Ufology & Pseudoscience

[mike]

http://www.nuforc.org/MUFONPresentation.pdf

ABSTRACT:
The author proposes a system for the remote, real-time detection of UFO’s in the near-

Earth environment, using passive, multi-static, frequency-modulated (FM) radar. The

system capitalizes on the use of multiple, time-synchronized radio receivers to capture

high-frequency radio signals reflected from a target. The time-lapse between received

signals, together with three-dimensional Doppler-shift analysis, permits calculation of a

target’s location, velocity, acceleration, flight path, and other parameters, possibly to

include target size estimation. Signal analysis of the reflected signal, combined with

analysis of target characteristics, will permit discrimination between suspected UFO’s,

and targets of terrestrial origin, e.g. aircraft, satellites, space debris, meteor trails, upper

atmospheric conditions, weather phenomena, migratory birds, the Moon, etc.. One

application proposed may allow detection of UFO’s out to a range of at least 27,600

kilometers from the Earth’s surface.

 

[Randall]

http://www.nuforc.org/MUFONPresentation.pdf

As much as I commend the efforts of those who make the effort to get instrumented readings on UFOs, I don't think it's been thought through. What purpose would a civilian tracking effort serve? Would we have a mobile ground force to investigate potential landings? We know that Space Command already has all that stuff ( and more ) but won't let us look at the data. So we know there are people with super high tech gear who know what is going on up there already; and if they even allow us to setup a tracking system in the first place, we know they'll be watching the same thing we are, and if anything real comes along they'll be on top of it and long gone or secured the area before we get near it. But let's suppose that by some stroke of luck, we did get there first, then what do we do ... stand there going ( and I really hate to say this ) ... but stand there going ... "OMG Aliens! ... what do we do now?" ( besides run away before being abducted.)

We also need to be aware of the potential for internal corruption. It's not like we haven't seen ufology groups use their bureaucracies just to put someone in charge of the sponsor's money, whether that is money from membership dues or grants or whatever. And naturally anyone in that position would also be in a position to capitalize on it for their own gain. Could we really depend on them to produce genuine data that would be freely shared? Given the history on UFO hoaxes ( e.g. alien autopsy film ), it's a dubious plan at best.

In my view what we need to do is find a way to have an active civilian liaison with our government agencies ... along the lines of what Kean is trying to accomplish. It's doubtful it will happen, but if the same resources were put into making that happen as would be put into our own tracking system, we might have some success. Perhaps if we could even get significant backing from someone serious, and get government approval to build such a tracking system, it might be enough of a bargaining chip to get someone on the inside. In the meantime, I think a more effective approach would be to unify the ufology community ... those who know the truth already because they've seen an alien craft for themselves and to form a sizable think-tank/activist/lobby group that can act as a lens, focusing well thought out public pressure on the politicians to facilitate liaison and disclosure. Consider that last bit my plug for USI.

 

[Voyager]

I never saw a UFO during all the years I lived in Silicon Valley. It wasn't until 1976 when I went to visit my grandmother in Montana that I discovered there is something else here on earth. Back then I just assumed they were beings from outer space. I didn't consider any other alternatives, such as, undersea bases, or other dimensions. After 1984 I became totally disengaged from the phenomenon. Eventually I moved to Montana, 25 miles east of where the first sightings occurred. I didn't start seeing them here until 2 years ago. I did manage to take some pictures last year. The problem with the pictures is this: The digital camera only recorded the light emitted by the object. No surface detail was recorded. Bruce Mcabee looked at the pictures and his only comment was that the pictures were of a light source. People say: "What is it, it could be anything." Anybody who has not observed the phenomenon firsthand with the naked eye will not be able to deduce anything from the pictures because they have no frame of reference for comparison. There is a huge amount of eyewitness testimony, and a substantial amount of photographic and video evidence that are not hoaxes. My interest in the subject is not just about UFOs; the fact that they exist demonstrates that there is more to reality than we are aware of. Yes, there is something else here on earth. People who dismiss UFOs do so out of ignorance. We need to step back and look at the big picture.

 

[Randall]

I also wonder if the abduction and u.f.o. phenomenon are two different things. But, I do have to admit that most of the abduction material that I read is proceeded or at least connected to u.f.o.'s by the experiencers so how do we really seperate it? Or should we?

When it comes to UFO abductions, no doubt something strange is going on but what exactly that is is far from certain. In some cases UFO sightings are associated with an abduction experience, however the nature of the abduction experience is so overwhelming and it affects the memory of the abductee ( expereincer ) to such a degree that we cannot be entirely certain how much information is accurate. I haven't run across a single thing any abductee has said that sheds new light on any topic at all. More often it's some kind of trite commentary on some ecological or social issue. For all we know, genuine cases are the result of some terrestrial psychological warfare not unlike the days of MK Ultra. It doesn't even need to be our own government that's doing it.

To avoid allegations of pseudoscience in ufology we should catalog UFO Abductions under the larger section of UFO Studies and deal with past cases in a historical sense. Current cases involving missing time should be dealt with by Psychologists and submitted as psychological studies. Let the psychologists deal with the issue of professionalism. Psychology is already an ambiguous field with respect to science and abductions would no doubt be a real quagmire to try to deal with scientifically. However if some researcher were able to extract some profound new and verifiable information or recover some similarly amazing artifact, then that would probably get the subject of UFO Abductions some serious recognition.

 

[Randall]

Just a note for the record that I've been trying to have a civil discussion with the skeptics over on the JREF. It's been a rough ride consisting largely of flames and character attacks against me. Recently I've just caved in and started using my ignore list, which now contains more names than active participants on any given thread. It's a really sad situation considering I otherwise support a number of their causes.

 

[tyder001]

I've often wondered why folks who are not materialist go to the JREF forum. Not an attack and not a jab. I just don't see what is to be gained. These folks (for the most part) don't have a reputation of being open minded agnostics or skeptical atheists. These are folks who have a world view that is basic and from what little I've read from them they are "religious" in their venom and zeal to beat you down with "logic." I've seen a few of them over the years on other boards and they don't play. They don't try to be polite. This isn't the "willing to talk about it rationally" Angel or Trained type of skeptic. these are the flip side of Jerry Falwell. Now, before somebody says it I'll say it. Generalizations are generally wrong. But, I'm talking about the majority of these folks that I've seen on other boards and the few times I've perused that one. As the ole saying goes "Mileage may vary." But, if you enjoy the debate then I certainly don't begrudge you at all. It's just that I went through religion in my youth and young adulthood. So, I tend to shy away from zealots of all stripes. Especially, those who act religious about not being religious.

 

[Randall]

I've often wondered why folks who are not materialist go to the JREF forum. Not an attack and not a jab. I just don't see what is to be gained. These folks (for the most part) don't have a reputation of being open minded agnostics or skeptical atheists. These are folks who have a world view that is basic and from what little I've read from them they are "religious" in their venom and zeal to beat you down with "logic." I've seen a few of them over the years on other boards and they don't play. They don't try to be polite. This isn't the "willing to talk about it rationally" Angel or Trained type of skeptic. these are the flip side of Jerry Falwell. Now, before somebody says it I'll say it. Generalizations are generally wrong. But, I'm talking about the majority of these folks that I've seen on other boards and the few times I've perused that one. As the ole saying goes "Mileage may vary." But, if you enjoy the debate then I certainly don't begrudge you at all. It's just that I went through religion in my youth and young adulthood. So, I tend to shy away from zealots of all stripes. Especially, those who act religious about not being religious.

Well, I went there because I tend to agree with quite a bit of what the JREF stands for, e.g. exposing frauds in the paranormal or medical field who bilk people out of their money or cause suffering because of unproven and highly questionable, if not outright fraudulent claims or practices. James Randi was also the magician who did the tricks on Alice Cooper's Billion Dollar Babies tour ( his most awesome ) and guys like Penn and Teller who are cool, like him, and on the most basic level we need constructive skepticism in order to be taken seriously, so I just thought that the caliber of intellect would be higher than typical discussion forums, and that I might be able to start networking with skeptics in a positive way, for example to help expose some of these YouTube videos. I'm no expert at telling what is fake on these things because some of them are very realistic. I naively thought they'd only be too glad to help and that I could have a civil discussion. Instead I found out the hard way just how wrong that assumption was, and I have since been reminded just how far apart their world view is from mine and other people who know UFOs are real ... or even probable or possible.

I probably would have bowed out gracefully but they started attacking me personally using my real name in posts along with defamatory statements in order to associate me with unfavorable characters during Google searches. So then I had to stay and hold my ground and start making complaints to the moderators and the JREF board. While I was doing that I realized how badly they need a resident ufologist that young people can relate to without being cyberbullied into submission, and so I have soldiered on there for the cause. To their credit, our old skeptic Lance is over there, and another one who publishes a skeptical UFO report called SUNlite.