Science should officially study the UFOs

[mimmo77]

Why the science doesn't officially study the UFOs?
Without a scientific study we have too many fake.
However many interesting elements exist, surely authentic, as those that emerge from photo and video authentic, declassified official documents, historical chronicles, events of the last decades, etc.

For example look at these documents declassified (authentic, some really exceptional ones)
http://ufologie.net/htm/foia.htm

Or look at this Hystorical chronicles (on more pages):
http://www.bibleufo.com/ufos.htm

Or look at these cases:
http://www.ufoevidence.org/cases/ufocaseshome.asp


Something of reality really exists. The science should officially study the UFOs, with any interference.

What do you think about this?

[bindeweede]

I hope you might find this thread helpful.

http://www.ukskeptics.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1627&highlight=conspiracy

[Bunny]

Trouble is mimmo77, how does science actually do a realistic investigation? The scientific method postulates theories than then tests them. I don't quite know how this can be done in respect to the existence of UFOs. The individual claims can be investigated but the evidence is always very sparse. There is simply no evidence for the existence of UFOs but UFologists often use the argument that there is also no evidence for there non-existence either. Trouble is that this is a logical falicy in that there is no way of disproving there is a chocolate teapot in orbit round the Earth, but that does not meant there is one there.

You say "Something of reality really exists" and so I suspect from this that you believe UFOs exist (apologies if I am wrong). Trouble you have is that if UFOs do exist, then this would be extraordinary and extraordinary theories require extraordinary evidence.

[mimmo77]

Trouble is mimmo77, how does science actually do a realistic investigation? The scientific method postulates theories than then tests them. I don't quite know how this can be done in respect to the existence of UFOs. The individual claims can be investigated but the evidence is always very sparse. There is simply no evidence for the existence of UFOs but UFologists often use the argument that there is also no evidence for there non-existence either. Trouble is that this is a logical falicy in that there is no way of disproving there is a chocolate teapot in orbit round the Earth, but that does not meant there is one there.

You say "Something of reality really exists" and so I suspect from this that you believe UFOs exist (apologies if I am wrong). Trouble you have is that if UFOs do exist, then this would be extraordinary and extraordinary theories require extraordinary evidence.

Of course i belive UFOS exist, for example I 've seen documents declassified (FOIA, authentic) that show as USA knew of UFO
existence already 50-60 years ago. This is the evidence that something of real really exists.
Also, 2000 years of documentated sightings of flying spheres, disks, tringles, cygars, ecc. is really strange.
And some real videos show strage inteligent objects not similar to anything with technology known.

Unfortunately, the presence of incompetent people who study the phenomenon, and of cheaters, has made the UFO issue a real joke.


So, scientists should study UFO phenomena not ufologists, just to show at people, and at us, what is real and what isn't.


Of course as skeptics we can't ignore sono old top secret documents, like the followings:
http://ufologie.net/htm/foia26.htm
http://ufologie.net/htm/foia68.htm
http://ufologie.net/htm/foia60.htm
http://ufologie.net/htm/foia27.htm
http://ufologie.net/htm/foia100.htm
http://ufologie.net/htm/foia16.htm
http://ufologie.net/htm/foia11.htm
http://ufologie.net/htm/foia62.htm
http://ufologie.net/htm/foia105.htm
http://ufologie.net/htm/foia104.htm
http://ufologie.net/htm/foia65.htm
http://ufologie.net/htm/foia104.htm
http://ufologie.net/htm/foia19.htm
http://ufologie.net/htm/foia20.htm
http://ufologie.net/htm/foia24.htm
http://ufologie.net/htm/foia63.htm
http://ufologie.net/htm/foia18.htm
http://ufologie.net/htm/foia52.htm
ecc.
ecc.

I really recommend reading at least these FOIA documents, these are 100% not fakes.

[ZERO]

I only read the first four links. The first and fourth were most interesting, making reference to recovered discs.

The first requests access to a recovered disc. What exactly was recovered?
Something of interest here:
http://books.google.com.au/books?id=KVz-o44Zs7wC&pg=PA7&lpg=PA7&dq=Shreveport+Louisiana+ufo&source=web&ots=a2nDIWaxh8&sig=tTRyZ_tAh_sUcKqqCo1z8w-nU2g&hl=en#PPA7,M1

It turns out it was a hoax. Some of the parts had "Made in the USA" on them.


The fourth link, to my mind, does not say discs have been recovered but assumes some might be and seeks access accordingly.

The thinking at the time was concerned these sightings may be Soviet aircraft, so the US goverments interest is logical.

[mimmo77]

I only read the first four links. The first and fourth were most interesting, making reference to recovered discs.

The first requests access to a recovered disc. What exactly was recovered?
Something of interest here:
http://books.google.com.au/books?id=KVz-o44Zs7wC&pg=PA7&lpg=PA7&dq=Shreveport+Louisiana+ufo&source=web&ots=a2nDIWaxh8&sig=tTRyZ_tAh_sUcKqqCo1z8w-nU2g&hl=en#PPA7,M1

It turns out it was a hoax. Some of the parts had "Made in the USA" on them.


The fourth link, to my mind, does not say discs have been recovered but assumes some might be and seeks access accordingly.

The thinking at the time was concerned these sightings may be Soviet aircraft, so the US goverments interest is logical.


The Hoax connection about that document is strange. However, I read that there is a dettailed explanation only of La.case.

The document appears in FBI official documents:
http://foia.fbi.gov/ufo/ufo1.pdf
(see page 45 of 69, and page 3 )
"I would do it but before agreeing to it we must insist upon full access to discs recovered. For instance in the La. case the Army grabbed it & wouldn't let us have it for cursory examination".

And there are some references on others FBI official documents, for example I have found this:
http://foia.fbi.gov/ufo/ufo2.pdf
where I read that the disk recovered in La. case is "sixteen inches in diameter" (see page 4 of 79)


Also, I find the document FOIA where the Army agrees to cooperate with the FBI and allow agents access to examine "recovered discs":
http://ufologie.net/htm/foia27.htm

So the La. case may be explaned by hoax but the (main) disk recovered?

The story of disk recovered doesn't seem a hoax in my opinion

[mimmo77]

wrong post

[MischiefMonkey]

I have a few questions.

1. How have the documents been verified?
2. Given that the documents are genuine, how have the recovered disks been verified?
3. Given that the disks are 'genuine', how do we know they are extra-terrestrial in origin?

I'm not overtly interested in the UFO scene as the vast majority of 'sightings' have a pretty terrestrial explanation, but I do hold a fascination with what life on other planets might be like.

[mimmo77]

I have a few questions.

1. How have the documents been verified?
2. Given that the documents are genuine, how have the recovered disks been verified?
3. Given that the disks are 'genuine', how do we know they are extra-terrestrial in origin?

I'm not overtly interested in the UFO scene as the vast majority of 'sightings' have a pretty terrestrial explanation, but I do hold a fascination with what life on other planets might be like.

1. Yes
2. We don't know, UFO documents aren't declassified o they are declassified in illegible mode see the last document for example. That documents appears declassified with no big black cancellations for error
3. We don't know, we just have the official informations in that documents, if you not belive in statements of some ex-military/ministers. Some informations in the middle and last documents posted give you an idea of what really were that UFOS (I do not want to force your interpretation).

[MischiefMonkey]

1. Yes
2. We don't know, UFO documents aren't declassified o they are declassified in illegible mode see the last document for example. That documents appears declassified with no big black cancellations for error
3. We don't know, we just have the official informations in that documents, if you not belive in statements of some ex-military/ministers. Some informations in the middle and last documents posted give you an idea of what really were that UFOS (I do not want to force your interpretation).

1. I asked how not if. Sorry if I didn't make that clear.

2. So, is that a no?

3. So the origin isn't known.

As we are dealing with a lot of unknowns, why do you personally think they are from another planet? What evidence has convinced you?

[mimmo77]

1. I asked how not if. Sorry if I didn't make that clear.

2. So, is that a no?

3. So the origin isn't known.

As we are dealing with a lot of unknowns, why do you personally think they are from another planet? What evidence has convinced you?

Well, the first step is to ascertain in skeptics way that UFO exists, and to study the reliable information on them.
Now I will show all this to you.

[MischiefMonkey]

Well, the first step is to ascertain in skeptics way that UFO exists, and to study the reliable information on them.
Now I will show all this to you.

UFO's certainly exist. Any 'Flying Object' that can not be identified is an Unidentified Flying Object. From the admittedly limited knowledge I have of the area, there are very few unexplained 'UFO' sitings.

That does not mean that those that have not been explained are alien space craft.

Why do you think they are alien in origin?

[mimmo77]

UFO's certainly exist. Any 'Flying Object' that can not be identified is an Unidentified Flying Object. From the admittedly limited knowledge I have of the area, there are very few unexplained 'UFO' sitings.

That does not mean that those that have not been explained are alien space craft.

Why do you think they are alien in origin?

I just want to die: I have done a long full response to show my evidences, but I inadvertently hit the back button and....I lost everything!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I lost one hours of work!!!!!

In short, the elements present in declassified documents show the presence of vehicles which are not declared vehicles known.
The military and scientists say that vehicles are different from anything known, that have outstanding performance, that are real and hold in high regard.
Photos and videos authentic, even from official souces, confirmed everything.
Military, scientists, astronauts, politicians and pilots speak clearly of alien vehicles in official statements.
Vehicles unknown sighted today are the same people who were sighted in recent millennia, as we read in historical chronicles.
We can not deny the obvious intention not to disclose information to the public on this issue.

The ufologists are unable to deal with the issue because often mix real facts with fake facts, they mix things proven with things not proven.
Moreover, the skeptical studies of arguments seem only to ridicule the matter.

I just have researched only things proven and I found a large amount of material.

[Bunny]

mimmo77, I think you have things the wrong way round. There are all sorts of phenomenon that cannot be explained but that does not mean they defy explanation. You "believe" that there are visitor's from another world but others explain things in terms of ghosts, time travel, other dimensions and a long list of other claims. The fact is that there no more evidence to support one from the other. This is the trouble with belief, just because you believe it, does not make it so. The evidence you have produced is the same as that which has been presented over many years and I am afraid it just does not stack up. If you want science to seriously investigate, then let science take one of the so called alien artefacts and analyse it in the full spot light of the scientific community. An off world isotope ratio, for example, would be real contributing evidence. In the absence of such evidence, then I remain sceptical.

You also seem to be bordering on conspiracy cover up theory. If you do believe that (and again my apologies if I have this wrong) then you are in the territory of the lack of evidence is evidence itself and that is a serous logical fallacy.

There may be some instances that cannot be explained but it is one hell of an extrapolation to say that these are therefore visitors from another planet. I suggest you have your belief and now you are searching for the evidence to support it. As I said at the start, you have it the wrong way round.

[mimmo77]

mimmo77, I think you have things the wrong way round. There are all sorts of phenomenon that cannot be explained but that does not mean they defy explanation. You "believe" that there are visitor's from another world but others explain things in terms of ghosts, time travel, other dimensions and a long list of other claims. The fact is that there no more evidence to support one from the other. This is the trouble with belief, just because you believe it, does not make it so. The evidence you have produced is the same as that which has been presented over many years and I am afraid it just does not stack up. If you want science to seriously investigate, then let science take one of the so called alien artefacts and analyse it in the full spot light of the scientific community. An off world isotope ratio, for example, would be real contributing evidence. In the absence of such evidence, then I remain sceptical.

You also seem to be bordering on conspiracy cover up theory. If you do believe that (and again my apologies if I have this wrong) then you are in the territory of the lack of evidence is evidence itself and that is a serous logical fallacy.

There may be some instances that cannot be explained but it is one hell of an extrapolation to say that these are therefore visitors from another planet. I suggest you have your belief and now you are searching for the evidence to support it. As I said at the start, you have it the wrong way round.

I just want that the science seriously study the UFO phenomena and
not playing to discredit the phenomena.

For example, look at all this:

http://ufologie.net/htm/foia26.htm
http://ufologie.net/htm/foia68.htm
http://ufologie.net/htm/foia60.htm
http://ufologie.net/htm/foia27.htm
http://ufologie.net/htm/foia100.htm
http://ufologie.net/htm/foia16.htm
http://ufologie.net/htm/foia11.htm
http://ufologie.net/htm/foia62.htm
http://ufologie.net/htm/foia105.htm
http://ufologie.net/htm/foia104.htm
http://ufologie.net/htm/foia65.htm
http://ufologie.net/htm/foia19.htm
http://ufologie.net/htm/foia20.htm
http://ufologie.net/htm/foia24.htm
http://ufologie.net/htm/foia63.htm
http://ufologie.net/htm/foia18.htm
http://ufologie.net/htm/foia52.htm

The ufologists even don't want to speak about these FOIA documents, they want to talk about greys and cospirations, also of fake majestic documents of course. I think that only few ufologists in the world know these real FOIA documents.
Of course, if you read some of them you'll read that military and scientist say in secret documents that UFO vehicles are different from anything known, that have outstanding performance, that are real and hold in high regard.
And what they say to us? That UFO vehicles aren't real, that are aircraft, ecc.
Can you rationally taste a cover up?


we read in official documents:

"The opinion of the officials at the Security Division, AEC, Oak Ridge; Security Branch, NEPA division, Oak Ridge; AEC Security Patrol, Oak Ridge; FBI, Knoxville; Air Force Radar and Fighter Squadron, Knoxville; and the OSI, Knoxville, Tennessee, fail to evolve an adequate explanation fir SUBJECT, however, the possibilities of practical jokes, mass hysteria, balloons of any description, flights of birds (with or without cobwebs or other objects attached), falling leaves, insect swarms, peculiar weather conditions, reflections, flying kites, object thrown from the ground, windblown objects, insanity, and many other natural happenings have been rejected because of the reliability of the witnesses; because of the detailed, similar description of the objects seen by different persons; and because of impossibility."
http://ufologie.net/htm/foia105.htm

"At this time the reports of incidents convince us that there is something going on that must have immediate attention. The details of some of these incidents have been discussed by AD/SI (SI: Scientific Intelligence) with DDCI Sightings of unexplained objects at great altitudes and travelling at high speeds in the vicinity of major U.S. defense installations are of such nature that they are not attributable to natural phenomenon of known types of aerial vehicles."
http://ufologie.net/htm/foia65.htm


"Since 30 July 1950 objects, round in form, have been sighted over the Hanford AEC Plant," the first vital nuclear material production unit in the US. "Air Force jets attempted interception with negative results..."
http://ufologie.net/htm/foia11.htm


"It is felt that these incidents are of such importance, especially as they are occurring in the vicinity of sensitive installations, that a scientific board be sent to this locality to study the situation with a view to arriving at a solution of this extraordinary phenomena..."
http://ufologie.net/htm/foia16.htm


the urgency of action as UFOs are flying over the most sensitive military research installations.
"At this time, the reports of incidents convince us that there is something going on that must have immediate attention. The details of some of these incidents have been discussed by AD/SI with DDCI. Sightings of unexplained objects at great altitudes and travelling at high speeds in the vicinity of major U.S. defense installations are of such nature that they are not attributable to natural phenomena or known types of aerial vehicles."
http://ufologie.net/htm/foia104.htm

The subject here is a "storm" of unknown flying objects observed over southern New Mexico and El Paso, Texas. The memo notes that "none of the occurrences could be attributed to fire, rockets, guided missiles or other military activities."

http://ufologie.net/htm/foia24.htm

they aknowledge that there are radar/visual sightings "from time to time," but this one lasted 49 minutes.
Also, the pilot and the ground radar operator communicated in real time what the manoeuvers of the objects were and the concordance is established "exactly."
http://ufologie.net/htm/foia63.htm


This is a capital case, aknowleged by a US intelligence agency, where a UFO encountered an aircraft, and reacted in a superior ant intelligent manner to the aircraft's interception attempt by shutting down temporarily the aircraft's weapons system. The DIA evaluation termed this "An outstanding report. This case is a classic which meets all the criteria necessary for a valid study of the UFO phenomenon." The analysis called the UFO performance "awesome," noting that the objects displayed "an inordinate amount of maneuverability."
http://ufologie.net/htm/foia18.htm

the Strategic Air Command to the director of the FBI to summarize what was said at a meeting between Army and Air intelligence officers and FBI members during discussions on the necessity to maintain the secrecy about UFO overflights of sensitive installations.
http://ufologie.net/htm/foia100.htm

the US Air Force has no aircraft projects that matches the characteristics of the reported flying disks.
http://ufologie.net/htm/foia60.htm


At this point:if they are real, if the aren't vehicles known, if they aren't natual phenomena, what are the UFOS? From Where?

[Bunny]

I just want that the science seriously study the UFO phenomena and not playing to discredit the phenomena.

Then tell me how?

Science assumes something not to be true and then formulates theories from the evidence, not the other way round. All that could be done is for each incident to be examined and investigated and then either it would be explained by some Earth bound explanation or it would remain unexplained. Being unexplained does not mean it is evidence for alien visitors. What you ask is that science try to prove it is true and I am afraid it just don't work like that.

[mimmo77]

Then tell me how?

Science assumes something not to be true and then formulates theories from the evidence, not the other way round. All that could be done is for each incident to be examined and investigated and then either it would be explained by some Earth bound explanation or it would remain unexplained. Being unexplained does not mean it is evidence for alien visitors. What you ask is that science try to prove it is true and I am afraid it just don't work like that.

ok, my trouble is that Science could officially study the UFOs instead of ufologists, because the ufologists studies aren't good most of the times.
A scientific ufologist group will be very appreciated.

What do you think?

[MischiefMonkey]

ok, my trouble is that Science could officially study the UFOs instead of ufologists, because the ufologists studies aren't good most of the times.
A scientific ufologist group will be very appreciated.

What do you think?

There are people out there that examine reports of UFOs with a skeptical, open mind. As bunny says, the only conclusions are that the report is the result of a known phenomenon - hoax, iridium flair, the space station, weather balloons, tricks of the eye etc - or that they are 'unknown'. You can't say 'well, we haven't ruled out aliens so that is the answer'.

I'll try to find some links to the more scientific UFO sites - as I said it isn't an area of particular interest to me, so it may take a while (I need to email a friend more well versed in the area)

[SkepticReport]

ok, my trouble is that Science could officially study the UFOs instead of ufologists, because the ufologists studies aren't good most of the times.
A scientific ufologist group will be very appreciated.

What do you think?

What, exactly, is it you want?

Should they study the reports? Been there, done that, lots of natural explanations.

Should they study the physical evidence of space ships? What's to study?

Who, exactly, should study them? As in names and qualifications.

You can't start with the assertation that UFOs - as in alien space ships - exist.

[seren]

...Robbie? Is that you? ;)

[Bunny]

...Robbie? Is that you? ;)

... which reminds me - 6:30 Radio-4 this evening, don't forget.

[Cuddles]

ok, my trouble is that Science could officially study the UFOs instead of ufologists, because the ufologists studies aren't good most of the times.
A scientific ufologist group will be very appreciated.

What do you think?

Firstly, why do you think ufologists don't study things scientifically? There is no such thing as "Science", just science, and anyone can use the scientific method, you don't need anyone special.

The reason you don't see any scientific ufologists is actually very simple. If you study them scientifically, there is nothing interesting to see. If you can work out what a UFO is, it becomes an FO, or sometimes just an O, and no longer has any mystery. If you can't work out what it is, it simply remains unidentified, and it is therefore not possible to know what it is.

The fact is, ufology is a joke. The sheer number of incredibly bad photos, hoaxes, misidentifications and tall stories that are still taken as absolute proof of aliens by most people involved means that it is impossible to take them seriously. The problem isn't just that they are usually willing to take every blurry picture as proof of something without even checking, it's that they continue to do so even after it's been proven conclusively that it was just yet another person not knowing what flares look like.

Of course, none of this necessarily means that there aren't aliens flying around everywhere, but it does seriously call into question the reliability of those who claim there are. In addition, the fact that there is simply no evidence for anything even vaguely strange means that there is no reason to assume that there is actually anything strange.

Just think about all the things that are frequently identified as aliens. Venus, planes, satellites, fires, flares, balloons, cars, meteors, even the Moon. And there's plenty more. Now, given that so many of the people who report aliens are unable to identify even the most mundane and common things around them, what are the chances that they are able to identify alien spacecraft? Would you really trust someone who can't identify the third brightest object in the sky, and whose motion has been accurately predicted for thousands of years, if they tell you that they saw something which couldn't possibly have been anything other than an alien spacecraft?

[Croydon Bob]

even the Moon.

Jim Moseley, who has been investigating Flying Saucer sightings in the US for over 50 years, tells a great story of a red-neck farmer calling the police to say that a flying saucer is hovering over his house. The local law and Moseley drive out there, see nothing, knock on the door. The farmer opens the door visibly scared as he points up at the moon above his house. If Moseley hadn't seen it with his own eyes he'd probably be saying "reliable witness, wouldn't make it up, nothing to gain" and suchlike.

[Bunny]

Hey mimmo77 - this is just my view but I would not want you to be discouraged from posting in the future. You might find it difficult to find people to agree with you on extraterrestrials visiting Earth on a sceptical forum but that does not mean you should not make your case. What it comes down to (in my view) is that nothing you say is scientifically implausible as the Universe is a big place. There is however, no real evidence anywhere despite what seems to be a number of investigations using the scientific method. Being a sceptic means that you are not convinced until the evidence is produced and, as I said before, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Science also allows us not to know - to be undecided, to accept possibilities without accepting they are necessarily true. Scepticism is about the method, not the belief. Believers are from Venus, sceptics ask why Venus orbits in the wrong direction (to plagiarise a few quotations).

[mimmo77]

Hey mimmo77 - this is just my view but I would not want you to be discouraged from posting in the future. You might find it difficult to find people to agree with you on extraterrestrials visiting Earth on a sceptical forum but that does not mean you should not make your case. What it comes down to (in my view) is that nothing you say is scientifically implausible as the Universe is a big place. There is however, no real evidence anywhere despite what seems to be a number of investigations using the scientific method. Being a sceptic means that you are not convinced until the evidence is produced and, as I said before, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Science also allows us not to know - to be undecided, to accept possibilities without accepting they are necessarily true. Scepticism is about the method, not the belief. Believers are from Venus, sceptics ask why Venus orbits in the wrong direction (to plagiarise a few quotations).

don't worry, I'm not discouraged, I just want to submit famous themes in which millions of people believe, I think it's useful.

[Matt]

don't worry, I'm not discouraged, I just want to submit famous themes in which millions of people believe, I think it's useful.

Say Ahhh! OK Now turn your head to the right and cough.

I see. hm hum.

Does it hurt when I do *THIS*

Sorry.

OK then what I think we have here is a mild case of argumentum ad populum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum) As it's only a mild case I recomend a simple non-medicinal treatment. I'm prescribing a course of aversion therapy.

Please read about Korean Fan Death (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fan_death) also believed by millions. That'[s a good start but if that doesn't help research the Weapons of Mass Destruction found in Iraq since the war. 50% of Americans believe such weapons were found see if you can find evidence to back them up. Another 50% of Americans don't believe in evolution. Have a look at talk.origins (http://www.talkorigins.org/)and see if the popularity of this opinion is any good reason to consider it.

[Cuddles]

50% of Americans don't believe in evolution. Have a look at talk.origins (http://www.talkorigins.org/)and see if the popularity of this opinion is any good reason to consider it.

http://www.ukskeptics.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2471
Doh.

[Matt]

http://www.ukskeptics.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2471
Doh.
http://img179.imageshack.us/img179/2241/facepalm2ic7copyrl2.jpg
Because expressing How Dumb that was in words just doesn't work.