Wednesday, 19 November 2008

Scientists Decline to Defend Themselves

“Since when is name-calling a scientist’s appropriate response to something?” he says. “He calls me a charlatan without giving any reason for it, and he labels UFOs a pseudoscience without stating why. It’s science by proclamation.”

Being scientists, no doubt Cottle and Boebinger are familiar with Project Blue Book Special Report #14, in which Air Force analysts determined that roughly 20 percent of their UFO reports were legitimate unknowns by the mid-1950s. And of course they’d read the disturbing 1999 French COMETA Report, presented by the Institute of Higher Studies for National Defense with a foreword by the former chair of the French National Center for Space Studies.

Naturally, being scientists, they had also acquainted themselves with “The UFO Enigma: A New Review of the Physical Evidence,” authored by a team of scientists assembled by Dr. Peter Sturrock, professor emeritus of applied physics at Stanford University.

And, in the rigorous spirit of scientific inquiry, they had probably already reviewed the FAA/National Weather Service radar records of the Stephenville, Tex., UFO incident in January. Surely, they had perfectly logical explanations for why the military refuses to release its own radar records, as well as the uncensored flight logs of the F-16s that pursued the object.

De Void wanted to discuss the pseudoscientific aspects of these and other studies with the offended parties. But Cottle’s e-mail response was terse: “I'm not going to comment further. My letter to the editor was a message to my local community, and I'm going to leave it at that.”

Boebinger didn’t bother to respond at all.

The author here could also cite, in the literature, the "Condon Report", undertaken by the University of Colorado on behalf of the USAF in the late 1960s. Many people misunderstand the significance of this scientific report since the conclusions are negative. However, anyone who has read the report will find that the conclusions LIE about the content of the study. In fact the findings do not match AT ALL with the various summaries made about the photographic evidence, the Radar-Visual cases, the cases that exhibited physical effects and the Astronaut sightings.

There's two sorts of scientists who are against the study of unexplained aerial phenomena (UFOs), the ignorant and the trolls paid to debunk the material.

Like the science we have see with regard to the 911 material, it does not matter what your preconceived views are, the evidence tells its own story. Follow the evidence, not the rhetoric.

[Posted at the SpookyWeather blog, November 19th, 2008.]

No comments: