NASA to start UFO investigations...

[DaviiB 104]

 

2 hours ago, martin-w said:

 

And this is coming from a computer scientist who still has no definitive answerers after 60 years. 🙂 My opinion as to what's really required in last reply.

Science is missing lots of things. Its a work in progress. Its always our "current understanding". We don't know what 95% of the universe is made of, although we have a few ideas like MOND for dark matter. But science is the best tool we have currently, far better than guessing or accepting flimsy data, or unreliable witness testimony, or stuff that's that's barely evidence, or what witnesses said, or what something "appeared" to be doing, or what Vallee thinks it "might" be. If we worked on that basis we would be believing Thor, the Greek gods, the Roman gods, fairies at the bottom of the garden, all such things were real. 

Something those biased for the alien visitation, or exotic expiation say is, "well witness testimony is accepted in a court of law". 😁 Not a good argument when thousands of people are wrongly convicted, world wide, every year.

It's not the opinion of one scientist. There are many scientists, with varied and distinguished backgrounds, who have been working on this for quite some time.

 

3 hours ago, martin-w said:

 

 We need multipipe scientific research teams across the globe, the worlds talented scientists, multitude of peer reviewed research. That's not happening because the world most talented scientists and research teams are too busy trying to figure out what dark energy is and dark matter and formulate a quantum theory of gravity etc. They aren't interested in flying saucers. One day it may change and we may get some answers.

https://www.wired.com/story/jacques-vallee-still-doesnt-know-what-ufos-are/

You're making an assumption here that the scientists and researchers who've been looking at the UFO phenomenon are not 'talented'....and haven't applied the "proper" scientific method. That's a bit disingenuous if you haven't actually taken a look at it.

Quantum leaps in scientific understanding don't always (I'd argue rarely) come from mainstream science. They come from the "fringes". Einstein's theory of General Relativity was once ridiculed as "totally impractical and absurd" by mainstream science because it contradicted the "mainstream" accepted theories at the time. Mainstream science often behaves like a religion, even though it's meant to be the opposite.

 

I agree that Science is probably our best chance to "get to the bottom of this", but at the same time I'm pointing out that science has been befuddled by the subject for a very long time. Directing the full might of civilian scientific capability at this subject (at this time) may very well be the equivalent of trying to measure EM Waves with a super-accurate measuring stick. Well intentioned, but ultimately useless.

If we are, in fact, dealing with something well beyond our current mainstream understanding (physics / nature of the universe etc.), then it would make perfect sense that scientific scrutiny of the subject would come up with more questions than answers.  And it has.

Approaching the deep end here: Heck, any "answers" may even have to come from outside of mainstream science (the "fringes" I guess?), until science has a chance to catch up. The difference would be: The fringes will give you the "What" and maybe even a "Why", then when Science catches up, you'll get the "How".  I'll back off from the deep end now....

 

DB

[birdguy 3,943]

8 hours ago, Fielder said:

Edited because the German leader's real name is not allowed in the forum

I checked the internet and there are still many people who use the name since it's a common German family name that dates back to the 1700s.  Many people have changed it, but some have not.  There are also similar names with just and extra 't' in the center or 'utt' instead if an 'it'.

While reading the references I came across one that said an Adolph (name not allowed) was a staff sergeant in US Army during WW2.  When asked why he didn't change it he said, "Let the other guy change his."

I find it odd that if any of those people were flight simmers they would not be allowed to use their real names here.

Noel

[martin-w 3,234]

2 hours ago, DaviiB said:

It's not the opinion of one scientist. There are many scientists, with varied and distinguished backgrounds, who have been working on this for quite some time.

 

I didn't say it was one scientist. But its not numerous research teams across the globe comprised of highly talented scientists generating numerous peer reviewed papers that replicate each others work and conclusion is it. To generate reasonable results that is what we need, the same approach that's applied to other research, like studying quantum gravity and dark energy and dark mater and the W Boson mystery. We also need to ask what kind of scientists they are, computer scientists like Vallee might not be the right choice. 

 

2 hours ago, DaviiB said:

You're making an assumption here that the scientists and researchers who've been looking at the UFO phenomenon are not 'talented'....and haven't applied the "proper" scientific method. That's a bit disingenuous if you haven't actually taken a look at it.

 

You told me they were doing it in secret, so I cant can I? Unless you'd like to list who these people are, how many there are, how many peer reviewed, replicated papers there are, what other teams have verified the results. I didn't say they hadn't applied the proper scientific method, I said numerous research teams are required all generating research that can be verified, replicated. Not the minimal number of scientists  (including your secretive scientists) that may have currently taken a look. 

 

2 hours ago, DaviiB said:

Einstein's theory of General Relativity was once ridiculed as "totally impractical and absurd" by mainstream science because it contradicted the "mainstream" accepted theories at the time

 

Not ridiculed, criticised, challenged, forced to prove its worth, That's how science works and should work. You can't just accept a theory as fact, numerous other scientific research teams need to do the work to replicate the results. And that's precisely what has happened with General Relativity and Special Relativity. And that's what needs top happen with these "secretive" scientists doing research you talk about. When their work, whatever it may be, is replicated and verified we can take it seriously. By the way, relativity isn't 100% correct, we know it isn't because it doesn't work with quantum physics. We need a quantum theory of gravity.  

 

2 hours ago, DaviiB said:

Mainstream science often behaves like a religion, even though it's meant to be the opposite.

 

Wrong! Mainstream science is based on evidence. Religion is based on faith and no evidence.  And I'm beginning to think you are too biased toward the alien visitation or mysterious interpretation and not as concerned about establishing facts as you should be. I'm biased in favour too but I try to fight that tendency because I understand how easily fooled human beings are.

 

2 hours ago, DaviiB said:

I agree that Science is probably our best chance to "get to the bottom of this", but at the same time I'm pointing out that science has been befuddled by the subject for a very long time. Directing the full might of civilian scientific capability at this subject (at this time) may very well be the equivalent of trying to measure EM Waves with a super-accurate measuring stick. Well intentioned, but ultimately useless.

 

I'd say science isn't befuddled by it, I'd say science hasn't taken it seriously and enough funding and research hasn't been applied. Directing the full might of "civilian science" would yield results but as I said a few pages back, there's only so much we can learn from the type of evidence we currently have and unless new, better data is manifest we can only get so far. 

 

2 hours ago, DaviiB said:

If we are, in fact, dealing with something well beyond our current mainstream understanding (physics / nature of the universe etc.), then it would make perfect sense that scientific scrutiny of the subject would come up with more questions than answers.  And it has.

 

I'm glad you said IF, because it still is IF. But IF the phenomenon is indeed evidence of physics beyond that which we know it would indeed raise more questions... but that's exactly what science loves, what science thrives on. Scientific scrutiny of the subject would answer many questions but raise more. Relativity answered many questions but raised more, quantum physics is extremely predictive and successful but raises question about the fundamentals, the true nature of reality, the standard model answered many questions but its not complete so raises more. Its a work in progress. 

I agree with what you said previously by the way, we are certainly dealing with phenomena not a phenomenon. Of the vast number of UAP reports there are no doubt numerous causal factors responsible.

 

2 hours ago, DaviiB said:

Heck, any "answers" may even have to come from outside of mainstream science (the "fringes" I guess?), until science has a chance to catch up.

 

Or more accurately... the fringes suggest something, speculate, and then science goes out and validates it or proves it to be nonsense. There's nothing wrong with being on the fringes and speculating and generating whacky ideas, but then we need a standardised, reliable way to verify... that's science. 

[martin-w 3,234]

Putting science aside for  a moment, lets speculate about this below. I find it the most compelling of UFO reports. Numerous kids saw it, teachers saw it, Teacher was threatened by the authorities to keep quiet. US researchers arrived in Australia to interview the teacher. Little girl who saw it close up was sent home in a panic, when her friend tried to visit her home the family had vanished and the person in the house denied they lived there. 

 

 

Edited June 29, 2022 by martin-w

[dave2013 1,123]

6 hours ago, DaviiB said:

Mainstream science often behaves like a religion, even though it's meant to be the opposite.

Exactly.

This is true of almost any scientific discipline.  There are many establishment scientists who will instantly deride and defame anyone who dares to oppose the "consensus" view.

Dave

[DaviiB 104]

10 minutes ago, dave2013 said:

Exactly.

This is true of almost any scientific discipline.  There are many establishment scientists who will instantly deride and defame anyone who dares to oppose the "consensus" view.

Dave

Fun fact: This sometimes happens because these scientists literally "wrote the textbooks", or are paid to lecture on a specific subject, and have something to lose if the information in those books suddenly becomes obsolete. When there is money, pride or other factors at play, integrity can start to slip.

^^^^^ THAT is not the scientific method. That's a very human response....and sounds a bit like the grifters on the other end of this subject....though the methods and intentions used to draw their conclusions were likely more noble (i.e. NOT disingenuous or fraudulent).

Not saying this is overly prevalent, but it definitely happens...and has been demonstrated to happen repeatedly in the scientific community, though it's rarely recognized in the moment.

"Science" should not be subject to bias, but the humans conducting and interpreting Science...well...they're human.

DB

[sightseer 895]

4 hours ago, DaviiB said:

"Science" should not be subject to bias, but the humans conducting and interpreting Science...well...they're human.

You always have to watch who is paying for the science because they usually have final say on the end release product.  That happened here with the BP oil spill.  For some reason they felt the need to hire as many local scientists to study the damage as possible.

[DaviiB 104]

11 hours ago, martin-w said:

 

I didn't say it was one scientist. But its not numerous research teams across the globe comprised of highly talented scientists generating numerous peer reviewed papers that replicate each others work and conclusion is it. To generate reasonable results that is what we need, the same approach that's applied to other research, like studying quantum gravity and dark energy and dark mater and the W Boson mystery. We also need to ask what kind of scientists they are, computer scientists like Vallee might not be the right choice. 

 

 

You told me they were doing it in secret, so I cant can I? Unless you'd like to list who these people are, how many there are, how many peer reviewed, replicated papers there are, what other teams have verified the results. I didn't say they hadn't applied the proper scientific method, I said numerous research teams are required all generating research that can be verified, replicated. Not the minimal number of scientists  (including your secretive scientists) that may have currently taken a look. 

 

 

Not ridiculed, criticised, challenged, forced to prove its worth, That's how science works and should work. You can't just accept a theory as fact, numerous other scientific research teams need to do the work to replicate the results. And that's precisely what has happened with General Relativity and Special Relativity. And that's what needs top happen with these "secretive" scientists doing research you talk about. When their work, whatever it may be, is replicated and verified we can take it seriously. By the way, relativity isn't 100% correct, we know it isn't because it doesn't work with quantum physics. We need a quantum theory of gravity.  

 

 

Wrong! Mainstream science is based on evidence. Religion is based on faith and no evidence.  And I'm beginning to think you are too biased toward the alien visitation or mysterious interpretation and not as concerned about establishing facts as you should be. I'm biased in favour too but I try to fight that tendency because I understand how easily fooled human beings are.

 

 

I'd say science isn't befuddled by it, I'd say science hasn't taken it seriously and enough funding and research hasn't been applied. Directing the full might of "civilian science" would yield results but as I said a few pages back, there's only so much we can learn from the type of evidence we currently have and unless new, better data is manifest we can only get so far. 

 

 

I'm glad you said IF, because it still is IF. But IF the phenomenon is indeed evidence of physics beyond that which we know it would indeed raise more questions... but that's exactly what science loves, what science thrives on. Scientific scrutiny of the subject would answer many questions but raise more. Relativity answered many questions but raised more, quantum physics is extremely predictive and successful but raises question about the fundamentals, the true nature of reality, the standard model answered many questions but its not complete so raises more. Its a work in progress. 

I agree with what you said previously by the way, we are certainly dealing with phenomena not a phenomenon. Of the vast number of UAP reports there are no doubt numerous causal factors responsible.

 

 

Or more accurately... the fringes suggest something, speculate, and then science goes out and validates it or proves it to be nonsense. There's nothing wrong with being on the fringes and speculating and generating whacky ideas, but then we need a standardised, reliable way to verify... that's science. 

I think we agree more than we disagree here, but there are a couple things:

 1 - The line of what is considered 'acceptable' science (past a certain point) will always be arbitrary. How many studies will it take? How much peer review is enough? Exactly what qualifications are needed... and at what level? Do material scientists, astrophysicists and engineers count? (because they have been working on this as well) How many scientists does it take to form a consensus on a subject? Do they all have to be the same type of scientist, or can they have different backgrounds?

Nobody is an expert on everything, so even if you're a computer scientist, it doesn't negate your ability to think, and call upon other specialists when needed. Also, for science to test a hypothesis, you need to be able to control conditions... that's part of what makes this so difficult....studying a phenomenon that is not predictable, and leaves little physical evidence. 

2 - As far as I know, science does not actually deal in absolutes. That is to say, the conclusions of scientific studies tend to say things like "the results suggest that.....", rather than declare that X is true. So what would the standard of evidence need to be to develop a consensus around (for insatance) an extraterrestrial origin of UAPs? In the absence of a living being talking in plain English, there will always remain the possibility that "it was found on earth so it could be from here" (advanced science, secret programs etc). Science may only be able to tell us what they aren't.... probably...maybe.

Finding a piece of physical evidence (metal, for instance) that appears to be bonded in a manner that defies explanation (this has happened) will leave us with "unknown" as the origin, unless or until the actual method of bonding can be determined...which could take some time.... Science will not ever say "definitely not made on Earth" unless there is a chain of custody document accompanying the fragment from wherever it was made to wherever it was found. We might be S.O.L. (I hope I articulated that well enough) 

 

3 - Mainstream science is supposed to be based on evidence only. As I mentioned, 'science' is an ideal, people are not perfect, and many of the typical human behaviours that show up in other areas (like religion) also affect science. If the UFO/UAP phenomenon is real, and there is enough evidence to suggest the existence of something very odd (if not extraordinary), that could lead us to new scientific discoveries (in math, physics... or even just human psychology) .... why has the topic been ridiculed, downplayed and outright ignored by mainstream science for 70 years?  That doesn't sound like a system that's operating based on evidence in this case. 

Please understand that I don't mean to throw the baby out with the bathwater, I'm just trying to be realistic about how science makes progress, how it operates in practice, its inherent biases, and the conclusions drawn by the 'actual science' that has taken place on this topic so far. 

Come to think of it, maybe we should just wait for science to advance far enough that the phenomenon starts making sense, rather than the other way around. It might save a bunch of effort up front. Kinda like seeing a powered airplane in the 1870s....just wait 40 years and what you saw would make complete sense. 

 

Cheers, 

DB

 

[martin-w 3,234]

4 hours ago, DaviiB said:

I think we agree more than we disagree here,

 

We do, except that I think I'm in control of my "hope its aliens" bias a bit more. 😁

 

4 hours ago, DaviiB said:

How much peer review is enough?

 How many scientists does it take to form a consensus on a subject?

How many studies will it take?

Exactly what qualifications are needed... and at what level?

Do material scientists, astrophysicists and engineers count? 

 

 

Peer review is the process by which a manuscript is assessed as suitable for publication. Its completed by scientists with similar competencies to maintain standards. Its only about assuring quality, that's all, its not about validity. Its a way of making sure quality research is published that's properly conducted.

As for how many studies, the more the better.  Two studies are interesting but not definitive, 20 studies all coming to the same conclusion, all replicating the results, are very convincing. Confidence grows the more studies there are that come to the same conclusion.

Its not how many" scientists to from a consensus", its how many studies that all come to the same conclusion, all manage to replicate the results. Its a collective judgement of a community of scientists in a respective field and requires what's referred to as a "supermajority". In other words, significantly more than one half. 

The qualifications needed in respect of studying a field need to be qualifications in that specific field, you wouldn't take the opinion of 20 microbiologists seriously if they told you that the Higgs Boson doesn't exist.

In the respect of UAP/UFO's then its a multi-aspect phenomenon. If you have a suspected alien organism then you need a consensus among biologists. If you have a chunk of flying saucer alloy the you need a consensus among material scientists. If you think you know which planet aliens come from then you need a consensus among astronomers. If you think you have an example of alien computer code then get Vallee and his fellow computer scientists to evaluate it and form a consensus. 

 

4 hours ago, DaviiB said:

Nobody is an expert on everything, so even if you're a computer scientist, it doesn't negate your ability to think, and call upon other specialists when needed.

 

Precisely, nobody is an expert in everything, thus, we need those who are experts in a particular filed to study the aspect of the UFO phenomenon that pertains to their specific training. Yes, computer scientists can THINK about other fields of science, but they don't specialise thus they are not the ideal people to take seriously and are more likely to be incorrect. And if they call on other specialists who do have qualifications in that field then it is that specialist we are listening to, not the non-specialist who employed them.

 

4 hours ago, DaviiB said:

So what would the standard of evidence need to be to develop a consensus around (for insatance) an extraterrestrial origin of UAPs? In the absence of a living being talking in plain English, there will always remain the possibility that "it was found on earth so it could be from here" (advanced science, secret programs etc).

 

I've already answered that I recall.

 

4 hours ago, DaviiB said:

Finding a piece of physical evidence (metal, for instance) that appears to be bonded in a manner that defies explanation (this has happened)

 

This is where you have to be careful and bias comes into play. You want this to be true so you claim it is true. I've seen no evidence, a consensus, among experts in metallurgy that anything has been bonded in such a way as to defy explanation and potentially of alien origin. There are claims, that's all I've seen... claims.

If you can show me the consensus among metallurgy experts that this material exists that confounds them all, then can you post a link please?  If it exists, which universities has it been sent to around the globe? How many qualified individuals have studied it and verified it to be the case? 

You need to fight harder against your bias me thinks. 🙂

 

4 hours ago, DaviiB said:

Come to think of it, maybe we should just wait for science to advance far enough that the phenomenon starts making sense

 

No, we just need better data. 100% definitive conclusions aren't likely unless aliens come a shake our hands but advancing our knowledge considerably is. There's actually a feeling in scientific comminute now that its needs to be taken more seriously and thoroughly investigated, Even scientific journals are calling for such a thing.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/unidentified-aerial-phenomena-better-known-as-ufos-deserve-scientific-investigation/

https://science.nasa.gov/uap

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-we-can-learn-from-studying-ufos/

https://www.businessinsider.com/researchers-say-ufos-should-be-studied-scientifically-2022-5

 

Edited June 30, 2022 by martin-w

[martin-w 3,234]

13 hours ago, DaviiB said:

Not saying this is overly prevalent

 

Its not. No field is 100% pristine without some form of wrongdoing or corruption. What happens though is that people with bias vastly exaggerate such things to fit their agenda. Happens all the time with climate change but we aren't allowed to debate that on the forum so I'll say no more.

Edited June 30, 2022 by martin-w

[birdguy 3,943]

Martin et al.

If you want to see some aliens come to Roswell next Monday for the Alien Walk.

The 4th of July here we celebrate not only Independence Day but also Roswell Aliens day.

We have the annual Alien Walk along the bike path in Cahoon Park.  People and kids dress up like aliens and some even decorate their dogs like aliens and parade through the park.  It's quite interesting.  Some people are very creative in the way they dress up

Noel  

Edited June 30, 2022 by birdguy

[martin-w 3,234]

Sounds like fun Noel but it would cost me a small fortune in plane fare. 😄

I'll work out later how much, for a laugh.

 

Edit: 2500 quid just flight so you'd have to let me sleep in your shed. 👍

Edited June 30, 2022 by martin-w

[birdguy 3,943]

We have a guest room in the basement Martin.  I'd have to pick you up in Albuquerque 200 miles away since we have no commercial air service to Roswell.

Noel

[martin-w 3,234]

This pertains to what we are talking about.

 

 

[martin-w 3,234]

19 hours ago, birdguy said:

We have a guest room in the basement Martin.  I'd have to pick you up in Albuquerque 200 miles away since we have no commercial air service to Roswell.

Noel

 

Awesome, now all I need is 2500 quid... wait, I have a dodgy back, so would need to be able to lie down for parts of the flight, so that means first class. 😁 This is getting expensive Noel.

I'll work it out. I can manage the flight to Heathrow, its only an hour. So that's 300 quid.

First class with a lie down seat would be 7691.

£7991 then Noel. I better get a mortgagee. 👍

 

Edited July 1, 2022 by martin-w