From The NY Times: The Pentagon's Secret UFO Program

[Irreligious Survivalist]

Nyuk! Nyuk! Nyuk!)

Curly, is that you?

 

[SRL+]

Problem #1 ... UFO lands. UFO is seen by one person. UFO leaves. There is nothing tangible left for scientists to study.

Problem #2 ... UFO landed this evening 1,000 miles from where you live and it was reported to call center. You want to go and take witness statements, take samples, do photos, take instruments and do measurements, BUT: doing it on a professional level, as scientists do, will require a budget of $2,000. There are at least 10 sightings every year assigned to you, so you are out of a pocket $20,000.

In short, there is no way to study UFOs scientifically, without big money. Scientific research is mega expensive, but nobody will give you a penny. All you will hear is: "We need money for more promising projects".

Solution #1 ... Start entertainment company >> make money >> use money to do scientific research.

Solution #2 ... go to forums and beat whole subject to death with other people who want to dig deeper. Keep complaining that presented information is ambiguous and non-scientific.



There are at least a dozen UFO cases of the same high quality standard, if not higher, than a Nimitz case. Plenty of stuff to research. And once you get clues from high quality cases you can use these clues to confirm veracity of the less renown cases.

Have you read white papers published by various scientists and engineers, over the last 60 years, in my forum signature? I read them all, as good as it can be done.

Again, the core players here are from Skinwalker fame, so don’t be surprised if the ranch is brought up in their quest for the truth, as Skinwalker tales might be intermingled with other entertainment content. For that matter, TTSA could provide accommodations @ Skinwalker Ranch for UFO, orb, bulletproof wolf, and wormhole enthusiasts, where they could spend an evening in one of the three bait pens for $1,000 per head.

 

[Realm]

Problem #1 ... UFO lands. UFO is seen by one person. UFO leaves. There is nothing tangible left for scientists to study.

That's a more generic problem that isn't tied to UFOs or science. That just means someone is claiming something without evidence. Pretty much the only thing you can do is collect the report, and that's what NUFORC for example is doing now. Most of it is of little value, some might have some significance in relation to something else for example, but it doesn't really need much effort or money to do that.

Problem #2 ... UFO landed this evening 1,000 miles from where you live and it was reported to call center. You want to go and take witness statements, take samples, do photos, take instruments and do measurements, BUT: doing it on a professional level, as scientists do, will require a budget of $2,000. There are at least 10 sightings every year assigned to you, so you are out of a pocket $20,000.

Most of that would be solved already by making efforts relative to the potential significance of the events. There aren't really that many cases that would have enough actual evidence to convince many. And when there is, like in the Nimitz case, there's likely quite a many interested parties that could do most of the work for you.

Solution #1 ... Start entertainment company >> make money >> use money to do scientific research.

- Start entertainment company = Lose credibility, conflate facts with fiction
- make money = If TTSA investors pay $1 million, their total share of the company would be worth around $2500, while Tom DeLonge's share would be worth around $730,000, and he gets guaranteed royalties of $100,000 and so on. So yes, definitely making money.
- use money to do scientific research = Invest on pipe dreams of spaceships and such instead of the data gathering work that would actually make sense.

In short, there is no way to study UFOs scientifically, without big money.

Yes there is. Let's consider what sort of money it would actually take to investigate a case like the Nimitz to the extent it's currently possible:

Collecting the data that's currently available publicly, that is the video and the event log: Nothing, as those were done by the navy.
Interviewing the pilots and other relevant personnel: Nothing, as the media was more than willing to do that.
Analyzing the available data: Nothing, as there's a whole lot of people who are doing that for free, because they are interested.

The rest of it that isn't currently public, like radar data and analyzing it: Not available to us, not available to a private company like TTSA. So that's not a solution.

Furthermore, as I have stated here, in the Nimitz case, the various sources we have have proved to be pretty reliable and consistent between themselves. Except for the stuff that has come from the TTSA guys, like that party balloon blunder and twisting the story to Mars Attacks! style. Again, TTSA hasn't proven to be a solution, but rather a problem for the credibility of the whole case.

What we actually need is a change of public perception of the whole matter. If it was taken seriously, as a scientific question, that could result in the sort of openness that the military for example might make information of such events available sooner, and pilots for example could be more willing to speak about them in the media. Having an entertainment company and their pseudo-scientists add new reasons to ridicule the subject does the exact opposite.

There are at least a dozen UFO cases of the same high quality standard, if not higher, than a Nimitz case. Plenty of stuff to research. And once you get clues from high quality cases you can use these clues to confirm veracity of the less renown cases.

Name your top 3.

 

[Randall]

... It should be all about data and evidence, not beliefs, pseudo-science etc ... I don't see there's much chance of that happening in the so called UFO community as a whole, so in my opinion it would rather need at least some group that would really try to make it a matter of science and make a clean break from all that's not ...

There's two things. Reality, and the way people would like it to be. This is going to seem counterintuitive at first, but given the reality, it's a mistake to try to make ufology into a scientific field. There's a huge cultural aspect that's simply too wide to be mashed into the narrow confines of the scientific method. Not only that, but if we want to include the physical sciences, there simply isn't enough scientifically verifiable material evidence to work with. Not only that, but the vast amount of reference material has been created for the mass market. It's not scientific nor does most of it pretend to be. Therefore trying to make ufology into a science invites accusations of pseudoscience faster than anything.

The solution is therefore not to make any claims that ufology ( as a whole ) either is or should be scientific. It's not. It never will be. And therefore if we accept this and make no claim this it is scientific then nobody can accuse it of being a pseudoscience, and that's because a central part of the definition for pseudoscience is that whatever it is that's being labeled as such must make a claim to being scientific but fail to meet accepted standards of scientific research. So let's forget about ufology as science. There's another way.

Now here's the solution: Just because ufology isn't something that fits a scientific framework doesn't mean it can't fit an academic framework. In universities there are arts, history, politics, religious studies, literature, and areas of study like psychology that crossover to some extent. There's no reason ufology couldn't fit in there just fine without ruffling the feathers of those in the science faculty. However at the same time, by working alongside science in an academic fashion rather than competing with them on their own turf, ufology can benefit from a positive arm's length relationship with science.

When we need metal examined or an astronomical opinion about a case, then we can engage with real scientists and benefit from their expertise. Personally I see this as the bridge between guys like Tyson and ufology. Like he says, "smuggle out an alien ashtray. Then we'll have something to study." He's right about that. Don't push ufology onto science when we don't have the evidence needed to do the kind of science real scientists need to do their job. If we show them that respect and that we can behave in an academic manner, maybe that will get us some respect in return.

 

[Realm]

Speaking of MUFON and scientific research as was done earlier, I happened to find this blog by a former MUFON State Director, who has explained why he left that organization, and also his take on TTSA:

On July 22, 2017, a much more significant resignation was delivered to Jan Harzan. Robert Powell, the Director of Scientific Research resigned over extreme frustration with the direction of MUFON, especially as reflected in the selection of Corey Goode and Andrew Basiago as the lead speakers for the 2017 Symposium. More ominous still is that Powell’s position has not been filled. I wrote a blog entry that describes the significance of Robert Powell’s resignation titled “Science has left the building – The Historic MUFON 2017 Symposium and How the Show Must Go On” (Science has left the building – The Historic MUFON 2017 Symposium and How the Show Must Go On )

It is alarming enough that Robert Powell felt compelled to resign; anyone who cares about MUFON’s original mission should be in a state of total alarm. It’s not about the UFO Mystery; it’s all about Entertainment with a capital “E” and a dollar sign.

On a side note, what makes this history somewhat more bitter than sweet, Tom DeLonge, the former indie rocker of the group Blink-182 is scoring big dollars with his move to harness the general enthusiasm for alternative technology and ET Disclosure. DeLonge’s “Public Benefit Corporation,” called To the Stars is raising money via crowdfunding and currently has initially pulled in $265,605 from 535 investors. As of December 12, 2017, the website indicates that $ 2, 085, 953 has been raised from investors. Tom DeLonge keeps promising that the really great UFO stuff” will be released soon. With the To the Stars Academy Offering Circular dated September 29, 2017, page 24:

We are required to pay the DeLonge Parties royalties on gross sales ranging from 0.5 – 15% depending on the product category (see “Risk Factors”, “Liquidity and Capital Resources” and “Interest of Management and Others in Certain Transactions”). Mr. DeLonge has the right to approve any royalty granted to a third party in connection with a Licensed Product. If total royalty payments to the DeLonge Parties in any given calendar year fail to meet $100,000, we have agreed to pay any shortfall such that the annual minimum royalty paid to the DeLonge Parties will be $100,000.
...
Mr. DeLonge’s UFO-related business venture seems to be all about rebranding and repackaging the same old information. The recent flurry of news stories about UFOs captured on fighter jet gun camera film are old cases that have been declassified. DeLonge’s novel titled SEKRET MACHINES was co-authored. The plot line is entertaining but derivative of many other sci-fi novels. Just today there was a Facebook story in Spanish praising Tom DeLonge for revealing the truth about Roswell – it was Nazi aircraft technology flown awry. I totally disagree with this explanation, but I hope Annie Jacobsen and Nick Redfern sue DeLonge for stealing their ideas.

But we are in the age where all that matters are getting more “Likes” or a bigger Twitter following than the competition. Truth doesn’t matter. Only the glitter requires dazzling quality. It is all about Form; who cares about Substance?
A recent commentary in an aviation magazine pointed out that the UFO videos do not have time, date, or location. One of the pilots is heard to identify one of the alleged UFOs as a drone aircraft. It appears that 2 of the 3 alleged UFO videos have been on the Internet before. So, Mr. Tom DeLonge – “Where’s the beef?”

If you look at the backgrounds of the Team supposedly assembled and led by Tom DeLonge, you find careers with the CIA, DoD, Bigelow Aerospace, Lockheed Martin and other contractors in the field of intelligence, aerospace and national defense. The obvious questions are Who is leading who, and for what purpose?

So here we are as members of the UFO research community, faced with an aging rock star from a pop punk band, Blink 182, Tom DeLonge. He is now a self-proclaimed UFO research guru and he is leading us all to the promised land of government Disclosure because he is the only person bold enough to knock on the doors of top secret intelligence agencies in DC and persuade them to tell us everything they know because of his charisma and celebrity status. Many of the team members of the To the Stars Academy are “former” members of the CIA. This is the same agency that brought us MK Ultra and Project Northwoods among other evil projects. Add in the intimidation and threats made to Roswell witnesses, the deliberate psychological warfare directed against a defense contractor, Paul Bennewitz by the AFOSI, and a host of other instances of disinformation and just plain lies to taxpayers. Having this “Disclosure Team” show up center stage makes me worry what comes next; the UFO research community is like a battered woman whose abuser has just shown up at the door with champagne and flowers. Where are they hiding the Louisville Slugger?

2017 – Fleeing Corporate Ufology and Finding My Way

So according to that, MUFON seems to be in a similar state to TTSA. Don't know what he meant with that "It appears that 2 of the 3 alleged UFO videos have been on the Internet before". Does he mean the Gimbal clip was already available, or does he know the third yet unreleased one was?

 

[Hollywood Tomfortas]

Curly, is that you?

Soitenly!!!! Who’s askin’? Bob Bigelow? Soitenly!
Hey, Bob, let’s dance! Woo-woo-woo-woo-woo-woo-woo-wooh! Nyuk! Nyuk! Nyuk!

 

[Realm]

Now here's the solution: Just because ufology isn't something that fits a scientific framework doesn't mean it can't fit an academic framework. In universities there are arts, history, politics, religious studies, literature, and areas of study like psychology that crossover to some extent. There's no reason ufology couldn't fit in there just fine without ruffling the feathers of those in the science faculty. However at the same time, by working alongside science in an academic fashion rather than competing with them on their own turf, ufology can benefit from a positive arm's length relationship with science.

It is already within that framework in that sense, as part of or rather as a subject of research for folkloristics for example, alongside fairies and stuff. That doesn't really help.

I don't expect there would actually be a scientific field for it, or that such research would be done in universities, but if there's anything that is actually worth studying, it should be done in a scientific way. SETI has less significant data to study, but that doesn't prevent them from doing it that way. Doing it like that prevents them from deviating towards baseless beliefs and pseudosciences, which seems to be the biggest problem for ufology, and that could solve it.

Consider the Nimitz case for example. Does it have something of significance that can't be investigated in a scientific way?

 

[Constance]

Problem #1 ... UFO lands. UFO is seen by one person. UFO leaves. There is nothing tangible left for scientists to study.

Problem #2 ... UFO landed this evening 1,000 miles from where you live and it was reported to call center. You want to go and take witness statements, take samples, do photos, take instruments and do measurements, BUT: doing it on a professional level, as scientists do, will require a budget of $2,000. There are at least 10 sightings every year assigned to you, so you are out of a pocket $20,000.

In short, there is no way to study UFOs scientifically, without big money. Scientific research is mega expensive, but nobody will give you a penny. All you will hear is: "We need money for more promising projects".

Solution #1 ... Start entertainment company >> make money >> use money to do scientific research.

Solution #2 ... go to forums and beat whole subject to death with other people who want to dig deeper. Keep complaining that presented information is ambiguous and non-scientific.

Excellent post, @DROBNJAK. So are the pages of links to research papers at the Paracast thread you linked:

List of Technical Papers Related to UFOs and Electro Magnetism

and

List of Technical Papers Related to UFOs and Electro Magnetism

Two additional articles by Bruce Maccabee are essential reading for those yet unlettered in ufo history and research: "Science in Default" and "Science Still in Default." Also essential are the proceedings of the Congressional Hearings on Ufos sponsored by Gerald Ford in the 1960s and in particular the testimony -- and other ufo research -- done by James McDonald. All of these individuals are scientists -- and not the only ones -- that have engaged in scientific research regarding ufos.

Why have there not been more? Why is the subject off-limits for academic scientists? Why are they unable to obtain grants to undertake such research; why can they not find publication for their research in mainstream scientific journals? Why, if they pursue such research and fail to get it published, do they fail in promotion and tenure, losing their academic livlihoods. @Realm tells a 'just-so' story that civilian research concerning ufos has so 'tainted' the subject matter that scientists are justified in ignoring the subject altogether. @Realm doesn't understand, apparently because he hasn't read, the CIA's Robertson Panel's recommendations in the early 1950s that effectively discouraged scientific research into ufos and recommended a general governmental policy of ridicule toward those reporting ufo sightings and encounters and thus toward the entire subject matter. @Realm evidently has a lot to learn about the 70-year history of the modern ufo phenomenon and its suppression in this country, and he might well begin his education by reading all the material that @DROBNJAK has linked in this forum.


ETA: @DROBNJAK added a third list of relevant publications following the second post linked above, and appended a link to a website providing additional linked research at

UFO Studies, Research Papers and Books

NOTE: The rest of the thread following @DROBNJAK'S links to scientific research on ufos adds references to further relevant studies.

 

[Constance]

There's two things. Reality, and the way people would like it to be. This is going to seem counterintuitive at first, but given the reality, it's a mistake to try to make ufology into a scientific field. There's a huge cultural aspect that's simply too wide to be mashed into the narrow confines of the scientific method. Not only that, but if we want to include the physical sciences, there simply isn't enough scientifically verifiable material evidence to work with. Not only that, but the vast amount of reference material has been created for the mass market. It's not scientific nor does most of it pretend to be. Therefore trying to make ufology into a science invites accusations of pseudoscience faster than anything.

The solution is therefore not to make any claims that ufology ( as a whole ) either is or should be scientific. It's not. It never will be. And therefore if we accept this and make no claim this it is scientific then nobody can accuse it of being a pseudoscience, and that's because a central part of the definition for pseudoscience is that whatever it is that's being labeled as such must make a claim to being scientific but fail to meet accepted standards of scientific research. So let's forget about ufology as science. There's another way.

Now here's the solution: Just because ufology isn't something that fits a scientific framework doesn't mean it can't fit an academic framework. In universities there are arts, history, politics, religious studies, literature, and areas of study like psychology that crossover to some extent. There's no reason ufology couldn't fit in there just fine without ruffling the feathers of those in the science faculty. However at the same time, by working alongside science in an academic fashion rather than competing with them on their own turf, ufology can benefit from a positive arm's length relationship with science.

When we need metal examined or an astronomical opinion about a case, then we can engage with real scientists and benefit from their expertise. Personally I see this as the bridge between guys like Tyson and ufology. Like he says, "smuggle out an alien ashtray. Then we'll have something to study." He's right about that. Don't push ufology onto science when we don't have the evidence needed to do the kind of science real scientists need to do their job. If we show them that respect and that we can behave in an academic manner, maybe that will get us some respect in return.

I have to disagree with your point of view here, Randall. If some ufos represent physical and technologically advanced phenomena [and we of course have significant evidence that they do], these should/must be investigated by physicists. If they also at times, in close encounters, produce physiological and psychological effects in humans (and other animals), these too should be investigated by scientists in those disciplines. If the US were a more mature society than it is in our time, especially given the influence of pop culture notions spread widely by the internet among a generally not-well-educated population, we would not currently be so far behind a half-dozen or more countries in dealing with this subject in an open and rational way. The French, for example, confronted the US government with this charge in the COMETA Report.

 

[Randall]

I have to disagree with your point of view here, Randall. If some ufos represent physical and technologically advanced phenomena [and we of course have significant evidence that they do], these should/must be investigated by physicists.

Then we don't disagree at all because we're saying the same thing. Have physicists, metallurgists, engineers, and other real scientists do the analysis not ufologists. I'd even go a step further and recommend that no scientist/ufologists be involved other than to provide the background details. Independent scientific analysis at arms length from ufology will always be considered more bias free, and therefore more reliable.

If they also at times, in close encounters, produce physiological and psychological effects in humans (and other animals), these too should be investigated by scientists in those disciplines. If the US were a more mature society than it is in our time, especially given the influence of pop culture notions spread widely by the internet among a generally not-well-educated population, we would not currently be so far behind a half-dozen or more countries in dealing with this subject in an open and rational way. The French, for example, confronted the US government with this charge in the COMETA Report.

Same response again. In no way do I think that science shouldn't be applied to the field when it can be done by real and independent scientists. As soon as you get ufologists trying to do science, you're just throwing blood in the water and inviting the skeptisharks in for a feeding frenzy.

 

[Randall]

It is already within that framework in that sense, as part of or rather as a subject of research for folkloristics for example, alongside fairies and stuff. That doesn't really help.

I don't expect there would actually be a scientific field for it, or that such research would be done in universities, but if there's anything that is actually worth studying, it should be done in a scientific way. SETI has less significant data to study, but that doesn't prevent them from doing it that way. Doing it like that prevents them from deviating towards baseless beliefs and pseudosciences, which seems to be the biggest problem for ufology, and that could solve it.

Consider the Nimitz case for example. Does it have something of significance that can't be investigated in a scientific way?

Sure, there are all sorts of aspects of the Nimitz case that can be considered separate from whatever science might be applied. There's the sociopolitical ramifications of disclosure ( just for a start ). There's also the cultural associations. Psychology is a bit of a crossover where sciences are concerned, but it's a factor as well. Then there's the media, and that in-turn involves journalism, arts, and so on. That's all part of ufology. Ufology has a much larger scope than just the study of scientifically relevant evidence. Even the pilot testimony isn't "hard science".

 

[Realm]

I tried to delete the post above because I hadn't finished it, but the Paracast software won't let me delete it.

Most likely related to what happened on my browser which had this page open as a background tab. It showed an unfinished response as if I had been writing it, and your username at the top as if I was you. After a reload I was me again. I also logged out and back in just in case it was somehow messed up.

Seems like a pretty serious security&privacy issue. Wasn't something like this discussed here some time ago? Apparently still not fixed.

 

[Randall]

Most likely related to what happened on my browser which had this page open as a background tab. It showed an unfinished response as if I had been writing it, and your username at the top as if I was you. After a reload I was me again. I also logged out and back in just in case it was somehow messed up.

Seems like a pretty serious security&privacy issue. Wasn't something like this discussed here some time ago? Apparently still not fixed.

Same thing has happened to Han, Murduk and I.

 

[Constance]

Then we don't disagree at all because we're saying the same thing. Have physicists, metallurgists, engineers, and other real scientists do the analysis not ufologists. I'd even go a step further and recommend that no scientist/ufologists be involved other than to provide the background details. Independent scientific analysis at arms length from ufology will always be considered more bias free, and therefore more reliable.

Same response again. In no way do I think that science shouldn't be applied to the field when it can be done by real and independent scientists. As soon as you get ufologists trying to do science, you're just throwing blood in the water and inviting the skeptisharks in for a feeding frenzy.

I still disagree, and I don't get what it is you think 'ufology' ought to be. At some point expert interdisciplinary research must merge to provide a coherent answer to the question 'what are ufos?' and what should we be prepared for? Surely you're aware that that question was posed early on, in the late 1940s and early 1950s, by think tanks [Rand and Batelle] employed by the US government to provide some preliminary guidance concerning how the ufo phenomena should be 'dealt with' in public terms. So far the US government has completely failed to respond rationally and responsibly to the public's need and right to know as much as possible about the situation. Also, I think it's obvious that civilian ufo researchers and research organizations had to step in to attempt to answer the questions raised in public consciousness by the persistent phenomena we are talking about and which are still showing up near and at times on earth. Those are the individuals and organizations that have provided us with the historical databases we need in order to fully recognize the reality that has confronted us for the last 70 years.

In short, it's past time for scientists -- public and private, the latter working in black MIC compartments -- to support the creditable research undertaken for decades by civilian researchers, without which we would not know what we presently know, and without which we would have lost seven decades of accumulated historical evidence concerning the ufo phenomena.

 

[DROBNJAK]

Speaking of MUFON and scientific research as was done earlier, I happened to find this blog by a former MUFON State Director, who has explained why he left that organization, and also his take on TTSA:

2017 – Fleeing Corporate Ufology and Finding My Way

So according to that, MUFON seems to be in a similar state to TTSA. Don't know what he meant with that "It appears that 2 of the 3 alleged UFO videos have been on the Internet before". Does he mean the Gimbal clip was already available, or does he know the third yet unreleased one was?

I am saddened to read this. I held MUFON and Jane Harzan in high regard.

Spending all the money they earn on MUFON director's salary is pathetic. I thought he's volunteer like everybody else. After reading 'small print' it seems that both MUFON and TTSA committed to creating a cultural context in which UFO forensics is always going to be greeted with general ridicule.

No money for even most primitive scientific method, means no credible UFO forensics. We had a lucky strike with Ray Stanford and that was it.

 

[Randall]

I still disagree ...

If we both think science should be applied to ufology when it can be done properly by real scientists, then I'm not clear on what it is you disagree with.

... and I don't get what it is you think 'ufology' ought to be.

It's not so much about what I think ufology ought to be. It's about what it actually is. You can read about that in the link in my signature line below. What I would like to see is a greater academic acceptance of ufology, and the best way I see to gain that acceptance isn't by pushing it as science ( because it's not ), but simply as a field worthy of academic study, perhaps under the umbrella of the Humanities.

 

[Randall]

I am saddened to read this. I held MUFON and Jane Harzan in high regard. Spending all money they earn on MUFON director's salary is pathetic. I thought he's volunteer like everybody else.

And now you're starting to get the picture. Whenever there's that sort of structure, that's what you get, plus insider favors, like so and so is friends with the guy who publishes the newsletter, or the people who have the property for the offices, or whatever the case is. That's not to say there aren't certain realities to running an organization and that people shouldn't be paid if there's a budget, but there's always these sorts of issues. It's never black and white. There's always areas of grey and some are shadier than others.

 

[Thomas R Morrison]

If we both think science should be applied to ufology when it can be done properly by real scientists, then I'm not clear on what it is you disagree with.

Then:

It's not so much about what I think ufology ought to be. It's about what it actually is. You can read about that in the link in my signature line below. What I would like to see is a greater academic acceptance of ufology, and the best way I see to gain that acceptance isn't by pushing it as science ( because it's not ), but simply as a field worthy of academic study, perhaps under the umbrella of the Humanities.

These are two diametrically opposed suggestions: if ufology is to be studied scientifically, then it's a science, not some branch of the humanities (which makes zero sense to me).

We're trying to understand advanced physical technology that operates in our airspace from time to time - that's a scientific issue, which merits proper scientific study (just like tornadoes, ball lightning, meteors, sprites, and everything else that happens in the atmosphere). For god's sake leave the philosophers and the contrarians and the shoe-gazers out of it. We know how to go about understanding anomalous physical enigmas, and the AATIP went about it properly, as far as I can tell from what little we've heard so far: data collection and analysis, and even trace evidence analysis whenever possible. That's how to define the parameters of the subject, and begin to formulate viable phenomenological explanations. Once we've scientifically established that we are in fact being visited by alien devices, and have a theoretical understanding of the physics involved, then the philosophers and sociologists and psychologists and historians can write about the meaning of it all until the cow's come home. But for now, when the proper scientific methodology has yet to be applied, and reached an analytical conclusion, all those folks are doing is muddying the water and making the whole topic so unsavory and contentious that the scientific community is mostly appalled with the whole subject. Right now ufology is its own worst enemy.

I think the right way to go about this would be the formation of new and reputable scientific journal dedicated to this topic, so that quality scientific analyses can be peer-reviewed and published just like any other scientific subject. There's an Astrobiology journal; there needs to be an Astrotechnology journal, or something along those lines, for the study of advanced technology in our skies.

The major problem with this is simple: we don't have access to the technology required to study this subject, and therefore, scientists can't analyze it effectively. That's why I favor the crowd-funded national passive radar network concept - it would be the first scientific technology that can actually collect precise publicly available data on anomalous events in the sky, and scientists could analyze that data and write papers about their findings. And perhaps we could launch a network of CubeSats to collect additional data in other spectra. But the thing that would really put us on target for settling the issue, requires a small fleet of custom-outfitted jet interceptors armed to the gills with a wide array of scientific instrumentation, so that in those rare cases like the Nimitz case, we could get up there and collect volumes of diverse precision data from these objects at a minimum distance. Unfortunately I can only see the military as the right partner for a project like that, and I think it would take a Congressional order to get them on board with it. In theory, that shouldn't be a big deal. But in practice, Congress hasn't represented the will of the American people for decades, if ever.

 

[Randall]

These are two diametrically opposed suggestions: if ufology is to be studied scientifically, then it's a science, not some branch of the humanities (which makes zero sense to me).

Applying science to the field when and where it's realistically possible is entirely different than calling ufology a science unto itself. It's not. It never will be because there's too much about it that isn't "scientific". There are numerous examples in the humanities where science is applied, like in the formulation of glazes for ceramics, or pigments for paints, or lighting for theatrical presentations, but that doesn't make the arts into science. Hope that helps clear things up there.

We're trying to understand advanced physical technology that operates in our airspace from time to time - that's a scientific issue, which merits proper scientific study (just like tornadoes, ball lightning, meteors, sprites, and everything else that happens in the atmosphere). For god's sake leave the philosophers and the contrarians and the shoe-gazers out of it. We know how to go about understanding anomalous physical enigmas, and the AATIP went about it properly, as far as I can tell from what little we've heard so far: data collection and analysis, and even trace evidence analysis whenever possible. That's how to define the parameters of the subject, and begin to formulate viable phenomenological explanations. Once we've scientifically established that we are in fact being visited by alien devices, and have a theoretical understanding of the physics involved, then the philosophers and sociologists and psychologists and historians can write about the meaning of it all until the cow's come home. But for now, when the proper scientific methodology has yet to be applied, and reached an analytical conclusion, all those folks are doing is muddying the water and making the whole topic so unsavory and contentious that the scientific community is mostly appalled with the whole subject. Right now ufology is its own worst enemy.

Sure, that's all fine.

I think the right way to go about this would be the formation of new and reputable scientific journal dedicated to this topic, so that quality scientific analyses can be peer-reviewed and published just like any other scientific subject. There's an Astrobiology journal; there needs to be an Astrotechnology journal, or something along those lines, for the study of advanced technology in our skies.

There's a difference between doing science and reporting on science. I have no problem with ufologists working at arm's length with real scientists and then publishing actual scientific findings.

The major problem with this is simple: we don't have access to the technology required to study this subject, and therefore, scientists can't analyze it effectively. That's why I favor the crowd-funded national passive radar network concept - it would be the first scientific technology that can actually collect precise publicly available data on anomalous events in the sky, and scientists could analyze that data and write papers about their findings. And perhaps we could launch a network of CubeSats to collect additional data in other spectra. But the thing that would really put us on target for settling the issue, requires a small fleet of custom-outfitted jet interceptors armed to the gills with a wide array of scientific instrumentation, so that in those rare cases like the Nimitz case, we could get up there and collect volumes of diverse precision data from these objects at a minimum distance. Unfortunately I can only see the military as the right partner for a project like that, and I think it would take a Congressional order to get them on board with it. In theory, that shouldn't be a big deal. But in practice, Congress hasn't represented the will of the American people for decades, if ever.

You seem to have all that in perspective.

 

[Thomas R Morrison]

Applying science to the field when and where it's realistically possible is entirely different than calling ufology a science unto itself. It's not. It never will be because there's too much about it that isn't "scientific". There are numerous examples in the humanities where science is applied, like in the formulation of glazes for ceramics, or pigments for paints, or lighting for theatrical presentations, but that doesn't make the arts into science. Hope that helps clear things up there.

But ufology isn't an art in any sense of the word: we're dealing with a physical phenomenon, and trying to understand it. There's nothing "humanities" about that. We're dealing with physics, astrobiology, the dynamics and prevalence of technological alien civilizations, and as-yet-unformed new disciplines like xenotechnology. All of that stuff is scientific. I can't see anything useful that the humanities could offer ufology at this point. Greg Bishop and Burnt State want to make this into a psychological subject, but I think that's totally wrong-headed and counterproductive - we didn't learn anything about tornadoes or ball lightning by studying the minds of the people who reported them - they're physical phenomena. This has nothing to do with psychology or the humanities; it's a scientific matter, at least at this point. Once a scientific consensus has been reached that we're actually observing alien technology in our skies, then we can talk about first contact protocols and the sociological ramifications and so forth.