Aliens On Earth.com Resources for those who are stranded here Our Bookstore is OPEN Over 5000 new & used titles, competitively priced! Topics: UFOs - Paranormal - Area 51 - Ghosts - Forteana - Conspiracy - History - Biography - Psychology - Religion - Crime - Health - Geography - Maps - Science - Money - Language - Recreation - Technology - Fiction - Other - New Search... for keyword(s)   in Page Titles in Book Title/Author in Contents of Pages ---other searches--- Metacrawler Yahoo FAST Search Google Altavista Dogpile Inference Find Northern Light IWon.com MSN Search Las Vegas Sun Location: Mothership -> UFO -> Updates -> 1998 -> Jan -> UFO Studies [was: 'The Threat'...]

UFO UpDates Mailing List

From: Mark Cashman <mcashman@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Sun, 25 Jan 1998 22:33:21 -0800
Fwd Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 08:39:49 -0500
Subject: UFO Studies [was: 'The Threat'...]

>  From: William White <bwhite@frognet.net>
>  Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: 'The Threat'...
>  To: updates@globalserve.net (UFO UpDates - Toronto)
>  Date: Sat, 24 Jan 1998 01:37:53 -0500 (EST)

>  > Basically, I think that has to be an important
>  > part of our "baseline": we have reports from the present day and
>  > the last fifty years which have been relatively well
>  > investigated, and the credibility of whose witnesses is generally
>  > known.

>  But is it though?  So much of what I have heard (and again, I'll
>  admit much of it being more recent may very well be a poor
>  sample) has involved little physical evidence and has relied
>  mostly on the credibility of the eyewitness.  And especially in
>  cases where hypnotic regression has been used, I have some
>  difficulty accepting witness credibility.

There's no question that much UFO data lies in the realm of
"testimony'. For that reason, I would argue that one does a
disservice both to science in general and to the study of UFOs in
particular by any insistence that the methods of physics or
chemistry are appropriate for anything other that supporting
roles (i.e. in the analysis of physical trace evidence). UFOs are
not chemicals or forces which can be isolated and reproduced in a
laboratory setting. But, unlike some, I do not believe this is
something isolated to the problem of UFOs. Sociology, forensics,
the various parts of the natural sciences which rely on the
observation of organisms acting naturally in their habitat (such
as ornithology) have many of the same problems.

It also needs to be kept in mind that there is, essentially, NO
funding for UFO studies. The Ubatuba magnesium was studied with
very limited resources, and, yes, there remain a number of
questions about the process of their analysis, and, of course the
tragedy of the loss of fragment 1, but nonetheless, even that
limited analysis provided some very interesting results. The
Trans-en-Provence case was studied by an arm of the French
government, and their results, with regard to the temperatures
and forces which were needed to cause the traces, seem to point
to heavy weight and high heat - but followup is limited by time
and money.

EM effects and what could cause them are certainly under
investigated in the sense that very little experimental science
has been done on them. The Condon Committee worked with Ford and
did some experiments with magnetism to try to stop car engines,
but the experiments only managed to indicate that magnetism was
not the cause of UFO related vehicle stoppages. But
electrostatics, EMP, non-electron charged particles, strongly
alternating magnetic fields (as used in demagnetization
equipment) have not yet been examined, both due to the lack of
researcher interest, the lack of funds to support such research
(except, perhaps, in classified weapons development projects).

So, given the amateur nature of the data gathering and the
theories being generated, I think we must be prepared to live
with the preponderance of verbal and photographic data for a
fairly long time. But that is not to say that conclusions of a
limited sort cannot be drawn from that information, or that that
information need be unreliable. Haines, in his 1980 work
"Observing UFOs" covered many of the perceptual factors important
in understanding what happens to the UFO witness during the
perception of an inexplicable event. With that sort of
information as a guide, and the careful sifting of information
from the witnesses, we can derive limited conclusions or at least
generate partial hypotheses (i.e. hypotheses about specific
events, the appearance of certain objects and effects, etc. - not
global ones about the meaning and the cause).

To give an example, the Moreland case in 1959 gives an excellent
example of a clear relationship between UFO luminosity and
manuvering:

http://www.geocities.com/~mcashman/ufo/report/590713.htm

A case from Selma in 1957 shows a clear pattern in luminosity and
manuvers of another sort:

http://www.geocities.com/~mcashman/ufo/report/571029.htm

From these kinds of observations, we can surely derive some
useful hypotheses, as long as we have field investigators
skeptically and reliably approaching UFO cases and giving
us clean testimony to base our thoughts on.

>  > So the patterns we derive from that data are probably
>  > representative of the "real" phenomenon (whatever that may be).
>  > Thus, when I go back and look at old data, I give much greater
>  > credibility to cases that support current patterns than to those
>  > which break them.

>  I can understand your motivation for doing this, but at the same
>  time I worry that doing so may be dangerous.  I'd prefer to have
>  some sort of objective criterion to select or reject data.
>  Without it, you risk massaging the data to support an existing
>  conclusion.

Look, accepting or rejecting data according to objective criteria is
an issue. But, unfortunately, in a number of cases, we're only
going to be able to approach this ideal. It was this problem which
led Hynek to try to formulate a system of strangeness and
probability. Unfortunately, his system is very difficult to apply,
and we are always, to some extent, left to rely on the reputation
of the field investigator and the researcher.

However, I don't think that rejecting old data which strays
wildly from well-documented modern case profiles represents
anything like "massaging the data". Certainly, rejected data
should still be maintained in files and catalogs, along with the
reasons for its rejection. For that matter, the pattern of IFOs
vs. UFOs is one which has caused some controversy, so, obviously,
even IFOs should not be merely thrown away. But we have to make a
decision on credibility at some point - and perhaps each
researcher must make that decision separately and differently (as
we do). But I believe it will be the competition between
hypotheses and cases which will help decide what is credible and
what is not.

>  Actually parallel worlds aren't as hoaky as you think (c.f.,
>  Everett and Wheeler) but that's a matter of semantics.  Like I
>  said, I look forward to evaluating the evidence myself.
>  Ultimately, though, since we can't really do any experiments, it
>  all comes down to which theory describes it "best".  And "best"
>  is of course a matter of one's personal belief systems; the
>  metrics we each use to evaluate the elegance and "ordinariness"
>  of a theory are entirely subjective.

I don't really think I'd agree here. What makes a theory "best"
will be its predictions and how well they agree with reality as
represented by observations.

For instance, Keyhoe and Vallee both made predictions about the
sequence of UFO luminosity colors in various performance regimes.
One of these describes the reality better - or neither does. Keel
claimed that UFO cases on a particular night seemed to respect
state boundaries - that can be tested. Vallee claimed that "there
are too many landings" and that this indicates that UFOs are
non-physical in the normal sense. My analysis of Vallee's Magonia
catalog

	http://www.geocities.com/~mcashman/magland.htm

indicates that this may not be so.

As long as a theory provides a testable discriminator, we can
determine which does a better job, and thus, we objectively
decide on which theory is better.

>  Case in point, I've met people who believe that the entire
>  phenomenon is essentially being produced, in physical form, by
>  mass human belief (the "Tulpa" theory).  To them, this was a much
>  more elegant explanation.  Until we can figure out how to test a
>  theory on the UFO phenomenon, it's going to come down to "who
>  sounds less like a crackpot".  And while there are some people
>  I'd definitely consider crackpots, I'm sure others would say the
>  same of me.  Or you, for that matter.

Well, actually, the Tulpa conjecture isn't even a hypothesis. It
needs a testable component. How would one, for instance,
distinguish between a Tulpa and a holographic projection, or a
trans-dimensional intrusion (whatever that is)...

>  Well, I think most, if not all, of these theories put a strain on
>  physics, if for no other reason than UFOs appear to have some
>  form of reactionless propulsion (if this has been addressed
>  before please tell me in email and I'll look it up).  But I rely
>  heavily upon Clarke's Law in issues of technology, because I
>  don't think our own level of science is anywhere close to
>  perfection.

Paul Hill shows that this is not really the problem.
Technological hypotheses of UFOs don't strain physics, they
strain engineering, which is another matter entirely.

Keep looking, there's plenty of information, just a paucity of
careful thought as to how to make it useful.

------
Mark Cashman, creator of The Temporal Doorway at
http://www.geocities.com/~mcashman
- Original digital art, writing, and UFO research -
Author of SF novels available at...
http://www.infohaus.com/access/by-seller/The_Temporal_Doorway_Storefront/
------