Are UFO's worthy of scientific study ?

[steve2470]

Poll question: Are UFO's worthy of scientific study ?

This thread motivated this poll: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1838728

[gateley]

1. I'd say yes if they had anything to study, but I don't think they do. nt

[Lucinda]

2. Yup.

[1620rock]

3. ...well something is going on, lets find out what.

[Angry Dragon]

4. I have my tinfoil, I am all set..............

[ZombieHorde]

5. No, because there is nothing to study.

Eye witness testimony may be interesting, but it will not help identify flying objects.

A sociologist may find worth studying those who believe they have seen UFOs, but that is a different subject.

There are no variables to isolate, and as far as I know, there is no testable theory.

I hope those who vote "Yes" will explain how UFOs can be scientifically studied.

[steve2470]

6. Good points, thanks

It's been too long since my last science course.

Maybe data collection and verification is all we can hope for, at this time.

[roguevalley]

27. there was a time when no one undersstood that germs existed but

they studied the idea and found out it was true. Part of the joy of science is posing a theory and going after it. Start with the known and go to the unknowns that are known and the unknowns that are known ... I support looiking.

[ZombieHorde]

29. Germs were discovered because of the microscope.

We knew nothing about them before that.

[miyazaki]

36. Ya, not so much as to what is happening in outer space as

to what's happening in "inner space". Sagan mentioned something along these
lines with the UFO peeps.

[MilesColtrane]

7. I'd say the UFO phenomenon is worthy of study solely from the psychological aspect alone, until...

someone can come up with any actual physical evidence.

Then there'd really be something to investigate.

[Hugabear]

8. About as much scientific study as ghosts, Bigfoot, and ESP

It's possible that all of the above exist. But until there is solid proof of any of their existence, then I would have to say that none of the above are worthy of serious scientific study.

Besides, as one poster has already pointed out, how do you study something that you can't quantify. It's not as if we can subject UFO's to the scientific process.

[KILL THE WISE ONE]

9. Why not ? Apparently they think we are worthy of observation.

[ZombieHorde]

13. Because we have nothing to study. If something unusual falls from the sky,

then I think we should study that thing.

[napoleon_in_rags]

10. If you're the Air Force they damn well are.

So much of the good footage in recent years has "weird science experiment in the sky" written all over it. I sleep better at night knowing the Air Force is keeping tabs on this kind of thing.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

11. not at this time. it is pretty low on my list of priorities, this makes me sad

because space needs to studied in all forms and possiblitities but, at this point in time, I feel that our nation, our world, needs immediate attention. In a few years when we get back on track then, yes. study UFOs.

[The Traveler]

12. There is physical evidence

But it is not in my view not **conclusive** physical evidence. (That is, it is evidence that is not contradictory with the little green man hypothesis, but is not sufficient to eliminate other alternative hypotheses of a more conventional sort. Trivia question: In strict application of the scientific method, does experiment ever PROVE a hypothesis?)

I suspect the label "UFO" actually covers a range of phenomena, including psychological processes, military experiments, physical and natural phenomena we haven't catalogued well yet, and (possibly) extra-terrestrial activity. Sure, we have no conclusive evidence of the latter speculation ... but as Carl Sagan once observed (in this case, supporting the belief that cognitive science would some day be able to reduce all human experience to brain chemistry and such) "Absence of evidence does not indicate evidence of absence."

So I hang a huge question mark over the whole subject and just admit: I don't know. Haven't a real substantial clue. It's an entirely open matter in my view. So, yeah. it probably is worth continued investigation.

Answer to trivia question: According to the scientific method, experiment never proves a hypothesis. Rather, experiment can at most REJECT a hypothesis.

This distinction is, it seems to me, relevant to the topic.

Trav

[ZombieHorde]

14. What sort of physical evidence do we have? nt

[The Traveler]

15. Artifacts

Fragments of metal. Strange small objects withdrawn from the sinuses of alleged abduction victims. Radar tracks. Photographs. Stuff like that. Nothing that cannot be explained away.

So while there is supportive physical evidence, it is not of the sort that conclusively proves the "little green man" hypothesis. Ultimately, that question cannot be decided by experiment ... there is no test we can perform to reject the hypothesis ... the question remains open until experiment can disprove the hypothesis (conceptually difficult/unlikely) , or further discovery produces fact that renders the hypothesis moot.

[ZombieHorde]

17. What sort of nose objects? I assume you don't mean Legos and peas

up a child's nose.

[FSogol]

21. Alien boogers!

:shrug: or maybe :rofl:

[no limit]

19. When you say there is physical evidence in the subject

then don't list any actualy physical evidence in the message itself it's pretty clear that no actual physical evidence exists.

I did see your post below that about strange objects and such but again you didn't give any actual examples or any kind of detail.

[MineralMan]

16. Other: As soon as there is a physical UFO to study, then

it would be worthy of study. No such thing exists, apparently, so there is really nothing to study.

[kickysnana]

18. UFO= unidentified flying object.

We do need to know what is in our skies. So yes. If you are talking about space ships I will leave that to the volunteers until we get people fed, in homes, educated and jobs.

[AlecBGreen]

20. if you have Netflix, this is fun to watch

http://www.amazon.com/Dan-Aykroyd-Unplugged-UFOs/dp/B000EU1Q0Y

(sorry for no direct link, NF is blocked @ my work)

Dan is a smart guy. If the videos are real, lots to think about. Coincidentally, while living abroad, I saw a UFO (not saying it was a spaceship, just an Unidentified Flying Object). 6 years later I watched this movie and a recording of the same UFO was featured on it. Very cool.

[Phoonzang]

22. Notice the difference between comments and votes...

B-)

[Fantastic Anarchist]

23. Yes, of course. n/t

[Orsino]

24. Yeah, if only to put the matter to rest.

No, a thorough debunking is certainly not going to do much to dissuade the True Believers, but it might free up some time for the rest of us. ;-)

If there were a really good case with lots of evidence--and I don't think there has been--I would definitely want scrupulous examination. If there were such a case, however, I doubt I'd have to ask.

It's just that there is very little in the way of physical evidence for a scientific study to analyze. Anecdotes don't carry much weight with me, though I would really, really like to learn how so many people come to be so deluded.

[LongTomH]

25. Other countries have sponsored ongoing studies of UFOs

The most usually cited is GEIPAN, which functions under the French space agency: CNES. GEIPAN was originally established as GEPAN in 1977; it's operated under different acronyms through the years, from 1988 to 2004, it was called SEPRA.

Quoting from the Wikipedia entry on GEIPAN:

The French Gendarmerie was instructed to channel data from reports of UFO sightings to SEPRA (GEIPAN), which therefore was in a position to draw on a large database of such events. In cases where physical traces appeared to be present, SEPRA could call on the technical resources of CNES to perform a thorough scientific investigation. A famous example of such an investigation was in the Trans-en-Provence Case.

[sudopod]

26. What I don't get is why a civilization that can harness the fantastic power required to cross

the gaps between the stars would come here, to a rocky world orbiting a middling star in of a galaxy of a hundred billion suns, a structure so vast that it takes light itself a hundred thousand years to cross its whole width, in order to stick things in our butts. I find it hard to fathom what could be that interesting up in there.

[FiveGoodMen]

28. Exactly.

There's probably other life out there.

Some of it may well be intelligent.

But if they're so far ahead of us that they can get here from there, they don't need to be afraid of us and they must surely have better things to do than bugger a few farmers, torture a few cows, and play Spirograph in our wheat fields.

[struggle4progress]

30. Sure: if at first you can't identify a flying object, it's worthwhile to keep trying. With luck,

you get better with time, and so become less likely to confuse the moon with a Russian ICBM attack or a lenticular cloud with an invasion from Mars

[Bosonic]

31. I'd say yes

Any way you look at it { actual aliens / unknown physical processes / mass delusion / mass disinformation } it's still interesting and potentially useful research.

[frogmarch]

32. Yes

There are some reputable scientists who'd answer yes too.

http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_02_2_henry.pdf

The link is to a NASA Invited Essay called UFOs and NASA by Richard C. Henry.

Here’s a link to info about Richard C. Henry.

http://www.cosmosportal.org/resources/view/137290/

snip:

Brief Biographical Sketch
Richard C. Henry is a Professor in the Henry A. Rowland Department of Physics and Astronomy at The Johns Hopkins University, where he is also Director of Maryland Space Grant Consortium, a member of the Principal Professional Staff, Johns HopkinsApplied Physics Laboratory; and a member of the JHU Center for Astrophysical Sciences.

Since 1991, Dick has also served as Director, Maryland Space Grant Consortium Observatory, which is located atop the Bloomberg Center for Physics and Astronomy, and which houses the Morris W. Offit telescope, a fine half-meter reflector.

Dick is also a Co-Director of the Goddard Space Flight Center NASA Academy.

From 1998 until July 2000, Dick Henry was Chair of the National Council of Space Grant Directors, and, from its creation in 1991 until 2006 December 31, he served as Board Member and Treasurer of the National Space Grant Foundation.

He is currently a Director of the National Space Grant Alliance, a 501(c)(4) organization.

From 1976 to 1978 he was Deputy Director of the Astrophysics Division of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, NASA.

He is a past Alfred P. Sloan Foundation Fellow.

~~

Richard C. Henry is a reputable astrophysicist who supports UFO research. He’s not alone among reputable scientists who do.

I consider myself a skeptic when it comes to UFOs, but it pisses me off when people dismiss all UFO reports as hoaxes or cases of mistaken identity and heap ridicule on those who entertain the possibility that some UFOs could be extraterrestrial in origin.

[frogmarch]

33. More from scientists:

http://www.freedomofinfo.org/science/science_research.pdf

snips:


On July 29, 1968 the House Science and Astronautics Committee heard the testimony of Dr. James E.
McDonald, senior physicist of the Institute of Atmospheric Physics and Professor of Meteorology at the
University of Arizona. A respected authority and leader in the field of atmospheric physics, McDonald had
authored highly technical papers for professional journals. He spent two years examining formerly classified
official file material and radar tracking data on UFOs; interviewing several hundred witnesses; and conducting
in-depth case investigations, details of which were provided to the Committee.

McDonald told the Committee that, “no other problem within your jurisdiction is of comparable scientific and
national importance … the scientific community, not only in this country but throughout the world, has been
casually ignoring as nonsense a matter of extraordinary scientific importance.

Computer scientist and astrophysicist Jacques Vallee, who has traveled the world studying the UFO
problem for decades and was a close associate of {J. Allen} Hynek, points out that a key problem is that scientists
need journals and “unbiased venues” other than JSE {Journal of Scientific Exploration} to debate this increasingly deep and complex
problem. “New radical hypotheses may be needed to study the problem, beyond the limited
polarization between skepticism and belief in ‘extraterrestrials,’” he says.

Dr. Bernard Haisch, Director of the California Institute for Physics and Astrophysics and author of
over a hundred published papers, agrees. “I propose that true skepticism is called for today: neither the
gullible acceptance of true belief nor the closed-minded rejection of the scoffer masquerading as the
skeptic.” Haisch was the editor of the JSE for twelve years. “Any scientist who has not read a few
serious books and articles presenting actual UFO evidence should out of intellectual honesty refrain
from making scientific pronouncements,” he says. “To look at the evidence and go away unconvinced
is one thing. To not look at the evidence and be convinced against it nonetheless is another. That is not
science. Do your homework!”
~~

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.

http://www.hyper.net/ufo/literature.html

~~

J. Allen Hynek bio at wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Allen_Hynek

snips:

He is perhaps best remembered for his UFO research. Hynek acted as scientific adviser to UFO studies undertaken by the U.S. Air Force under three consecutive names: Project Sign (1947–1949), Project Grudge (1949–1952), and Project Blue Book (1952 to 1969). For decades afterwards, he conducted his own independent UFO research, and is widely considered the father of the concept of scientific analysis of both reports and, especially, trace evidence purportedly left by UFOs.

Hynek developed in his first book the close encounter scale to better catalogue various UFO reports. Dr. Hynek was also the consultant to Columbia Pictures and Steven Spielberg on the popular 1977 UFO movie, Close Encounters of the Third Kind, and made a brief, non-speaking appearance in the film (after the aliens disembark from the 'mother ship' at the end of the film, he can be seen, bearded and with pipe in mouth, stepping forward to view the spectacle).

~~

[Phoonzang]

34. I don't know how someone could watch the documentary linked to

in the OP (or read the Leslie Kean's book) and not think there's something worth studying. We're not talking about Skeeter and Joe Bob seeing a light in a cornfield here. We're talking multiple witnesses (military, police, pilots, etc.) seeing the same thing from different angles and having it corroborated by radar. I do find it hilarious that the military dropped flares hours after the Phoenix sightings (in the wrong place) in what looks like an attempt to cover up or confuse things.

98+ percent of sightings are no doubt mis-identifications, but there's enough evidence that, at least a few times in the last 60 years, there have been physical objects that appear intelligently constructed and designed flying around in our atmosphere. Maybe it's not aliens, but it seems hard to believe that the US government is flying objects the size of 3 aircraft carriers over population centers for no reason. I mean we can't even build next generation fighter jets, design a new rocket to take us to low Earth orbit, or fix our crumbling infrastructure.

[frogmarch]

35. I don't either. It needs to be looked at.

1985 interview with J. Allen Hynek

(astronomer and scientific adviser to Project Blue Book)

http://www.cufon.org/cufon/hynekint.htm

Excerpts:

INTERVIEWER: Was there ever any direct pressure applied by the Air Force itself for you to come up with a conventional explanation to these phenomena {UFO}?

HYNEK:There was an implied pressure, yes, very definitely. As an astronomer and physicist, I simply felt a priori that everything had to have a natural explanation in this world. There were no ifs, ands or buts about it. The ones I couldn't solve, I thought if we just tried harder, had a really proper investigation, that we probably would find as answer for. My batting average was about 80 percent and I figured that anytime you were hitting that high, you were doing pretty good. That left about 20 percent unsolved for me, but only about three or four percent for the Air Force, because they used statistics in a way I would never have allowed for myself. For example, cases labeled as insufficient information they would consider solved! They also had some other little tricks. If a light were seen, they would say, "aircraft have lights, therefore, probable aircraft." Then, at the end of the year, when the statistics were made up, they would drop the "possible" or "probable" and simply call it aircraft.

INTERVIEWER: What began to change your own perception of the phenomenon?

HYNEK:Two things, really. One was the completely negative and unyielding attitude of the Air Force. They wouldn't give UFOs the chance of existing, even if they were flying up and down the street in broad daylight. Everything had to have as explanation. I began to resent that, even though I basically felt the same way, because I still thought they weren't going about it in the right way. You can't assume that everything is black no matter what. Secondly, the caliber of the witnesses began to trouble me. Quite a few instances were reported by military pilots, for example, and I knew them to be fairly well-trained, so this is when I first began to think that, well, maybe there something to all this. The famous "swamp gas" case which came later on finally pushed me over the edge. From that point on, I began to look at reports from a different angle, which was to say that some of them could be true UFOs.

~~

[Thor_MN]

37. -Scientific, yes. The crap on cable TV does not count.