• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

Why astronomers don’t report UFOs

Free episodes:

Well, somebody has got to be lying or skewing their data or something. Just finished listening to an interview with Kevin Randle over on MUFON's radio program (Strange, strange indeed. Most of the shows in the archive have absolutely nothing to do with UFOs) and he was quoting a study saying that not only do astronomer's see UFOs but with greater regularity than the general public. Both sides can't be right. Makes me wonder how these studies are put together. Are both sides allowing the astronomers to answer anonymously? If not than obviously the results are going to be skewed because there are plenty of astronomers that would refuse to answer affirmatively if their name is on the ballot.

Yes, those are the studies that I have referenced in my previous posts:

https://www.theparacast.com/forum/threads/7487-Why-astronomers-don’t-report-UFOs?p=98789#post98789

https://www.theparacast.com/forum/t...he-argument-from-ignorance.?p=72833#post72833

Best Wishes
 
The first link to the scholarly articles is not working. It would be really interesting to look that over.

The second link is an opinion and although I don't know much about the author, he makes some good points.
 
The first link to the scholarly articles is not working. It would be really interesting to look that over.

The second link is an opinion and although I don't know much about the author, he makes some good points.

Working for me. The second one quoted Rutkowski who was quoting from an actual study.
 
For more extended articles I can also recommended this literature:

Sturrock study on Astronomers:
International UFO Reporter, March 1977 - Astronomers and UFO's - A Survey - Part 1
International UFO Reporter, April 1977 - Astronomers and UFO's - A Survey - Part 2

Herb study on Astronomers:
CUFOS Bulletin - Fall 1980 - reprinted in International UFO Reporter, May 2006 -
The Amateur Astronomer and the UFO Phenomenon - by Gert Herb and J. Allen Hynek

Also here is another gem - this is editorial entry from Allen Hynek himself from the IUR, March 1977 issue - OCR Conversion only for Paracast forum :)

"EDITORIAL by Dr. J. Allen Hynek

"The reliable (UFO) cases are uninteresting and the interesting cases are unreliable. Unfortunately, there are no cases that are both reliable and interesting."

So has written my astronomer colleague, Dr. Carl Sagan, in his book, "Other Worlds." Much of course depends on those two words "interesting" and "reliable", but persons who have made a serious study of the UFO problem will testify that there are indeed some UFO reports that are both interesting and reliable, even when those two words are not used lightly.

Support for this statement has come rather unexpectedly from both professional and amateur astronomers. Two independent surveys, one of professional astronomers made by Dr. Sturrock of Stanford University (see feature article in this issue), and of amateur astronomers made by Mr. Gert Herb of the Center for UFO Studies, have brought to light some very interesting UFO sightings made by members of these groups. I must therefore differ with my colleague Dr. Sagan: there are indeed UFO reports which are both interesting and reliable. By UFO reports here we mean reports the contents of which do not submit to logical explanation. I must also differ with the oft-made statement that "astronomers never see UFOs". Apparently, they do and have, and they are just as puzzled as ordinary mortals are.

Whoever sees such puzzling sights should not have to wait for a formal survey by questionnaire, but should contribute his data for the benefit of science. They present us with a paradox and, as our masthead repeatedly proclaims, "There is no hope of advance in science without a paradox". It is the things that "don't fit" that lead to breakthroughs."

--- end of quote ---

Summarized percentages from both studies you can find in my previous posts mentioned somewhere above inside the thread.

Best Wishes
 
Similar discussion is also happening here:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100829000812AAiTQGi

Link from UFO Updates mailing list.

I didn't bother to check out his/her links but this paragraph was certainly overstated:

In a live interview Dr Michael Kaku one of the best recognized physicists in the world has just announced in his opinion UFOs are real and of an ET origin. So another academic is weighing in on the discussion.

All I've ever heard him say is that 5% of the cases are interesting enough to warrant investigation.
 
Debate on that link is way behind this thread.

In the sense of Kaku - Leslie Kean was just interviewed on Kaku's show "Scientific Fantastic".
It will be available soon as usual on the Leslie Kean thread - it will take me only some time to edit the commercials out but it will be done.
 
Okay, simply put: A lot of the reported UFOs would be identified if they were seen by people that understood what they were looking at.
So this means that a lot of what we're going on is a waste because it would have been considered identified it it was seen by the right person. I'm not calling anyone a liar or stupid - just unequipped to understand what they are seeing.

---------- Post added at 12:27 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:26 PM ----------



Why would they?

Neil Degrasse Tyson explains it much better than I ever would be able to:

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/zfAzaDyae-k?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/zfAzaDyae-k?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

Source: http://www.statecollege.com/news/lo...ace-skepticism-dont-buy-into-ufo-hype-710017/

News » Local News Neil Tyson at Penn State: Embrace Skepticism; Don't Buy into UFO Hype
April 07, 2011 11:13 AM
by Adam Smeltz
Font Size:
Print 12 Comments Email ShareThis

Click for Gallery
Neil deGrasse Tyson speaks with reporters Wednesday. Image by Curtis Chan provided via Penn State Live, http://live.psu.edu.Astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson didn't come to Penn State to talk about astrophysics.
The university already has top-flight experts in that field, faculty members who can shed light on and talk about cosmic discovery any time, he said.
And so, Tyson -- an Ivy League-educated author, researcher and television personality -- delved instead into what he called his "brain droppings" Wednesday night at Eisenhower Auditorium.
He spoke for nearly two hours on "Brain Droppings of an Astrophysicist," a part-science, part-comedy presentation that emphasized the value of skepticism, critical thinking and scientific grounding from day-to-day life to society at large.
Early on, Tyson brought a rhetorical knife to cut down popular mythology over purported alien visits and unidentified flying objects.
Imagine, he said, if you see "lights in the sky and don't what they are."
"If you don't know what it is, you don't know know what it is. You don't make stuff up" just to support theories that lack evidence, Tyson said. " ... The human brain is one of the most deceptive data-taking (devices) there is."
After all, it's designed primarily to keep us alive, not to run scientific analyses, he said.
One by one, he flayed subjects that have gained traction in popular culture: astrology, Swami levitation, aliens on Mars, the "supermoon" and conspiracy theories suggesting government cover-ups of alien activity.
Tyson, who has served on federal commissions studying the aerospace industry and space exploration, said he knows how the government works.
"The government is really bad at keeping secrets," he said, laughing off cover-up theories about alien activity. " ... The government is not that organized. Look at how much we know about President Clinton's genitalia. ... Think about it."
As his comedic high notes began to wind down, Tyson waxed more philosophical. Humans aren't simply in the universe; the universe is also "in us," he said.
"That fact alone -- that fact alone -- makes me feel large without the baggage of ego," he said.
Human ego, Tyson said, shows through in those who believe that we must be the only life form in the universe. He said stars in the observable universe number one sextillion -- a figure involving no fewer than 37 digits.
An estimated 1,800 people attended and gave Tyson a standing ovation at the free event, part of the Penn State Distinguished Speaker Series and the Waynick Memorial Lecture Series. A native of New York City, Tyson grew up in the city and went on to earn degrees at Harvard and Columbia universities. His research has centered in part on the formation of stars, on dwarf gallaxies and on the Milky Way. Tyson also has served on the NASA Advisory Council.
He may be best known for his nine books -- including "The Sky Is Not the Limit: Adventures of an Urban Astrophysicist" -- and for his work hosting "NOVA" and "NOVA scienceNOW" on PBS. Tyson is the director of the Hayden Planetarium in New York City, as well.
In an opening riff Wednesday night, he said he "knew (State College) was remote," but didn't realize exactly how remote until he saw a front-page Collegian headline about cockroaches having been found at University Park.
"I'm thinking: 'Why is this news?'" Tyson told the audience. "It may be that this 300-million-year-old species finally found this town."
Earlier, in a pre-talk visit with local reporters Wednesday, Tyson said he wanted his talk to illustrate the importance of skepticism, including skepticism of those who are not skeptical themselves. He lamented the relative lack of an information filter in the Information Age, which he said makes it easy to jump "into a sandbox with others who think exactly like you do."
"There's no way to provide assurance to know what you're looking at has validity -- unless you're equipped" with a healthy dose of critical-thinking skills, Tyson said.
At the same time, he said, the Information Age provides people with remarkable tools to investigate the gigantic, overarching questions that people have pondered for centuries: What else is out there? What's the meaning of it all?
Asked what he believes to be "the meaning of it all," Tyson was thoughtful.
The people who've found the greatest meaning in life, he said, are those who've "created the meaning themselves."
And in his own life, he said, he finds meaning in spreading knowledge and insight to others.
"One of my great goals has always been to lessen the suffering of others," and that includes intellectual suffering, Tyson said. " ... I find my meaning by creating it around me."
Earlier coverage
•Astrophysicist Tyson Scheduled for Penn State Talk (April 4, 2011)

•Jane Goodall at Penn State: 'We Seem to Have Lost Wisdom' (March 25, 2011)

Adam Smeltz
Adam is a senior editor and news reporter for StateCollege.com. Follow him on Twitter at http://twitter.com/scnewsdesk, or get news updates via Facebook at http://facebook.com/statecollegecom. Adam can be reached directly at [email protected] or (814) 238-6201 Ext. 150.
More articles by Adam Smeltz

---------- Post added at 01:09 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:01 AM ----------

Also check up comments at the source link of the article...
 
Neil Degrasse Tyson is awesome.
He's the new Carl Sagan and his Nova series is fantastic.


Yeah he's one of my favourites too

NDT on the planetary alignment "its true.... it does....." :)



on the god of gaps


"If that's how you want to invoke your evidence for god, then god is an ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance."



This one is good too, "Despite my diatribe on UFO's, it would be inexcusably egocentric to suggest we are alone in the cosmos..........."
 
Here's another great one, with a fantastic line at the end from Richard Dawkins. I like Dawkins, but I do agree with Tyson that he can be a little barbed at times:

<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/-_2xGIwQfik" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
 
This is also another thread about Tyson with very lively debate from September 2009:

http://tinyurl.com/6gtjt6p
<O></O>

UFO's are from outer space: An argument from ignorance. (LOL is that why Stanton Friedman still calls them 'flying saucers')

Even though he believes that 'Life is an unevitable consequence of complex chemistry' and 'it would be inexcusably egocentric to suggest we are alone in the cosmos'. He will never admit to the possibility that some life forms have evolved to the point of being able to visit other solar systems ;) .... and that maybe some of the observed phenomenon may have extra terrestrial origin.

He's hiding under the U of ufo 8)
 
He's a scientist, and without documented proof, scientists are cautious when coming to a conclusion.
...and yet he is a religious man. Interesting.

---------- Post added at 01:18 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:09 AM ----------

Ron Collins beat me to it. Most professional astronomers work indoors, studying very specific problems with highly specialized instruments. What Plait and Angel of Ioren say applies more to amateur astronomers/skywatchers. I'm more or less one myself, and in 40+ years of it I haven't seen anything I couldn't ultimately identify either. I think P and AoI in the main are right, particularly about purely visual 'light in the sky'-type sightings with no other anomalous aspects.

But this also illustates my point. You or any ametuer astronomer uses a tool that by design looks on an astonishingly small section of the sky and is focused to that distance in order to garner detail. How often do you see a bird fly by and exclaim "Oh, a Black-Capped Chickadee!" or "Ah, a Cesna 182" while peering through your telescope? I would venture to guess never. Mostly, because you are looking at such a small section of the sky and have the focus set as such that any interference would be a momentary blur. Unless the UFO hovered in that exact spot in the sky long enough for you to see it and then focus on it. Again, highly unlikely.
 
Back
Top