The study of UFO's


log in

Advanced search

Message boards : Science (non-SETI) : The study of UFO's

1 · 2 · 3 · 4 . . . 5 · Next
Author Message
Michael Watson
Send message
Joined: 7 Feb 08
Posts: 535
Credit: 207,645
RAC: 117
Message 1393935 - Posted: 23 Jul 2013, 14:38:27 UTC

Dr. Davis is far from being the only scientifically trained person to have looked into the UFO problem, and to have concluded that the most reasonable explanation for some of the 10 or 15 % of persistently unidentifiable UFOs is extraterrestrial technology. The list of such persons has grown to considerable length, and contains some quite illustrious names.

Michael Watson
Send message
Joined: 7 Feb 08
Posts: 535
Credit: 207,645
RAC: 117
Message 1394023 - Posted: 23 Jul 2013, 23:36:07 UTC

There have been a number of photographs made of UFOs with a variety of cameras. Some of these defy explanation. What, exactly, is meant by a 'reliable' photo?

OzzFan
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 02
Posts: 13541
Credit: 29,270,311
RAC: 15,281
United States
Message 1394050 - Posted: 24 Jul 2013, 2:00:40 UTC - in response to Message 1394025.

There have been a number of photographs made of UFOs with a variety of cameras. Some of these defy explanation. What, exactly, is meant by a 'reliable' photo?


If there was credible photo it would be news all over the world.

The Rendlesham Forest Incident is some what credible but lacking tangible evidence.

I would need both.


The Rendlesham Forest incident isn't so credible when you take the pieces individually instead of as one big claim.

Rendlesham Forest

Profile Bob DeWoody
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 9 May 10
Posts: 1360
Credit: 546,678
RAC: 335
United States
Message 1394060 - Posted: 24 Jul 2013, 2:35:24 UTC

To scientifically study something there has to be tangible evidence to study and I don't think photographs alone qualify.
____________
Bob DeWoody

My motto: Never do today what you can put off until tomorrow as it may not be required.

Nick
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 11 Oct 11
Posts: 3863
Credit: 1,944,078
RAC: 1,066
United Kingdom
Message 1394586 - Posted: 25 Jul 2013, 6:35:05 UTC

+1
____________
The Kite Fliers

--------------------
Kite fliers: An imaginary club of solo members, those who don't yet
belong to a formal team so "fly their own kites" - as the saying goes.

Profile Davissimo
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 28 Jul 08
Posts: 27
Credit: 521,074
RAC: 602
United States
Message 1394628 - Posted: 25 Jul 2013, 9:29:40 UTC

Studying UFO's would be great if somehow the proponents could back away from jumping to conclusions on the skimpiest of evidence. Scientists studying dinosaurs argue hotly over what a new set of bones mean. But THEY HAVE THE BONES. I saw a UFO once. It took me 7 years to figure out that it was a jet taking off from Tampa Int'l airport 15 miles away at night. Most people don't keep trying to figure something out. And nobody likes to call somebody a liar. If you say you saw something, okay you saw something. I agree that real scientific study is needed. But the money is in sensationalizing reports and far out TV shows, not tough investigation. Let's keep an open mind, all around.
____________
All computers idle at the same speed.

Profile ignorance is no excuse
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 4 Oct 00
Posts: 9529
Credit: 44,433,274
RAC: 0
Korea, North
Message 1400806 - Posted: 8 Aug 2013, 21:14:24 UTC
Last modified: 8 Aug 2013, 21:15:41 UTC

tangible really?

tan·gi·ble
/ˈtanjəbəl/Adjective
Perceptible by touch.


Noun
A thing that is perceptible by touch.


Synonyms
palpable - concrete - touchable - real - tactile


hardly
____________
In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

End terrorism by building a school

Profile Michel448a
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 27 Oct 00
Posts: 1201
Credit: 2,891,635
RAC: 0
Canada
Message 1400849 - Posted: 9 Aug 2013, 0:00:48 UTC - in response to Message 1400806.

you have right on that one Skildude ^^
____________

Lynn
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 20 Nov 00
Posts: 3529
Credit: 470,214
RAC: 2,376
United States
Message 1400931 - Posted: 9 Aug 2013, 6:24:59 UTC - in response to Message 1400849.

you have right on that one Skildude ^^


Exactly. +1

Profile Chris S
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 19 Nov 00
Posts: 30984
Credit: 11,159,550
RAC: 19,638
United Kingdom
Message 1401180 - Posted: 9 Aug 2013, 18:46:38 UTC

all I ask is tangible evidence, the same as they ask of me in proof of God.


NO ONE CAN PROVE THERE IS A GOD, NO ONE CAN PROVE THERE ISN'T. END OF STORY.

NO ONE CAN PROVE THERE ARE UFO'S, NO ONE CAN PROVE THERE ISN'T. END OF STORY.

Carry on.

OzzFan
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 02
Posts: 13541
Credit: 29,270,311
RAC: 15,281
United States
Message 1401181 - Posted: 9 Aug 2013, 18:48:14 UTC - in response to Message 1401180.

all I ask is tangible evidence, the same as they ask of me in proof of God.


NO ONE CAN PROVE THERE IS A GOD, NO ONE CAN PROVE THERE ISN'T. END OF STORY.

NO ONE CAN PROVE THERE ARE UFO'S, NO ONE CAN PROVE THERE ISN'T. END OF STORY.

Carry on.


This is not how you approach things scientifically, and certainly isn't the attitude of the scientific method.

Profile Bob DeWoody
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 9 May 10
Posts: 1360
Credit: 546,678
RAC: 335
United States
Message 1401322 - Posted: 10 Aug 2013, 4:29:37 UTC

But Chris is right. So I guess it means it is pointless to try to make a scientific study of either. Once some tangible evidence of either is made public the scientific studies can commence.
____________
Bob DeWoody

My motto: Never do today what you can put off until tomorrow as it may not be required.

OzzFan
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 02
Posts: 13541
Credit: 29,270,311
RAC: 15,281
United States
Message 1401343 - Posted: 10 Aug 2013, 5:27:47 UTC - in response to Message 1401322.
Last modified: 10 Aug 2013, 5:32:29 UTC

But Chris isn't right. Science is about evidence-based reasoning. It isn't upon science to prove something exists for which there is no evidence for. Believing without evidence is the realm of faith, and faith is no way to approach a question if you want to answer it rationally and objectively.

Therefore suggesting that you can't disprove something for which there is no evidence of "disproof" is a logical fallacy.

The same applies to UFO conspiracy theories.

Profile Julie
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 28 Oct 09
Posts: 18370
Credit: 3,322,903
RAC: 6,194
Belgium
Message 1401399 - Posted: 10 Aug 2013, 8:11:38 UTC

You can't compare humanities with science. It's studies are on a totally different level. Beliefs can't be proven scientifically, UFO's and the study of alien life forms on the other hand could scientifically be refuted one day...
____________


rOZZ

Profile Chris S
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 19 Nov 00
Posts: 30984
Credit: 11,159,550
RAC: 19,638
United Kingdom
Message 1401406 - Posted: 10 Aug 2013, 8:35:30 UTC

As I have long suspected, the juries are still out on those two statements, but I think Bob and no-name are both partly right. Perhaps it would have been better to have prefaced both those statements with "In terms of our current knowledge ....", and ended them with "but there is no reason why searching for evidence of him/her/them shouldn't happen by those interested enough".

I would have thought that tangible evidence one way or the other would be a flying saucer landing on the White House lawn, little green men jumping out and saying "We created you lot a couple of million years ago, we've just popped back to see how you're getting on". However if they were clever enough to have conquered space travel, they would know that in a trice every religion would collapse, nations would scramble to reverse engineer their technology, and worldwide panic would ensue, so not likely. I rather doubt we will ever see a celestial being landing on a sunbeam bringing worldwide peace and love. But who knows?

Science tells us that there could be millions of earthlike planets in the universe, and more exoplanets are being discovered each week. Just because a planet is detected as being in the "habitable zone" of its parent star, doesn't mean it could harbour life as we know it on earth. Slime loving intelligent slugs from Alpha Centauri might not breed too well with seas and mountains. No reason why we shouldn't look though, if we want to, that is why we are all here at Seti.

UFO's are just that, UNIDENTIFIED flying objects. There are genuine documented phenomenas happening for which at our present level of knowledge, we simply cannot rationally explain, therefore they are put on a "dunno" list. The existence of God or a supernatural being, is all about personal faith in the absence of any tangible evidence. If you want or need to believe in a god, your choice, some do, some don't. In the case of UFO's and ET, I personally would like to know whether they are they are there and real or not, but I might regret knowing. Think of StarWARS, BATTLEstar Galactica, Independence day etc. It might not be all Dan Dare and the Treens and Forbidden Planet!

I still think my two statements in bold cover the present position as we know it today. Whether either will get changed in the future is impossible to say here and now.

Late edit - Julie is of course right in that they are different issues, but they both end up being unknown as we stand today. Personally I would think it more likely we could discover ET than God, but that's only my opinion. And of course don't forget my own view and that of others, that ET visitations in the past became Godlike, so perhaps both statements are one and the same anyway. But that's for another thread.




1 · 2 · 3 · 4 . . . 5 · Next

Message boards : Science (non-SETI) : The study of UFO's

Copyright © 2014 University of California