The Government and UFOs: A Historical Analysis

#1
This is the book related to the title:
http://www.amazon.com/UFOs-Government-A-Historical-Inquiry/dp/1933665580/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8

It is hefty tome. An extremely well researched and documented history of the UFO phenomena based on facts and official documents. In the 600 pages there's little to no room for speculation while it provides a detailed chronicle of the 70 years struggles between governments (in particular the U.S. government) and a persisting issue that doesn't want to go away.

Here's also a 45 minutes talk about the book, presented at the latest Defcon... yep, the hacker's convention :)


If the claim sounds extraordinary so is the evidence. Seems pretty unreasonable to deny the existence of such a powerful anomaly.

Cheers
 
#4
Indeed that's a good quote that would have its place in many other discussions in this board :D
In that context, it reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the scientific method.

The idea of a hypothesis is simply that it is one of the set of tools used in an ongoing process. First, make some observations. Second, propose a possible hypothesis (or several different hypotheses) which might explain the observations. Third, either carry out experiments or make further observations in order to try to invalidate the hypothesis.

Nowhere in that process is it required that you need to take on board any ideas in the form of a personal belief system; following the scientific method doesn't have to imply a belief in any particular hypothesis - in fact the opposite is true, one needs to remain unattached from a hypothesis in order to properly evaluate it, with no vested interest in either its being right or wrong.
 
#5
He was commenting about the fact that among the available hypothesis the one that best works with the available data is refused.

In other words: the data provides strong evidence for unidentified objects doing "impossible maneuvers" and technology beyond anything built on this planet. Instrumental measurements (experiments) confirm the hypothesis. Refusing to go along with it doesn't seem a reasonable approach.
 
#6
He was commenting about the fact that among the available hypothesis the one that best works with the available data is refused.

In other words: the data provides strong evidence for unidentified objects doing "impossible maneuvers" and technology beyond anything built on this planet. Instrumental measurements (experiments) confirm the hypothesis. Refusing to go along with it doesn't seem a reasonable approach.
One hypothesis not mentioned is this is a natural phenomena.
 
#9
Nothing specific. I'm pointing out it was not proposed at all. The speaker makes the assumption that the best explanation is a technological explanation.
Actually it was. Most of the introductory part of the talk is centered around what is not an UFO. The remaining can't obviously be satisfied by a generic reference to a non specific "natural phenomena".
 
F

Frank Matera

#10
Yes even the 'official' Scientific investigation of UFO's conducted by the US Govt 'Project Bluebook' (which the Scientist involved Dr J Allen Hynek, actually admitted was a disinformation effort to try and explain away UFO's as natural phenomena) had to put their hands up and admit that 3% of their cases could not be explained as natural phenomena (They tried to justify this by saying they didn't have enough data) yet in reality 22% of what was in the report was unexplainable.
 
Top