The Forum [is where Ancient Roman skeptics hang out.]

Current User: Guest Login Register
Please consider registering


Lost Your Password?

UFOs visited nuke sites

Reply to Post
UserPost

1:20 am
September 28, 2010


Awaba

Awaba

Investigator

posts 88

CNN had film of it – http://www.blip.tv/file/4172861

2:26 am
September 28, 2010


Learjet

Australia

Lead Investigator

posts 1122

Thanks. Also found that video on youtube and have watched it.

All jokes aside, I found the testimony of these high ranking officers to be compelling. It certainly makes one think.

OD'd on EMF

2:36 pm
September 28, 2010


Patrick

Investigator

posts 190

Now the video has been removed…

3:47 pm
September 28, 2010


Nosfer

Rotaredom

Moderator

posts 2959

This is the rest of the conference with some overlap with the first link to video that I posted above (the one that is about 18 minutes) This one is about hour and 11. I'm not sure if the link I posted above is the very start or not.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BtmpaM0PqyI

Legal: The content of this post is copyrighted and is intended exclusively for use on skepticalviewer.com It may not be copied, distributed, or redisplayed on any other site without the express written consent of the author.

8:09 am
October 31, 2010


Robert Hastings

Investigator in Training

posts 3

Re: my UFO-Nukes Connection press conference in Washington D.C., the full-length video is at:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3jUU4Z8QdHI

My follow-up interview with CNN is at:

http://www.disclose.tv/action/viewvideo/56327/CNN__American_Morning__UFOs__amp__Nukes_Sept_29th_2010/

BTW, the late physicist Dr. James McDonald–one of the very few scientists to actually study UFOs–said the following:

“From time to time in the history of science, situations have arisen in which a problem of ultimately enormous importance went begging for adequate attention simply because that problem appeared to involve phenomena so far outside the current bounds of scientific knowledge that it was not even regarded as a legitimate subject of serious scientific concern. That is precisely the situation in which the UFO problem now lies. One of the principal results of my own recent intensive study of the UFO enigma is this: I have become convinced that the scientific community, not only in this country but throughout the world, has been casually ignoring as nonsense a matter of extraordinary scientific importance.”

And:

“…There are hundreds of good cases in the Air Force files that should have led to top-level scientific scrutiny of [UFOs] years ago, yet these cases have been swept under the rug in a most disturbing way by [the USAF's] Project Blue Book investigators and their consultants.”

And:

“My own present opinion, based on two years of careful study, is that UFOs are probably extraterrestrial devices engaged in something that might very tentatively be termed ‘surveillance.’”

The last statement was delivered to the U.S. Congress on July 29, 1968, during a committee hearing on UFOs.

Alas, the vast majority of scientists, and bloggers, have not studied the subject and can only offer uninformed opinions. Ignorance is not a crime, unless one defiantly clings to it. Please do your homework, folks.

–Robert Hastings

http://www.ufohastings.com

8:13 am
October 31, 2010


Robert Hastings

Investigator in Training

posts 3

From my book, UFOs and Nukes:

Scientists universally profess allegiance to the lofty principles comprising the Scientific Method, both in the pursuit of their own research, as well as when reviewing the work of their peers. Therefore, one might predict that they will indignantly dismiss the suggestion that, on occasion, they have temporarily abandoned those cherished principles. Nevertheless, as regards the subject of UFOs, very few scientists actually practice what they preach.

In essence, to engage in science is to search for knowledge. This exploration is conducted through the systematic collection and objective analysis of facts. If one aspires to understand the nature of an unexplained phenomenon, one must first assemble and evaluate data—or, at least, impartially examine the data gathered by others—before drawing conclusions.

Unfortunately, most scientists reject outright the validity of UFO research, refuse to engage in it, and deliberately ignore the intriguing data compiled by a handful of their more inquisitive, less-biased peers. If this were not enough, despite their profound unfamiliarity with the subject, many of these same intransigent individuals pontificate about UFOs in the most shameless and presumptuous manner. If they were to apply this same “methodology” to their own research, their colleagues might justifiably consider their conduct incompetent, if not fraudulent. Nevertheless, it is rare to hear a scientist speak or write knowledgeably about the UFO phenomenon, and rarer still to find one who has actually studied it.

Accuse a scientist of being closed-minded about UFOs and he or she will recoil: “I’m not closed-minded, but I am skeptical!” Because the former term implies inflexible prejudice and the latter one prudent caution, it is understandable that these UFO “skeptics” would prefer to view themselves in a more flattering light.

One scientist who has advocated a comprehensive, unbiased investigation the UFO phenomenon, astronomer Dr. Bernard Haisch, defines a Skeptic as, “One who practices the method of suspended judgment, engages in rational and dispassionate reasoning as exemplified by the scientific method, shows willingness to consider alternative explanations without prejudice based on prior beliefs, and who seeks out evidence and carefully scrutinizes its validity.”2

By Haisch’s definition, very few scientists are true skeptics on the subject of UFOs. On the contrary, over the years, most have behaved as self-appointed experts, having all the answers, without first investigating any of the facts. Although scientists profess a deep curiosity about little understood or unknown phenomena, when it comes to UFOs, this assertion rings hollow. At the moment, the UFO phenomenon is a blind spot in most scientists’ field of vision. There is definitely something there to be seen, but they can not, or will not, bring themselves to take a look.

As noted at the beginning of the chapter, the late Dr. James McDonald—one of the few scientists to have actually studied the UFO phenomenon before holding forth on the subject—once pointedly criticized the thoroughly unprofessional posture toward UFOs he observed among his colleagues and the scientific community at large.

Sad to say, some 40 years after Dr. McDonald’s lament, the same smug, dismissive attitude toward the phenomenon remains firmly entrenched in scientific circles, resulting in a pervasive, self-imposed ignorance about UFOs among those who supposedly seek the truth. At the beginning of the 21st century, it remains true that the overwhelming majority of scientists, if they consider UFOs at all, consider them to be beneath their dignity, and worthy of outright derision. With this self-righteous  stance, they have effectively abdicated their collective professional responsibility in the most unscientific manner. This is not so much an accusation as it is an objective statement of fact.

Fortunately, despite the collective disinterest in UFOs exhibited by the scientific community as a whole, there have been a few brave pioneers. In the mid-1960s, Jim McDonald was well ahead of the curve, with his repeated, plaintive calls for a legitimate investigation of the UFO phenomenon. Seeking to review the available data for himself, he persistently demanded access to the Air Force’s UFO files—at least those held by Project Blue Book—and was ultimately granted repeated access to the ones that were not classified.

As noted in an earlier chapter, following those reviews McDonald had written, “…There are hundreds of good cases in the Air Force files that should have led to top-level scientific scrutiny of [UFOs] years ago, yet these cases have been swept under the rug in a most disturbing way by Project Blue Book investigators and their consultants.”3

Despite, or perhaps because of, the Air Force’s ongoing attempts to suppress the frequently high-quality data on UFOs it collected, McDonald began to investigate the phenomenon on his own time and at his own expense, while ignoring the very real risk to his scientific reputation. This diligence paid off and, by 1968, McDonald was widely regarded—although not among his still-dubious peers—as one of the world’s leading scientific experts on UFOs. Consequently, he was invited to address the United States Congress on the subject, during hearings held that year. McDonald’s full statement before the House Committee on Science and Astronautics, presented on July 29th, may be found in the U.S. Congressional Record, as well as on the Internet.

While acknowledging that the overwhelming majority of UFO sightings undoubtedly had prosaic explanations, and that a great many questions about the phenomenon remained unanswered, McDonald succinctly summarized his conclusions regarding the most credible of the unexplained cases: “My own present opinion, based on two years of careful study, is that UFOs are probably extraterrestrial devices engaged in something that might very tentatively be termed ‘surveillance.’”4

Although this was merely an opinion, it was after all an informed opinion on UFOs, something very few other scientists could offer, then or now. Many of McDonald’s published papers, private research notes, and personal letters relating to his investigations of the UFO phenomenon are now accessible online, providing insight into the cautious, rational reasoning underlying his dramatic conclusions.

There is an old joke about the intellectual who sniffs, “Well, it may work in fact, but it will never work in theory.” While most UFO skeptics are quick to dismiss as impossible the idea that UFOs are alien spacecraft, very few of them will ever make the effort to learn whether any evidence exists to suggest otherwise. Instead, they merely continue to assert that, as an idea, it simply does not work. However, as the joke implies, the real question to be asked is whether it works in fact. That is, is there evidence in the real world which lends credence to the validity of the ET hypothesis of UFOs.

Granted, the proposal that UFOs are alien spaceships is decidedly counter-intuitive. For most scientific professionals, the notion just doesn’t make sense and almost certainly has no basis in reality. However, as is often the case in science, many ideas which initially seem impossible, or at least highly unlikely, eventually turn out to be true. As a noted cosmologist once observed, “The greatest obstacle to the advancement of science is the illusion of knowledge—the notion that one already knows the answers.”

Precisely. At the end of the day, practicing science still involves asking questions and seeking answers, whatever those answers turn out to be. However, a scientist must actually adhere to, not just reflexively espouse, these fundamental principles. Pontificating about UFOs from the comfort of the armchair contributes nothing to the solution to the problem. To honestly attempt an understanding of UFOs, one must actually investigate the UFO phenomenon, however pointless or distasteful this proposal might seem to some. As that street-smart sage, New York Yankees catcher Yogi Berra, once observed, “You can see a lot just by looking.”

REFERENCES

1. McDonald, Dr. James E. “Prepared Statement before the House Committee on Science and Astronautics”, July 29, 1968

2. UFOskeptic.org

3. [Tucson] Daily Citizen, March 1, 1967

4. McDonald, Dr. James E. “Prepared Statement before the House Committee on Science and Astronautics”, July 29, 1968

 

 

8:29 am
October 31, 2010


Robert Hastings

Investigator in Training

posts 3

Sorry about the margin snafu. It appears that excerpts from my book will need to be massaged before posting. Regardless, I trust that one will be able to sufficiently follow the text above.

8:33 pm
October 31, 2010


Learjet

Australia

Lead Investigator

posts 1122

A very big welcome to the forum Robert!

You're right, UFO's seem to be the laughing stock of the scientific community at large. The media also.

I go to another electronics tech forum which has a general chat section. Someone posted a link to the youtube conference video and it was bashed to bits. What really irked me was the ridicule that came from people that didn't even watch the video and had no interest in doing so!

As one of the local amateur astronomers in my city I used to contribute to the local newspaper with astronomical events of interest. As such I would get numerous UFO reports and sightings. I would investigate the reports as best I could – most were of normal astronomical nature. You know the sort of thing, Satellites, Venus, Jupiter, jet trails etc. Even Orion's belt became a UFO lol. Yet a couple of the accounts presented to me were a complete mystery. They were also from people whom I trust.

While I have never seen a UFO personally, I feel the small percentage of genuine reports are worthy of note.

Anyway, thanks for dropping by. It's good to hear from another researcher.

OD'd on EMF

8:35 am
November 1, 2010


Nosfer

Rotaredom

Moderator

posts 2959

Welcome Robert, thanks for your post, it was an interesting read.

I have to agree with Learjet on the percentages and, from my own experience, a lot of what I see reported as "UFOs" fades away under some scrutiny. It's that small percentage that remains that I find very interesting. The scrutiny must be done fairly and in a non-dismissive manner by actually taking the time to objectively consider ALL of the evidence associated with the event.

As I have pointed out a few times here, the term "skeptic" seems to be becoming analogous to "denyer" and placed in opposition to those who are "believers", which is also unfortunate.

That is why, as a Skeptic (in it's original sense), I appreciate much of what you wrote in post #25 regarding how bias and viewpoint can get in the way of having an objective look at the data and letting it speak for itself. It seems to be rather common on both sides of the equation, unfortunately. A few of your paragraphs in #25 above give me some encouragement, though.

Legal: The content of this post is copyrighted and is intended exclusively for use on skepticalviewer.com It may not be copied, distributed, or redisplayed on any other site without the express written consent of the author.

Reply to Post


Reply to Topic:
UFOs visited nuke sites

Guest Name (Required):

Guest Email (Required):

Smileys
Confused Cool Cry Embarassed Frown Kiss Laugh Smile Surprised Wink Yell
Post New Reply

Guest URL (required)

Math Required!
What is the sum of:
3 + 10
   



Permalink Print
Copyright 2010 SkepticalViewer.com - The Ghost Hunters Fansite for Skeptics