What if there are NO anomalous Ufos?

[Angel of Ioren]

I feel like we're in a circular argument here. Read the book - it's interesting.

 

[tyder001]

8)I'm gonna step in just a minute here. Why do the believers and the so called skeptics (I'm a skeptic) but I'm talking about the atheist that call themselves skeptics. Anyway, why do the believers and the "skeptics" argue and try to beat each other over the head? I have Never, ever heard an agument or seen a graph or listened to a rant that turned me into an atheist. I have never, ever made an argument or started a rant that has turned an athiest into a believer. I enjoy discussing the paranormal. Yes, I beleive there are legitimate proofs (Russel Targ, Charles Tart, Rupert Sheldrake,Ian Stevenson and on and on) that "something" more than reductionism is going on. But, no I don't have "proof" and don't care what someone else beleives. I don't like (and I'm sure nobody else does either) to be called an idiot just because I do or do not look at the world a certain way. We all wake up in our own skin. So, I will continue to "search" and to wonder with a "nod" to science and a "nod" to faith and the realisation that we are infants in this vast universe and this vast journey of conscieness (I spell like a third grader) But, ya won't convince me I'm an idiot just because you make a couple of referrences and invoke the name of science. I like science. It helps me to see and I love my Ipod. But, I have my own mind and my own experience with the Devine/Universe/God/Ground of Being or even evoluionary journey. Don't care what you call it. I just hate to see the "need" some folks have to beat other folks over the head. Or the need some folks have to be legitmised by those who disagree with them. Peace!

 

[AdamI]

It means that before we change our entire worldview and every belief about science, it might be a damn good idea to be sure that we are right. Of course Barney Fife never understood that concept. And I've seen several folks on these boards who have the same method of operation.

Lance

I'm not sure that UFOs being alien spacecraft (the most popular hypothesis) requires any changes of that magnitude. It is possible to travel between stars using known physics (look up nuclear pulse drive, Project Orion, etc.), and we know for a fact that our stellar neighborhood contains many sun-like main sequence stars.

If it were disclosed tomorrow that we're being visited by ETs in spacecraft, my fundamental worldview wouldn't change much at all. I'd probably feel about the same the next morning, and wouldn't radically alter my life in any way. It would be fascinating, but not world-shattering. I imagine most scientists would react similarly.

To me it would fit right in with "the pattern." By that, I mean the pattern of discovering that the Earth is not, in fact, the center of the universe. It would be just another dead geocentrism.

The only folks with egg on their faces in the scientific world would be the SETI crowd for arguing that interstellar travel is effectively impossible (it isn't), and the ultra-dogmatic "orthodox skeptics." Most other scientists wouldn't be too fazed.

Interdimensional aliens would be a bit more challenging, but it would still fit within my worldview. It would just mean that the universe is a lot bigger than we thought it was. Same thing happened when we started to get big telescopes. "Wow! There are thousands... no millions... no BILLIONS of galaxies?!?!?" Now it would be "and there are other DIMENSIONS too! Whoaaaaa!!!! This place is HUGE!"

Now for religion it would be a different story. You'd probably have all kinds of fundamentalists going completely apeshit.

 

[Sean Elifritz]

I was about to make a thread similar to this. Lately I've been wondering if I haven't been completely wrong for the past 15-20 years. Maybe there are no anomalous UFOs, no aliens, no multidimensional whatevers, or tricksters, or whatnot. Maybe it's all what the scoffers have been telling me for years, just mistakes, coincidences, hoaxes, delusions, wishful thinking, etc. The David Jacobs fiasco has really jammed home the idea that I can't believe a word ufologists tell me, not even the supposedly prominent ones. And I don't have the money to run around the country investigating these matters myself. So what am I left with?

I guess it's quite a bit more simple for someone who has had a sighting or "experience." I've had neither. Hell, I can't even think of anyone I personally know who claims to have seen something. I've been living in this part of Ohio for 25 years or so and can't recall hearing anything about something anomalous happening to anyone. So my interest in this subject has always been based on books and articles I've read. For example, I find the Kelly Cahill abduction account to be compelling because of reading Hair of the Alien and some MUFON journal articles about it. But how do I really know that the information is accurate and was gathered in a professional way? I don't, just like I didn't know that David Jacobs conducts hypnosis sessions over the telephone because he failed to mention that in any of his books or articles.

It's one thing to be wrong about a point or one particular aspect of a greater whole. For example, I feel confident that Stanton Friedman is dead wrong about MJ-12 but he could be correct when he says that Earth has been visited by extraterrestrials. But what if even his latter contention is wrong? And by that I mean hopelessly wrong in the sense that it isn't aliens from space, or ghosts, or ultraterrestrials, or ANYTHING. What if it's 100% nonsense no matter how you try to spin it? Being wrong about a particular case or theory is one thing, it stings but my ego can take it. But possibly being wrong that the subject has any basis in reality whatsoever is another matter. I've been in that mode of thinking lately and I gotta' say that seriously entertaining the notion that you may have been utterly full of shit about something so big for nearly two decades is a sickening feeling.

 

[Ron Collins]

But possibly being wrong that the subject has any basis in reality whatsoever is another matter. I've been in that mode of thinking lately and I gotta' say that seriously entertaining the notion that you may have been utterly full of shit about something so big for nearly two decades is a sickening feeling.

I don't think so. it's not really about the ego stuff. Its about being able to accept the body of evidence. I think that can be summed up like this.

1 - Radar tracks of non-transponder squawking aircraft with simultaneous and independent aerial and/or ground observation have happened. in many of these cases the flight characteristics have far exceeded the verifiable peak of known human technology. These cases can not be explained away as misidentifications or hallucinations.

2 - Simultaneous mass sightings have occurred.

3 - Secret military program hypothesis is starting stink. To me, saying that something is a a secret military technology carries no more weight than the ETH, IDH, TTH, CTH, or anything else. It is still undocumented, unverifiable, and equally as prone to over-exaggeration of capabilities and over-simplification of complex concepts used to describe it. How can such a complicated R&D process could go unnoticed? We hear no more reports of UFO's in war ravaged regions than we did before they were war ravaged. No correlation can be drawn to show a military explanation other than a ridiculous defense budget with a history of poor accountability. I think it far more likely to find crooks and embezzlers there than massive 50+ year R&D with little if any market advances. Also, with no real development milestones introduced into the civilian market in 50 years what is the incentive to keep what would undoubtedly be a huge resource siphon and money pit. You simply can not point to a single technology aerospace related and show me reasonably how it could have been derived from such a Deep Black program.

4 - Good physical trace evidence has been found and documented. Some truly anomalous stuff with only two explanations possible, Hoax or an honest encounter with something very anomalous.

5 - Public intuition. I know, this is a flimsy one. BUT.... many polls have confirmed that the majority of people willing to take polls believe that there is something to the UFO phenomenon. We should not simply ignore or trivialize that fact. Anyway, it's like trying to find a Star Trek fan. That franchise is one of the most successful in all of hollywood history. Its very dialog are nor irreversibly inserted into the popular lexicon of western society.... and yet I can hardly find 3 in 10 that admit to liking it. The O'Hare case generated more hits than anything before it. Aliens and UFO's are a popular subject in both novels and in Hollywood. Publicly scoff and privately ponder. That seems to be the society rank and file modus operandi.

6 - Good hoaxes are hard to pull off. They are nearly always found out in some way. It is hard to tell a lie and not get caught when a bunch of scrutiny is applied. If nothing else real hoaxes are suspected as being such. For instance, the Romanek case was suspected as a hoax but the Stephenville case was not.

7 - Eye witness testimony is good enough to suggest that the phenomenon is real and probably fits within the general parameters repeatedly given. Many millions of people have seen these things and reported them. until you show me a study proving that humans are poor observers of aerial phenomenon I will think otherwise. I know that humans are able to perceive motion very accurately. Evolution has given us that and the ability to readily identify an irregularity. Those studies have been done, lab tested, and scientifically verified. Simply stating that it is "probably" a misidentification and then pulling the "humans are bad observers" argument out wont cut it. Show me the research.


Thats it really. More than enough to say the phenomenon is worth serious study wouldn't you say? The problem with Ufology is the same as in other area of research. If you ask the wrong questions you will get the wrong answers. We concern ourselves too much with the wrong focus. Origin hypothesis, finding exotic substances, analyzing grainy or distorted images/video, {insert next waste of time here}. We need to be looking at the data we can acquire and data we can cross reference with seemingly unrelated and related data alike. Once we have the accumulated data then an honest analysis would need to be undertaken.

Therein lies the real issue. Mainstream science has already turned up its nose in no small part due to the interpersonal antics and fraud peddlers that are far too common in ufology. What does it all mean? Hell if I know, I havnt got that far yet. But I do know that there is something worth investigating.

Anyway, if you are still reading this then thanks. Sorry for the diatribe.

For a much more eloquent assessment on the question read what Paul Kimball wrote about Richard Dolans book. It says all you need to know more coherently than my ramblings can offer.
The Other Side of Truth: UFOs and the National Security State, Vol. II

 

[Ron Collins]

Hi Ron,

Would you tell me your favorite anomalous physical trace evidence?


Thanks,

Lance

Delphos, Kansas

 

[Xylo]

I don't think so. it's not really about the ego stuff. Its about being able to accept the body of evidence. I think that can be summed up like this.

1 - Radar tracks of non-transponder squawking aircraft with simultaneous and independent aerial and/or ground observation have happened. in many of these cases the flight characteristics have far exceeded the verifiable peak of known human technology. These cases can not be explained away as misidentifications or hallucinations.

Include a subset of Sonar tracking as well. There are Sonar reports of objects moving at ridiculous (by our standards) speeds at great depth.
WATER UFO - A RESEARCH ENDEAVOR

 

[1stEarthBattalion]

We also have to consider that in warfare anything is fair game and a tactic is to convince an enemy to waste resources on something unachievable or too costly and vulnerable to deploy. UFO’s and leaked information maybe just such an effort, in which case the military will never disclose.