? Had scientific institutions not been in default all these years concerning the ufo subject, we would not see the level of doubt of ufo reality we encounter today based in radical doubt of human perception itself, leading to quite wildly unsubstantiated speculations that we have no reliable contact with or insight into what is 'real', that our perceptions are and perhaps have long been 'played with' by some unidentified forces or entities for some inexplicable reason.

 

[Randall]

I see that point ...

OK. Glad we cleared that up.

Why should science not have participated to the extent it could over these 65 years in guiding our thinking about the physical reality of some ufos? Had scientific institutions not been in default all these years concerning the ufo subject, we would not see the level of doubt of ufo reality we encounter today based in radical doubt of human perception itself, leading to quite wildly unsubstantiated speculations that we have no reliable contact with or insight into what is 'real', that our perceptions are and perhaps have long been 'played with' by some unidentified forces or entities.

The truth is that science has played a part to some extent. However I also seem to sense ( and correct me if I'm wrong ), that you're asking the question somewhat rhetorically, and I agree fully with that sentiment. Why not indeed? It should be a given, but the actual reasons why are another matter. It involves a labyrinth of official secrecy that during the Modern Era ( in ufology ) dates back to the days of Project Sign and their initial Estimate of the Situation. The trail can then be followed to the Robertson Panel, and the Condon Committee. After what is sometimes called the "Great Divide" in ufology, mainstream science was essentially given the mandate by the PTB ( powers that be ) to downplay and dismiss the UFO phenomenon.

Meanwhile, I have little doubt that behind the façade of official denial, tabs are kept on UFOs and they are being studied scientifically to the extent that it is possible. To what extent that is, is a matter of speculation and theories ranging from detection and monitoring, to a secret war with aliens who have infiltrated the government for the purpose of ruling humanity. I don't personally subscribe to all these theories, but I do find it all very fascinating. It's also an undeniable part of what makes up ufology as a field of study, and in this context, also represents some of the facets of ufology that reside outside the boundaries of scientific study.

 

[EricTheRed]

I was not in Phoenix (or in the other five Arizona cities in which ufos were observed that night) so did not witness any of the events. I read about the events when USA Today published a two-page spread about them four months later.



I've jotted down some sources I suggest for a basic grounding in the history of the modern ufo phenomenon in the US since the 1940s as well as some of the best book-length studies over the years and in recent years. I think it's important to read some of the early books and the databases maintained over the years for an understanding of the scope of the various waves of sightings, the chaos in the military and government in 1947, the 3,000+ pilot accounts over the years, the trace evidence accumulated, and the Blue Book unknowns now catalogued by Brad Sparks. The early accounts of the first wave in the 40s and the Air Force's confusion and varying responses at the time, by Major Donald Keyhoe and Captain Edward Ruppelt, are available online at the NICAP website along with Ted Bloecher's database of newspaper reports of ufos around the country in '47. NICAP has one of the best websites on the net concerning ufo history. Another very good website concerning ufo history and analysis is at the following links (going first to its page citing significant published sources of information and next to its introductory page.) This entire website is worth exploring:

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

Project 1947 and its website by the same name is an ongoing research inquiry into the 1947 and earlier 20th century sightings of anomalous aerial phenomena.
Welcome to PROJECT 1947
PROJECT 1947 - Articles

At the NICAP site, under 'online books', you will find early reporting from the insiders Keyhoe and Ruppelt and some other early researchers. I recommend these books linked at NICAP for starters:

Flying Saucers Are Real - TOC
rufo cover
Report on UFO Wave of 1947 Menu

Brad sparks, Catalog of 1,600 Project BLUE BOOK UFO Unknowns @ Center for UFO Studies

From booksellers:

Ann Druffel, Firestorm: Dr. James E. McDonald's Fight for UFO Science

Richard Hall, The UFO Evidence, vols 1 and 2

J. Alan Hynek et al, Night Siege: The Hudson Valley Sightings

Don Berliner, UFO Briefing Document: The Best Available Evidence {note: this is also available in a PDF downloadable from this page http://www.hyper.net/ufo/summary.html

Thomas Carey, Witness to Roswell: Unmasking the Government's Biggest Cover-up

Paul R. Hill, Unconventional Flying Objects: A Scientific Analysis Paperback

Richard Dolan’s trilogy:

vol 1, UFOs and the National Security State: Chronology of a Coverup, 1941-1973
vol 2, The Cover-Up Exposed, 1973-1991 (UFOs and the National Security State, vol 3, in progress

Grant Cameron, UFOs, Area 51, and Government Informants: A Report on Government Involvement in UFO Crash Retrievals

Leslie Keane, UFOs: Generals, Pilots, and Government Officials Go on the Record

Robert Hastings, UFOS and Nukes

Michael Swords et al, UFOs and GOVERNMENT: A HISTORICAL INQUIRY

Can be accessed online:

Richard Haines's and Dominique Weinstein’s catalogues of pilot sightings

Ted Phillips’s catalogue of trace evidence


No doubt other posters here have other suggestions for you as well.

Great list. I'm familiar with Keane's book, but the rest have yet to be read, and will be. Much appreciation!

 

[Constance]

Great list. I'm familiar with Keane's book, but the rest have yet to be read, and will be. Much appreciation!

You're most welcome, Eric.

 

[Constance]

OK. Glad we cleared that up.

The truth is that science has played a part to some extent. However I also seem to sense ( and correct me if I'm wrong ), that you're asking the question somewhat rhetorically, and I agree fully with that sentiment.

For me it's beyond a rhetorical question because of the real societal consequences of scientific default in addressing it -- the consequences being serious and disabling for the general population, as I argued in my previous post:

Why should science not have participated to the extent it could over these 65 years in guiding our thinking about the physical reality of some ufos? Had scientific institutions not been in default all these years concerning the ufo subject, we would not see the level of doubt of ufo reality we see today, magnifying to a radical doubt of human perception itself. That doubt has lead to wildly unsubstantiated speculations that we have no reliable contact with or insight into what is 'real', that our species' perceptions are and perhaps have always been 'played with' by some unidentified forces or entities for some inexplicable reason.

You highlighted some of the devices (in terms of what you called "the labyrinth of secrecy") by which the US government, military, and security agencies manipulated the public's perceptions, kept them in ignorance, reduced the phenomenon to a joking matter, made people fearful of reporting or discussing what they'd seen, and produced the current counter-productive fantasies about the significance of ufos. A number of individual scientists have engaged the evidence for the physicality and advanced technology of 5-10 percent of ufos since the 40s and argued publicly for public institutional scientific investigation, but how many people are aware of their efforts and analyses? A very small percentage, and that is disabling for the general populace in terms of what they are capable of rationally thinking about the ufo phenomenon and in terms of their sense of self-efficacy in dealing with it. I do sympathize with the problem of the top Air Force and governmental personnel in deciding whether to share with the people what they knew beginning in the 40s; I know that many of those men agonized about how to present to the public the fact that many ufos were known to be real and advanced aerial craft produced by no known terrestrial nation and the fact that, were they hostile, we had no defenses against them. But many years have passed during which a number of insiders have sought means of disclosing this information and argued for disclosure with their colleagues, and failed to bring it about. In the meantime, the populace as a whole is left in ignorance of a global change in our reality, unable to comes to terms with it in rational ways, and totally unprepared for what to expect and how to react if this global change is suddenly made public one way or another. It's utterly irrational that an organized society in our time should be left in such abyssmal ignorance by its leadership and without an opportunity to adjust in a rational way to a potential world-changing event and its possible sequelae. You continued:

Why not indeed? It should be a given, but the actual reasons why are another matter. It involves a labyrinth of official secrecy that during the

Modern Era ( in ufology ) dates back to the days of Project Sign and their initial Estimate of the Situation. The trail can then be followed to the Robertson Panel, and the Condon Committee. After what is sometimes called the "Great Divide" in ufology, mainstream science was essentially given the mandate by the PTB ( powers that be ) to downplay and dismiss the UFO phenomenon.

We lived, until the mid-20th century, in what has been called 'an educated society', 'an open society', and a 'free and democratic society'. This has changed in the era of the national security state as accounted for in Dolan's major books. Half the PTB's fear of disclosure concerns their fear of the outrage the public will turn against them for keeping all this secret for 65 years (see Dolan, A.D.) The secrecy and distortions have been a) rationally unacceptable in principle and b) equally unacceptable in holding back what has long been needed -- an informed presentation of the facts and the possibilities vis a vis eventual contact with an ET intelligence that has long apparently been concerned with earth, esp. in terms of nuclear weapons and nuclear wastes and in terms of the general deterioration of the planet's ecology. By now the people of earth should have been provided with reassurance that world powers and the UN have a reasonable plan in place with which to meet such a species intelligently and peacefully if they decide to land and interact with us.

Meanwhile, I have little doubt that behind the façade of official denial, tabs are kept on UFOs and they are being studied scientifically to the extent that it is possible. To what extent that is, is a matter of speculation and theories ranging from detection and monitoring, to a secret war with aliens who have infiltrated the government for the purpose of ruling humanity. I don't personally subscribe to all these theories, but I do find it all very fascinating. It's also an undeniable part of what makes up ufology as a field of study, and in this context, also represents some of the facets of ufology that reside outside the boundaries of scientific study.

I have no doubt at all that ufos continue to be pursued and studied by the PTB, including attempted back-engineering of recovered crashed craft (about which Edgar Mitchell and Bernard Haisch have no doubt, given their insider informants). In the vacuum of reliable information that exists for most people on the planet -- a vacuum feeding a tangle of disinformation -- it's no surprise that many people entertain fantastical notions such as "a secret war with aliens who have infiltrated the government for the purpose of ruling humanity." Why do more of them not pursue actual research accumulated over 65 years? Most people don't pursue research that takes years, on any subject. And besides, they've been reassured by the organized skeptics (who always appear alongside actual ufo researchers on television interviews) that ufo researchers are crack-pots.

 

[ChairGraveyard]

I think the push towards trying to get acceptance by the scientific community and people at large is noble but misguided.

Science these days is extremely dogmatic, at least as much so as the self-identified skeptic community, where funding is directed to those projects that incrementally build on top of established ideas and importantly, do not terribly rock the boat.

Also notably, the history of the scientific community's ties to intelligence agencies is well known and established, and this further denies any possibility of pursuit of actual scientific community acceptance.

There is a way to get around these problems and to instantly gain the attention of not only scientists but people at large, and that is to simply perform an end run. If we agree that some sort of craft exist that do not use propellers, jets etc. for propulsion, we must then conclude that there exists a method of achieving such propulsion, and that it is within the possibility of technology and physics.

The question becomes what to investigate, how to develop the technology and build it to a working, pilotable state.

The reason I say this is partially due to my own research into black projects and funding, the UFO phenomena etc., but also because of a demonstration I witnessed in 2005 in Mexico City of an anomalous power device (i.e., not explainable in current physics). The demonstration was hours long and extremely thorough, and convinced me that, if nothing else, such technology exists and is possible, even if the established scientific model does not explain it.

In my opinion, the most direct approach to getting mainstream acknowledgement and even possibly some real answers is to simply (well, not so simply) develop out technologies that people can see and touch and make the connection with the UFO phenomena (i.e., field effect propulsion). I am tentatively beginning work on such a project, at least for a small toy-sized prototype version, but can't reveal any more details than that. Well, except that it's not a new idea, I guess, just used in a new way

On a different note, some exciting research is being done by Dr. Harold "Sonny" White in improving the warp field theory of Miguel Alcubierre. Notably, power requirements were reduced many orders of magnitude, from the realm of crazy impossible science fiction to doable but outside our current technology. NASA has a project headed by Dr. White to test for the signature of the effect on the small scale.

If Dr. White can demonstrate the effect, I personally feel we can throw out the "they can't get here" meme once and for all. In part this is because the hypothetical Alcubierre warp drive is basically the holy grail of warp drives, allowing pilots to experience no superluminal G-forces or time dilation. If such a thing is possible, it's almost certainly the means of interstellar travel for intelligent life throughout the universe.

 

[Jeff Davis]

The reason I say this is partially due to my own research into black projects and funding, the UFO phenomena etc., but also because of a demonstration I witnessed in 2005 in Mexico City of an anomalous power device (i.e., not explainable in current physics). The demonstration was hours long and extremely thorough, and convinced me that, if nothing else, such technology exists and is possible, even if the established scientific model does not explain it.

I for one would like to know what you are referring to above. A little too surface level fascinating with no substantial details. What did your research into the black projects and funding, as well as what was the specific device you witnessed in Mexico City, contain? Very interesting.

 

[ChairGraveyard]

I got involved in the mailing list for a physicist working on an alternate unified field theory, who knew a company in Mexico which had been working on devices that he thought could be explained by his theory (since they can't by the current model).

In any case, a trip was planned eventually for some people on the mailing list to go and meet a couple of the key members of the company in Mexico for a demonstration of one of their devices. It was the main business guy and the physicist who had discovered the effect in a nanowatt device in 1975.

The device apparently allows some type of 'amplification' of power. They demonstrated it with a car battery with and without their device (a ~1in square chip) hooked up to various things (i.e., battery -> breadboard w/ chip -> motor/lights etc.). They also hooked up multimeters before and after the chip, and let us take pictures (which I sadly lost years ago - though I had promised not to distribute them anyway). The effect was a 10x increase.

I and the 5 other people that were not affiliated with the company at all were all allowed to verify that no trickery or junk was going on (i.e., they didn't just have the mains running through the car battery or any nonsense like that - it was all above board).

Now - I don't purport to know how or why their device worked, how they built it or any other thing like that. All I know is that I saw an anomalous result, and the others in the group confirmed what I saw.

Taken on its own, it's whatever. I honestly just let it go for years. And I'm not saying it's alien technology or anything like that - just that its evidence that I personally have seen with my own eyes for several hours that can't be explained by current physics, and has potential applications in field effect propulsion and mass energy devices (they mentioned they had a 100,000x version and blew out their town's grid with it once).

Oh right, I forgot to mention. The group in Mexico apparently had some reason to believe the same technology could be used for field effect propulsion, but they were "warned off" by the Navy (who apparently came and reviewed these devices at some point, according to one of the guys at the demonstration).

Now I should point out that the company guys that did the demonstration fully admitted they did not know how to explain the effect, but simply engineered up larger/better versions of the original nanowatt device from 1975.

After the Naval review they were "advised" to release it slowly over time as "battery improvement" technology or "energy efficient motors" and such.

Only recently (past year) have I been looking into certain suppressed technology etc. because of my experience.

I've found something that I believe has potential, as certain inorganic materials didn't exist back when the ideas were put forth (this is related to field effect propulsion, not the energy device I saw). I'm reluctant to expand on that stuff for obvious reasons - but it shouldn't take too terribly long to build it out, so I hope to come back and show off something neat if the idea works.

As a side note, I have had a UFO sighting as well. Clear daylight sighting, no clouds. I and two others saw it and observed it for about 30 minutes (we were driving on the freeway). It was a metallic cigar shaped craft and seemed fairly large, and to be moving relatively fast. There were no windows, markings, or basket on the bottom (like on blimps)etc. This was in the Dallas area in 2008.

 

[Constance]

I got involved in the mailing list for a physicist working on an alternate unified field theory, who knew a company in Mexico which had been working on devices that he thought could be explained by his theory (since they can't by the current model).

In any case, a trip was planned eventually for some people on the mailing list to go and meet a couple of the key members of the company in Mexico for a demonstration of one of their devices. It was the main business guy and the physicist who had discovered the effect in a nanowatt device in 1975.

The device apparently allows some type of 'amplification' of power. They demonstrated it with a car battery with and without their device (a ~1in square chip) hooked up to various things (i.e., battery -> breadboard w/ chip -> motor/lights etc.). They also hooked up multimeters before and after the chip, and let us take pictures (which I sadly lost years ago - though I had promised not to distribute them anyway). The effect was a 10x increase.

I and the 5 other people that were not affiliated with the company at all were all allowed to verify that no trickery or junk was going on (i.e., they didn't just have the mains running through the car battery or any nonsense like that - it was all above board).

Now - I don't purport to know how or why their device worked, how they built it or any other thing like that. All I know is that I saw an anomalous result, and the others in the group confirmed what I saw.

Taken on its own, it's whatever. I honestly just let it go for years. And I'm not saying it's alien technology or anything like that - just that its evidence that I personally have seen with my own eyes for several hours that can't be explained by current physics, and has potential applications in field effect propulsion and mass energy devices (they mentioned they had a 100,000x version and blew out their town's grid with it once).

Oh right, I forgot to mention. The group in Mexico apparently had some reason to believe the same technology could be used for field effect propulsion, but they were "warned off" by the Navy (who apparently came and reviewed these devices at some point, according to one of the guys at the demonstration).

Now I should point out that the company guys that did the demonstration fully admitted they did not know how to explain the effect, but simply engineered up larger/better versions of the original nanowatt device from 1975.

After the Naval review they were "advised" to release it slowly over time as "battery improvement" technology or "energy efficient motors" and such.

Only recently (past year) have I been looking into certain suppressed technology etc. because of my experience.

I've found something that I believe has potential, as certain inorganic materials didn't exist back when the ideas were put forth (this is related to field effect propulsion, not the energy device I saw). I'm reluctant to expand on that stuff for obvious reasons - but it shouldn't take too terribly long to build it out, so I hope to come back and show off something neat if the idea works.

As a side note, I have had a UFO sighting as well. Clear daylight sighting, no clouds. I and two others saw it and observed it for about 30 minutes (we were driving on the freeway). It was a metallic cigar shaped craft and seemed fairly large, and to be moving relatively fast. There were no windows, markings, or basket on the bottom (like on blimps)etc. This was in the Dallas area in 2008.

 

[Constance]

Thank you for sharing this information here, ChairGraveyard.