Image: Illustration by Michael Cho
-
The Best Science Writing Online 2012
Showcasing more than fifty of the most provocative, original, and significant online essays from 2011, The Best Science Writing Online 2012 will change the way...
Read More »
One morning several years ago a black triangular-shaped object flew over my home in the San Gabriel Mountains in southern California. It was almost completely silent, made rapid turns and accelerations, and was so nonreflective it looked like a hole in the sky, almost otherworldly. It was, in fact, the B-2 Stealth Bomber, looping around to make another run over the Pasadena Rose Parade on January 1, an annual tradition. But had I not known what it was and seen it first, say, out in the desert at dusk, I might easily have thought it a UFO.
For decades black triangular-shaped objects have been labeled UFOs. Now a cohort of military, aviation and political observers would like to change the label to a less pejorative phrasing—Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP)—and their efforts to be taken seriously have resulted in a new book by investigative journalist Leslie Kean entitled UFOs: Generals, Pilots, and Government Officials Go on the Record (Crown, 2010). Kean asks readers to consider that such sightings represent “a solid, physical phenomenon that appears to be under intelligent control and is capable of speeds, maneuverability, and luminosity beyond current known technology,” that the “government routinely ignores UFOs and, when pressed, issues false explanations,” and that the “hypothesis that UFOs are of extraterrestrial or interdimensional origin is a rational one and must be taken into account.”
How much data do we have, and can they help us distinguish between UAPs and what I call Completely Ridiculous Alien Piffle (CRAP), such as crop circles and cattle mutilations, alien abductions and anal probes, and human-alien hybrids? According to Kean, “roughly 90 to 95 percent of UFO sightings can be explained” as “weather balloons, flares, sky lanterns, planes flying in formation, secret military aircraft, birds reflecting the sun, planes reflecting the sun, blimps, helicopters, the planet Venus or Mars, meteors or meteorites, space junk, satellites, sundogs, ball lightning, ice crystals, reflected light off clouds, lights on the ground or lights reflected on a cockpit window,” and more. So the entire extraterrestrial hypothesis is based on the residue of data after the above list has been exhausted. What’s left? Not much.
For example, Kean opens her exploration “on very solid ground, with a Major General’s firsthand chronicle of one of the most vivid and well-documented UFO cases ever”—the UFO wave over Belgium in 1989–1990. Here is Major General Wilfried De Brouwer’s recounting of the first night of sightings: “Hundreds of people saw a majestic triangular craft with a span of approximately a hundred and twenty feet and powerful beaming spotlights, moving very slowly without making any significant noise but, in several cases, accelerating to very high speeds.” Even seemingly unexplainable sightings such as De Brouwer’s, however, could simply have been an early experimental model of a stealth bomber (U.S., Soviet, or otherwise) that secret-keeping military agencies were understandably loath to reveal.
In any case, compare De Brouwer’s narrative with Kean’s summary of the same incident: “Common sense tells us that if a government had developed huge craft that can hover motionless only a few hundred feet up, and then speed off in the blink of an eye—all without making a sound—such technology would have revolutionized both air travel and modern warfare, and probably physics as well.” Note how a 120-foot craft becomes “huge,” how “moving very slowly” changes to “can hover motionless,” how “without making any significant noise” shifts to “without making a sound,” and how “accelerating to very high speeds” transforms into “speed off in the blink of an eye.” This language transmutation is common in UFO narratives, making it harder for scientists to provide natural explanations.
Rights & Permissions
See what we're tweeting about
99 Comments
Add CommentThe observed phenomenon always seems to be a direct correlation between sightings and the need to believe (or a book or TV show deal).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"...more work needs to be done to bring those anomalies into the accepted paradigm."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis statement shows willingness to learn more, however it also indicates that it's author is willing to learn more only if what is learned can be brought into "the accepted paradigm." This sort of mentality is the bane of scientific progress. I imagine this is the sort of mentality Gallileo had to contend with before producing one of the greatest paradigm shifts of all time.
I suggest that a less biased author would have left room for the possibility of a paradigm shift, given, of course, the supporting evidence.
I am not a "UFO" proponent by any means, but I am a proponent of adjusting our paradigms based on evidence, and not vice versa.
I fully agree with the article insofar as "language transmutation" (aka narrative creep). A friend once asked me if I "believed" in UFOs. I replied, "UFOs exist. What is there to 'disbelieve'? Nearly anyone who looks up has seen something 'flying' that they could not identify." He replied, "I meant, in saying UFO, an artifact of intelligence not of earthly origin." I responded, "UFO = Unidentified Flying Object. If one wants to be really fussy, I suppose it should be: UaFaO = Unidentified (apparently) Flying (apparently) Object [Note: I really liked Dr. Shermer's 'UAP' designation], to cover things that either aren’t 'flying' but falling, e.g., the planet Venus, or aren't 'objects' but illusions, e.g., a glory. I've seen both. I've also seen SOMETHING overhead, 4 lights in a row against a dark region that blocked the stars, that APPEARED to be following me in the wee hours of a late summers morning in 1968, heading south on Francis Scott Key Highway until I stopped in a well-lighted area, then it moved on. (Personal guess: blimp, BUT I CAN'T PROVE IT, hence Unidentified Flying Object.)" My friend then changed the topic.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy point is that too many people hear "UFO" as "alien spaceship", an unwarranted jump in (il)logic and a language transmutation that blocks an investigation. Taking a lead from Mark Twain, "Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please."
I'm not so much concerned that the belief in UFOs or visitations by aliens has produced any real damage to society in general.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm much more concerned that belief in dark matter and dark energy dogma has shaped scientific interpretation of observational data and our entire conception of cosmos! It seems that for some established disciplines of science and generations of scientists it's now too late to turn back even if it were debunked!
It may be using the technology of the Flying Saucer, which I discovered and patented.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLook at >ne Terminal Capacitor Joseph Hiddink<
UFO is a completely neutral term - Unidentified Flying Object. It has become pejorative only through the actions of people who assume any unidentified thing seen in the sky must be artificial and unknown to science. UAP will soon achieve the same status.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnother, better way to phrase the Residue issue is this: if 95% of all sightings are spurious, what grounds do you have for claiming the remaining 5% are any different?
jtdwyer might be correct in saying "I'm not so much concerned that the belief in UFOs or visitations by aliens has produced any real damage to society in general," but the credulity inherent in UFO believers infects many other people who aren't. For every hard core UFO believer there are a hundred Birthers, believers in FEMA concentration camps, 9-11 truthers, and so on. It's like all of a sudden not being able to move your arm. That may not harm you but it's certainly a symptom of something that will.
Please jtdwyer, give us your alternative theories to dark matter and dark energy dogma.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLooks like Scottsman went to business school. He really likes the cliche "paradigm shift." Next he will be talking about the core competency of Gallileo. He definitely drank the koolaid, which like gagged me with a spoon.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTomZ2 hit the nail on the head above.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think it's unfortunate that instead of addressing the problem (the illogical assumption that all UFO's must be of extra-terrestrial origin, be it created, grown, assembled, or manufactured by a semblance of intelligence) there is a push to just create a new acronym. To me, it almost seems juvenile... "Mom, Timmy is using my word!" "So just use a new word and play nice!"
UFO is more than adequate:
Unidentified
Flying
Object
It is more specific than UAP, in the case that you have to prove it is indeed flying (who cares to decide whether or not hovering counts? :D )
Since you're so interested, you could start by reading this article:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=dark-matter-doubts
I think it is funny how people do not want to be associated with calling some UFO's alien spaceships.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is also cute.
The UFO = alien spaceship is a subject of sociological study, not one of "evidence". The idea of aliens visiting is a TABOO.
When I hear the terms, UFO cook or nut or crazy, it becomes vividly clear that there is a taboo concerning the issue, because the people are verbally attacked WITHOUT REFERENCE TO EVIDENCE. It's classic upholding of the status quo!
Our egoist society/civilization rests on the perceived reality that we are the ultimate supreme beings in the entire universe. To have aliens exist would be to obliterate the entire collective reality that the scientific community and government organizations share. The entire nervous system, a.k.a. mass media, would be shred to bits. IT'S SHOCKING!
It would be a trip into la-la land, and 95% of the human race isn't ready for such a reality shifting series of events.
It is only a matter of social acceptance, not evidence.
-My two cents.
That's it? What kind of argument was that? I expected so much more from Shermer. I'm really disappointed he could not muster up a bit more than "narrative creep." C'mon, Shermer, I expected a real tussle here, you really disappointed me. You didn't actually read the book, did'ya? Shame on you.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have admired much of what Shermer has written in the past, however, in this case, he has not done his homework. His predetermined position on this matter has seriously clouded his thinking. It is unlike the Michael Shermer I have come to know and respect. Michael has gained a considerable following over the years, but in this case he has led his readers astray! Getting it right more than nine times out of ten is not a bad record for anyone, but he was bound to fall short at some point in time. This is one of those times, unfortunately.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's a shame that the person chosen to review Ms. Kean's book belongs to a [Skeptics] society just as religious in its non-belief as many in the new age/cult world believe in or worship "aliens".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is also curious that Shermer did not mention that String Field theory Co-founder Michio Kaku, and Sci-Tech reporter Miles O'Brien are proponents of Ms. Kean's book---mainly due to her exceptional work gathering testimony from the most highly-placed government officials ever to be involved with this topic. But I guess mentioning the caliber of scientific supporters and officialdom in the book would have outed the flimsiness of Mr. Shermer's arguments.
One of the witnesses was a Lieutenant Base Commander of a UK NATO airbase (Charles Halt). I guess the military must have forgotten to tell him and his airmen that they were testing a Stealth bomber in the woods near the base one night in 1980. And they also forgot to apologize to him for shooting (feet away from him and his airmen) a laser-like beam from the air to the ground---as the declassified, official MoD memo describes. And oddly, for some reason, Halt and his men keep insisting that an explanation must be given. Just as Captain Robert Salas (an ICBM missile silo operator) wants to know what that strange egg-shaped object was that frightened his top-side MPs and appeared to deactivate all of the missiles at the silo. Fiction? Maybe, except for the fact that the deactivations there and at another nearby location are documented in declassified documents. But let's all assume none of this happened and ignore our normal scientific curiosity---as Mr. Shermer---(or perhaps SciAm) would prefer. In fact SciAM has a history of being skeptical of unusual concepts---such as flight itself! But don't take my word for it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wright_brothers . The novel flying characteristics of UAP (whatever they are) seems to nauseate SciAm in 21st century, just as it bothered them when Wright Bros proponents offered proof of something that was not supposed to be possible. But if you dare to challenge conventional "wisdom", Ms. Kean's book (complete with references to official documents only) is here:
http://is.gd/Q0kK9y
Since when are crop circles CRAP? If anyone cares to look up crop circles in the last 10 years I think you will quickly see that the phenomenon is not CRAP. The designs and symbols have become very complex, not just a stupid circle in the middle of a field.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe designs alone are fascinating but what has been found with the energy measured in the crop circle, the "super seeds" that are produced as a result of being in the path of this energy, the electro-magnetic disturbance to electronic devices like cell phones while standing in the middle of a crop circle...the list goes on.
Also, I do not believe Mr. Shermer is giving enough credit to the events described in the book. Also, he is just as capable of typing up an article full of slanted nonsense as anyone who is putting together random findings or stories about UFO's. My point being as long as money is around YES it will always be a motivator (in response to another comment.)
The Phoenix Lights and the O'hare airport sighting in Chicago are very fascinating. For the Phoenix lights it is not the lights recorded that were fascinating but the descriptions from hundreds of people of the sheer size of the craft, how it had ABSOLUTELY NO SOUND, and how it appeared to be moving at a speed too slow to be flying.
Michael is paid to be a skeptic, and he will find a way to make great points based on what he chooses to use from whatever piece work he is writing about.
There have been many major sightings (major as in hundreds of people wondering what the heck they are seeing) in the last couple of years, many of which have been all over Chinese international airports, Japan etc. Leslie's book does have a lot more to say, and I believe there's so much more about this topic that is not considered due to ridicule.
Check out NASA STS-75 tether incident as well
Look into UFO's shutting down nuclear weapons
See the crop circle that may be answering the Arecibo message created by Carl Sagan
It's ok to be a skeptic, but you also need to be willing to say that something should be looked into when in fact there is much more to be said and researched considering it could be related to some of the greatest findings of our known history.
Well said.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am a Brazilian Retired Airline Captain, and I certify that I have seen three times, fliyng, close,clear and well defined, UFO - UFO - UAP, together with other witnesses and with detection by ATC Radar.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisShould I consider that the skeptical author will consider me lunatic, or under the effects of a collective hallucination, including a crazy ATC radar?
Terrible article.
Jose A C Medeiros
Brazil
Further to my comment:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI discovered the technology of the Flying Saucer in 1967. It is called Gravity Control. I offered it to Canada as a Birthday Present (Canada was 100 years old). The NRC Canada rejected it as that could never be found. Many years later I applied for the Patent in the USA. It was dismissed, my Patent Lawyer had passed away. I applied again and my new US Patent Lawyer, Mr. Robert Farkas, phoned me on July 1 1978. I was going to get the patent. He had contacted Dr. Kahn of the Hudson Institute who informed him that the invention of Gravity Control had been evaluated at $600 Billion, if the USA would have it before Russia.
I contacted Nasa and informed the management, that it could be applied to the Shuttles which then would not need rockets anymore. They would reach the ISS in one hour and the Moon in a few hours by just using a constant acceleration of ONE G. (The Gravity we have on earth, comfortable to the Crew.) As an added bonus the forcefield that would come into being, would protect Shuttle and Crew from collisions with Space Debris and Radiation. The Propulsion Engineers in Cleveland, Ohio, were sent a copy of the patent with the warning to contact me before experimenting with it, as I had left a few particulars out in the description.
Like good engineers, they were :"Not interested!"
I was stuck, I could not contact another country, the Space- and Cold War were still on.
Finally, after the second Space Disaster they decided to experiment with it, did not contact me and caused another disaster. They got the effect of an E-Bomb and caused the big black-out of 2003 in the USA and Canada.
They blamed a poor, innocent tree for it all and informed Nasa Headquarters that the technology, used by a Flying Saucer was unsuitable for Space Travel.
The new mangagement was informed too but decided to scrap the Shuttles that could have flown for many years with this technology and go for the Heavy Lifter.
It took only a little talk to the President to inform him that the one Billion Heavy Lifter would outperform anything that the Russian/Chinese efforts could bring.
Unless something happens, they will be on the Moon and Mars years before the Heavy Lifter is even built.
Speeches for an enthousiastic KNOWNOTHING audience will not keep Nasa and the USA on top.
Whoever rules Space, rules Earth.
The UFO subject is one that needs to be re-looked at by science. Sightings had been seen since before the time of the Wright brothers. The sightings increased during WWII where they were known as Foo fighters. Both Axis and Allied pilots recorded encounters with them. The Roswell incident occurred in 1947 and from there this subject took off. What may have been truth was swept under the carpet by the military, government and the media. In the 70 some years since that time this subject has been ridiculed and treated for the most part as nonsense. However there are pilots, astronauts, and former military people that are coming forward with incredible stories of encounters. These cannot simply be dismissed. The French in 1999 released a 90 page document called the COMETA report. It suggests that UFO's are extraterrestrial in origin. There are a few incidents in the last 20 plus years which are relevant. The JAL Alaska incident in 1986, The Belgium triangle sightings in 1989. The Phoenix sighting in 1997, The Chicago O'Hare incident in fall of 2006 and most recently the Stephen-ville Texas sightings in 2008. These things exist! They have been in our skies for quite some time. While many theories point the finger at this topic to mostly secret or exotic aircraft built by skunks-works or some other developer it (UFO subject) is not something that has come about in the last few years from Area 51 or some other nation. These things (UFOs) have always exhibited superior technology from their historical onset. What they are or who they are that is the BIG question? Are they from a different dimension, or from our future or from some nearby star. Our technology cannot grasp this yet! If one does their homework on this subject (there are some good books out there "Above Top Secret" by Timothy Good and then this outstanding new book "UFOs Generals, Pilots and Government Officials Go On Record" by Leslie Kean) one will walk away with a new insight. Kean's book is one of the best written regarding this subject in recent years. It is backed by some prominent people in science and government.While the United States remains quiet for the most part in dealing with this subject other countries are being more open with their files. The British and the French have released quite alot of information in the last few years and other countries are following in their footsteps. I do feel that we are getting closer to some kind of world wide disclosure concerning this topic. Kudo's to Leslie Kean for taking the nonsense out of this taboo subject!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisShame on Scientific American for giving this assignment to a dogmatic skeptic like Michael Shermer, who probably (and apparently) didn't even read the book. The more things change, the more they stay the same, no? Clearly, today's mainstream scientific community guards its orthodoxies as zealously as the keepers of conventional wisdom did in Galileo's time. One has to wonder if our high priests of science could bring themselves to admit they had been over-eager in their skepticism EVEN IF the ultimate "revelation" hypothetical were to come to pass, i.e., the proverbial "UFO-landing-on-the-White-House-lawn" scenario.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisConsider what the wise folks at the Brookings Institute so presciently anticipated back in 1961: "...of all groups, scientists and engineers might be the most devastated by the discovery of relatively superior creatures, since these professions are most clearly associated with the mastery of nature... Advanced understanding of nature might vitiate all our theories at the very least, if not also require a culture and perhaps a brain inaccessible to earth scientists." Brookings Institute report commissioned by NASA, "Proposed Studies on the Implications of Peaceful Space Activities for Human Affairs," submitted to Congress 4/18/61 (at p. 225, n.34).
This disingenuous and intellectually indefensible review of Ms. Kean's work by anti-UFO nut Michael Shermer demonstrates the extent to which the scientific community is willing to go to keep its collective head in the sand regarding the enigma of UFOs. Upon reading Ms. Kean's book, any reasonable person would have to admit this subject is a true mystery -- one for which Science owes humanity an answer, or at least a meaningful theory and an appropriate level of good faith scientific curiosity and research.
Very disappointing, Scientific American.
Wow. In light of the numerous critical comments (including some from would-be Shermer allies) declaring that the "emperor wears no clothes," I am wondering if Scientific American would consider printing a retraction and perhaps allowing an unbiased scientist to take a fresh look at Ms. Kean's book for a more reliable review? It seems patently obvious that Michael Shermer allowed his prejudices to get the better of him. That's understandable for an individual, but inexcusable in an esteemed publication like Scientific American.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFurther to my previous Comment:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAfter Nasa rejected the technology of the Flying Saucer that could have been be used on the Shuttles and keep Nasa and the USA on top in the Space Race, the technology is now available for Power Generation.
It is more economical for mass energy production than any other system, be it Nuclear, Wind, Water, Solar, Heat Pump or what else can come up.
It can be built anywhere at a fraction of the cost of a Nuclear Station and at any desired capacity.
It does not pollute, does not need water and the technical personnel will be electricians.
The Structures will be two silos, side by side with a height of ten feet or more, depending on the output needed.
The Gravity Control Units (GCU's) will be LEASED to give investors and the tax man their due.
Look at> One Terminal Capacitor Joseph Hiddink< an see the patent at > www.rexresearch.com/hiddink/hiddink.htm<
Warning, do not experiment with it,I left a few particulars out to thwart the use by unauthorised personnel. It can be lethal, it almost killed me with my very first experiment.
Couldn't agree more with Sam K. The premise of Shermer's article is absurd and not worthy of publication in SA. How about a do-over for Kean's work?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat has that to do with a UFO?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisScientific America, I have a great idea for you, though this may sound increasingly unscientific, find someone who has actually read Ms Kean's book to write a review about Ms Kean's book.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Our egoist society/civilization rests on the perceived reality that we are the ultimate supreme beings in the entire universe. To have aliens exist would be to obliterate the entire collective reality that the scientific community and government organizations share."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHave you never heard of SETI, Carl Sagan, Frank Drake, Seth Shostak, Jill Tarter, etc.? The scientific community not only think aliens possibly exist, astronomers are looking for them. The rub with pop UFOlogy is there's no hard evidence to support it. It's a matter of evidence, not social acceptance.
Ola,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAinsi les crop circles sont des canulars ?
Cher monsieur, permettez moi de vous dire que votre ignorance à ce sujet est très grande.
Les crop circles sont exécutés avec une très haute technologie, encore inconnue à ce jour.
Renseignez vous convenablement avant d'émettre des idées non fondées. Votre attitude est indigne, elle jette le trouble sur ce sujet à la fois si intrigant et si passionnant.
Desole je ne comprends pas. Peut vous parle l'anglais? Mon amie francaise rira a moi. La fille francaise est belle mais je ne comprends pas son francais et elle ne veut pas parler l'anglais.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow could SciAm ask Michael Shermer to review this book? That's like asking a Republican to review a proposal by a Democrat, or vice-versa.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe most telling statement made by Mr. Shermer is this: "...more work needs to be done to bring those anomalies into the accepted paradigm." WOW...in other words, the job of researchers like Michael is to rework the explanation until it fits into our preconceived notions of what is possible. The problem is, is that the entire UFO/Abduction phenomenon does NOT fit into the accepted paradigm of our westernized worldview. (Dr. Mack)
On a related topic, it just amazes me how a Military-Government doctrine that was initiated almost 60 years ago is still going strong today. A doctrine that suppresses truth and ridicules the people who challenge the official position. The government doesn't even have to hire people to follow their lead--they do it on their own, to fit in with "society". After all these years, haven't we learned that not everything the Government does is "right"??
There used to be a designation 'UAV' meaning Unlicensed Air Vehicle. Something buzzing around without a known authorization.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt doesn't seem to occur to sensationalists that the no-official-contact behaviour of UFO's could be imagined as not being alien at all, but being the characteristic of a vehicle from a future time (time relative to ours, that is). As contact by a future entity with a past entity could easily be deemed to be highly dangerous. For instance any matter intermixing by breathing or eating in the past could result in the atoms that are taken into body and vehicle later being violently stripped out when returning to the future, resulting in damage or death. It could be our own future kin simply going back into time for a holiday and history lesson, but no touching.
But why would an advanced civilization travel all across the stars just to look and not interact or dominate? It seems a large expense of energy just to do flybys, unless the actions happen to give a thrill due to some intergalactic illegality. Unless 'alien' UFO's are not real matter but just the manifestations of some super-advanced micro/macro scope. Or they could be alien vehicles that do not quite break through from interspatial wormholes and therefore there may be visual, but no contacting particles.
Relationships, personal or physical, all demand contact or some kind. All objects are defined not by their unknowable essence but by their interactions with other objects or entities. With no interaction there is no existence. Most phenomena are explainable but in science there are always some outside of measurement, information or understanding. Some UFO's might perhaps be alien, but as there is no interaction they might as well be ghosts and accordingly ignored. We have enough trouble dealing with our own hostiles, any friendly ghosts can be safely ignored, until such a time that they become demonstrably unfriendly. If that happened, they being technically advanced, there would not be much that we could do about it anyway. It has been man's common experience that advanced civilizations overrun all primitive ones, perhaps without even looking, or caring to look. At least that is our behaviour and is what we have done and how we have conducted Our interactions. When we visit other planets to just 'observe' it is We who will be the worrisome 'aliens'. Sealed off so we don't intermingle or sneeze.
There used to be a designation 'UAV' meaning Unlicensed Air Vehicle. Something buzzing around without a known authorization.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt doesn't seem to occur to sensationalists that the no-official-contact behaviour of UFO's could be imagined as not being alien at all, but being the characteristic of a vehicle from a future time (time relative to ours, that is). As contact by a future entity with a past entity could easily be deemed to be highly dangerous. For instance any matter intermixing by breathing or eating in the past could result in the atoms that are taken into body and vehicle later being violently stripped out when returning to the future, resulting in damage or death. It could be our own future kin simply going back into time for a holiday and history lesson, but no touching.
But why would an advanced civilization travel all across the stars just to look and not interact or dominate? It seems a large expense of energy just to do flybys, unless the actions happen to give a thrill due to some intergalactic illegality. Unless 'alien' UFO's are not real matter but just the manifestations of some super-advanced micro/macro scope. Or they could be alien vehicles that do not quite break through from interspatial wormholes and therefore there may be visual, but no contacting particles.
Relationships, personal or physical, all demand contact or some kind. All objects are defined not by their unknowable essence but by their interactions with other objects or entities. With no interaction there is no existence. Most phenomena are explainable but in science there are always some outside of measurement, information or understanding. Some UFO's might perhaps be alien, but as there is no interaction they might as well be ghosts and accordingly ignored. We have enough trouble dealing with our own hostiles, any friendly ghosts can be safely ignored, until such a time that they become demonstrably unfriendly. If that happened, they being technically advanced, there would not be much that we could do about it anyway. It has been man's common experience that advanced civilizations overrun all primitive ones, perhaps without even looking, or caring to look. At least that is our behaviour and is what we have done and how we have conducted Our interactions. When we visit other planets to just 'observe' it is We who will be the worrisome 'aliens'. Sealed off so we don't intermingle or sneeze.
I would have expected this book to be been given a more level headed shake than that which was given, especially coming from Scientific American. The slant in this piece is quite obvious whether you are a 'believer' or not. Ironic isn't it?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's obvious the UFO community has some hair-brained assertions. That said, the book itself, written by parties directly involved in high level official investigations, takes quite a sober view of the asserted phenomenon. One must weigh the fact that these individuals are also sober-minded professionals with likely nothing to gain but ridicule, and do not themselves ascribe definitively that these phenomena are 'aliens'; they are simply unknown.
One also must realize that our civilization likes to think it knows quite a bit about life on earth. We do not. Nor do we ultimately know much about the universe. Are we an intelligent civilization? That in itself when looked at in conjunction with the facts that our planet is slowly becoming a trash can of toxicity and extinction, should be considered along with whether we should knee-jerk reject the possibility of not only a phenomenon, but also perhaps the the possibility of something incredibly weird and unearthly taking place. The reality is we do not understand very much and thus we should take a more humble stance regarding our planet, our universe, and the possibility of objects in our skies.
If you can control gravity and levitate at will, you should see James Randi. You might even win $1 million.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt seems that when confronted with the UFO topic, and the range and quality of reliable eye witness accounts, in addition radar and other trace data, institutionalized skeptics like Michael Shermer simply become irrational. They revert to the tried and true tactic of ridicule and dogma to keep their minds closed to anomolous phenomena that simply do not fit existing knowledge. Having read Kean's book, I can assure you that this man has willfully misrepresented the thrust of the argument, and very selectively quoted from the text in order to support a biased and predetermined viewpoint. This does not seem to me a way for a scientist, let anyone claiming to engage in rational discourse, to behave.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn her book, journalist Leslie Kean and the many co-authors (former generals, government officials etc) are far more balanced, rational and scientific in their call for a small government-funded agency to proactively investigate this phenomenon in a systematic way. It could well be that many within the scientific establishment are unable to deal with this topic sensibly because they have way too much vested interest in a worldview, the currently 'accepted paradigm', which would be radically undermined by the discovery that UFO phenomena could not be explained within the confines of that paradigm. No wonder then that these people resort to ridicule and dogma, because effectively, the phenomena is beyond their capacity for rational argumentation within the 'accepted paradigm'. It simply is not worth considering, for them, because it is impossible or improbable according to that worldview.
Galileo's persecution at the hands of the Church hierarchy on the issue of heliocentrism has a very similar structure. In my view, what we are witnessing here is the final challenge to one of the most deeply held dogmas of contemporary times - anthropocentrism - the assumption that humans are at the top of the food chain and the masters of all they survey, both here on earth and in the deep reaches of the cosmos.
What is the 'accepted paradigm' of the scientific establishment? Carefully examine the evidence, apply Occam's razor, and see if this is the accepted paradigm.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHave you read the book? Have you familiarised yourself with the evidence that it presents? I have and in my view, and applying Ockham's razor, the issue warrants serious systematic investigation, not ridicule and dismissal. I have not arrived at any firm conclusions, and nor has Leslie Kean.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI cannot help thinking that the resort to irrational and emotional put-downs is the clearest indication that some dogmatic skeptics are simply unreceptive to the evidence, and effectively have closed their minds, and would like to close down a discussion of the matter because it suits an established set of assumptions on the basis of which they conduct their professional work and personal lives.
When presented with observations of other worldly phenomena from unimpeachable sources-generals, pilots, government officials-a good scientist would go where the evidence leads him. But Michael Shermer doesn't want to go there. That would be to a paradigm shift. Instead, he says we need "to work to bring those anomalies into the accepted paradigm". Why does Scientific American allow such unscientific thinking on its pages?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFor those of you have NOT experienced a sighting of an UFO, your words are muffled by falsehoods. Some of us know better. Many responses chatter of statistics. Where do these come from? The same group of authorities that lie to you.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI know that thinking the government supplied deliberate erroneous information to you is difficult for you to conceive. It's demonstrated in how you consider us. The mockery you take is equal to the mockery you make.
We know folks are being duped. It's not we that are dysfunctional. At sometime in the future you will adapt this truth to your view of how it is.
I'll tell you why I'm sure.
About 12-13 years ago, December around the holidays my father-in-law and I were heading North. This was on the water in the pass between Big Pine and Little Torch Keys. He was the captain and I was just enjoying the approaching evening. The weather was perfectly clear. I was sober, sane and a little sunburnt. We always came back in before the sun set. At about 70 degrees above the southern horizon, I saw a jet. It was high and heading about due west. It was a large jet and too high to come into Key West (which doesn't take big jets) and the next land mass is Mexico. It had a short contrail and may have had four engines.
I thought it would be cool to see the sun glint off the wings as it dropped down toward the sun. I did this and then noticed that another object was in the sky about 2-3 miles to the rear. It was round. It was more than twice the length of the plane in it's diameter. It's color was metallic gold sunward and burnt umber on the shielded side. The meridian demarcating this slid smoothly forward as the object traversed the sky.
It's why I say it was sphere.
A sphere with no protrusions, no indentations, and like a drug dealer, with no visible means of support.
I know of no airplane that that could pull a huge perfect sphere like this.
I know of no sphere that could have maintained it's shape in our atmosphere while being towed.
I watched this for several minutes and showed in to my father-in-law. "Never seen anything like it.", was his impression.
So here I am, reading another person espousing dis-information, attempting to defend a FAIL of massive proportions.
I urge you to be skeptical of all officially distributed statements. Be skeptical of me.
Do some serious research. The UFO folks haven't killed anyone (other than themselves.)
Take a look at the USS liberty, USS Maine, Gulf of Tonkin and the latest WMD scare for my officials' reliability to speak the truth.
Since you have read the book and are familiar with the evidence, tell us what are the specific evidences? And since you brought up the issue of 'accepted paradigm' tell us what exactly is it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDon't immediately conclude of ridicule, dismissal, irrational, emotional put down, dogmatic, unreceptive, closed minds, etc. These are all negative adjectives and over defensiveness without even talking of any evidence. Expound on the evidence and let the strength of the evidence convince everybody.
i've often wondered how hard core skeptics can maintain their stance so unswervingly.... apparently it's easy. just don't actually read the book.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Have you never heard of SETI, Carl Sagan, Frank Drake, Seth Shostak, Jill Tarter, etc.? The scientific community not only think aliens possibly exist, astronomers are looking for them. The rub with pop UFOlogy is there's no hard evidence to support it. It's a matter of evidence, not social acceptance."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI agree that most in the scientific community believe in the existence of aliens - based on the large number of stars in the galaxy (~200 - 400 billion). However, there is also the belief that these aliens (no matter how far advanced) are constrained by OUR CURRENT laws of physics. Special Relativity(1905) holds that nothing can exceed the speed of light - therefore the aliens are stuck in their solar-systems just as we are. Thus we should listen for their radio signals (our current best and fastest possible means of communications). The possibility that Special Relativity may not be the last word in physics is simply not considered. So too, it is not possible for a craft to suspend itself in midair without the use of rotors, jets, or rockets. The principle of equivalence the corner stone of General Relativity (1915) does not permit antigravity. Again, the possibility that General Relativity may not be the last word in physics is simply not considered. I do not believe the physics of the 31st century will be the same as today...nevermind an alien civilization with say 10 million years on us. I would however agree that the study of UFO's is a waste of time - not because they don't exist - but because it useless, like a chimp investigating a nuclear-sub.
I've agreed with most everything Michael Shermer has said in these pages, but his biases and shortcomings are finally and unfortunately highlighted by his comments on this topic.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm a former UFO skeptic who read Kean's book back in the autumn, and I found the amount and quality of evidence presented in it quite surprising and convincing. Radar does not lie. And when it corroborates the amazing testimony of multiple highly-trained, high quality witnesses, well... it's fair to say that, obviously, something deserving of serious scientific effort is happening in the worlds' skies.
However, Mr. Shermer's main "tactic" here -- I don't know what else to call it, since I assume he's actually read the entire book -- is a bit shameful. If one reads Kean's book carefully, then he will see that, in the paragraph Shermer cites, Belgian General DeBrouwer is summarizing the events of merely the first night of what later became a series of amazing sightings; Kean's excerpted paragraph, however, is a summary of the most intriguing elements of that entire series of Belgian sightings, a series which did indeed include evidence of larger and more rapidly accelerating objects. Kean's statements, in other words, can be supported by the evidence presented in the book, as can DeBrouwer's.
In other words, the two paragraphs that Mr. Shermer is here contrasting (or intentionally picking for ridicule?) are not even *attempting* to describe the same set of data! This is very surprising. How could this have been overlooked by an obviously intelligent man? Either Mr. Shermer does know that those paragraphs are describing different events, and he's trying to gloss over that fact, i.e., he is guilty of intellectual dishonesty, or he does not know that those paragraphs are describing different events, and he is guilty of not reading very carefully. Which is it? Either way, should we not expect more of one attempting to portray himself as an exemplar of rationality and scientific fair-mindedness?
The Only Proven UFO Photo
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn 1996 NASA launched the space Shuttle Columbia on a science mission to determine the amount of electricity gather over a 12.1 mile Tether, STS 75. The mission failed when the Tether broke away from Columbia and it's argon gas encapsulated around the Tether causing it to glow like a florescent light bulb. The 3 CCD video camera's recorded up to 100 UFO's circling around the Tether traveling at 25,200 miles an hour making 90 degree turns. The Tether allowed for exact measurements of UFO's moving behind the Tether as it acted like a ruler, it's length known precisely. This was the last broadcast on a open channel for Academia, NASA immediately went to encrypted transmission video feed. Using a direct feed video I increased the DPI in a single image by 6000% showing a clear image of the UFO and it's exterior marking. I have offered $10,000 to anyone who can prove the photo is not real taken by NASA, 6 scientists challenged the photo, all failed, no pixel modification or image manipulation have been found with most conceding it's authenticity. Here is a link to the article, http://www.ufodigest.com/news/1208/tether.html
I pulled out the book to check Mr. Shermer's facts. (He claims that Ms. Kean draws unwarranted or sensationalist conclusions from Belgian Air Force General De Brouwer's words.) However, it seems that Mr. Shermer owes Ms. Kean an apology. The paragraph of Ms. Kean's that Mr. Shermer cites is fully supported by General De Brouwer's own written conclusions, which are listed on pp 34-35 of Kean's book. One of the General's conclusions reads "[t]he crafts performed in ways not possible by known technology. They were able to remain stationary and hover... . They could fly at low speeds and accelerate extremely fast, faster than any known aircraft, and they remained silent, or made only very slight noise, even when hovering or accelerating."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo, it seems that Mr. Shermer either did not actually read the General's conclusions, or he has no problem trying to discredit Ms. Kean by misrepresenting her words. It's disheartening that he chose to characterize Kean's excerpted text as "[her] summary of the same incident" when it was obviously nothing of the sort.
Please, Mr. Shermer, this is not the way respectable scientists conduct themselves. And Scientific American, did you not check Mr. Shermer's claims? It took me under 10 minutes to do so.
I'm still waiting for that alien piece of hard physical evidence to show up in any national museum, large university, or even a private corporation, which could then be tested in a reproducible way. In several laboratories, there exist Moon rocks which have chemical compositions not found anywhere on Earth, which completely disprove the "Apollo-was-a-hoax" theorists position. That is the scientific method...peer reviewed, reproducible evidence. All the "sightings", grainy photos, wobbly videos, and eyewitness statements in the world, even from Air Force generals or retired Brazilian airline pilots, do not take the place of a single bit of hard physical evidence. There have been thousands of Bigfoot sightings, but not one hair, claw, bone or anything exists anywhere which could be definitively tested for DNA which matched no other species of animal. Surely the aliens who visit Earth must leave some physical evidence of some kind. If not, then they remain in the realm of the superstition, not the realm of science.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am open to the idea, I would actually rejoice to find verifiable, reproducible physical evidence of alien visitations to Earth. I've been a sci-fi fan since I was a teenager several decades ago, a "Trekkie" when the TV series was new, a "Star Wars" fan since it's inception. I'd love for there to be proof of alien life in the universe. I'm also a follower of the scientific method, so when a piece of undeniably alien physical evidence appears, then, and only then, will I become a believer. A coded signal from SETI would fill the bill, too, if it were reproducible.
Just my take on it. Best wishes.
"However, there is also the belief that these aliens (no matter how far advanced) are constrained by OUR CURRENT laws of physics"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe scientific community does not share that belief. On the contrary, professional physicists often speculate on faster than light travel. The problem that astronomers find in claims that aliens are here is not that they cannot possibly go here but where is the empirical evidence that they are here? Show them a piece of the flying saucer. (Roswell turned out to be a weather balloon)
I disagree that the study of UFO is a waste of time. We should study UFOs to find the empirical evidence that is sorely missing.
It's also easy for core believers to maintain their unswerving stance. Just don't read books: "Broca's Brain" by Carl Sagan; "Confessions of an Alien Hunter" by Seth Shostak
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFrom Broca's Brain:
NASA rejected the proposal from the Office of the President to do a comprehensive study of UFOs because, looking at the voluminous evidences, when hoaxes and mere anecdotes are excluded, there is nothing left to study.
The photo must be real. I believe in UFOs. I understand UFO means unidentified flying object, not extraterrestrial intelligence. As Carl Sagan said if you see strange lights in the night sky, it doesn't mean we are being visited by aliens from another galaxy.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDr. Strangelove, your behavior really puzzles me. It seems you've clearly not read the book, because all of the things you mention are discussed in it. How the Air Force, NASA, Condon, Blue Book, etc., came to act the way they acted is addressed. It's almost as if it's a brand new topic to you, like you've been Googling it for the last few hours for the first time or something....
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPlease, you're holding yourself out to be Mr. Rational. Great. We're all for rationality, and all for skepticism. However, Shermer's article, and over 50 comments now, are about a book. A BOOK. Why are you commenting so frequently on that book if you (like Mr. Shermer) have obviously not bothered to carefully read it? How can you be rational about something you're not even familiar with?
You've gone as far as asking people to present the book's evidence in this message forum. (And it has been mentioned.) Are you that opposed to reading a book? Are you afraid it may challenge you? (It will. It should challenge anyone.) And the generalities about the best evidence presented in the book HAVE already been mentioned. Radar data. Not noise or clutter. Objects. Flying. Unlike objects we make. It's there for you to read. (Yes, in the book.)
The book is a fair, sober, objective treatment of the topic. The author does NOT claim to know what the objects are. She DOES advocate serious, rigorous scientific study of the phenomenon. And I honestly can't imagine anyone confronting the evidence presented and concluding, "nah, they're all lying, or mistaken," or "nah, we don't need to know more about that." At a minimum, there are serious air safety issues. It truly is the book that traditional "debunkers" fear, because, like Mr. Shermer (and Mr, Oberg, months ago), they're now going to have to take some serious credibility hits if they comment on things without having done their homework.
Your behavior puzzles me even more. You refer to the BOOK like a sacred scripture, a holy book, your bible. UFOs have been around for over 60 yrs. Yet you believe anyone who had not read the BOOK is ignorant of UFOs. For your info, there are lots of books about UFO and scientists particularly the late Carl Sagan have been studying it since the 1960s, even before Leslie Kean looked into it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou yourself confirm the BOOK does not claim to know what the objects are. Isn't that exactly what I said? Unidentified flying object!
"nah, they're all lying, or mistaken," or "nah, we don't need to know more about that." That's what you imagine and hope that I said. But what I actually said was "we should study UFOs to find the empirical evidence that is sorely missing."
It's truly bizarre you're arguing with yourself.
I like the last paragraph. It reminds me of the Big Bang and its pig-headed proponents. Those who stick with their theory even in the face of absurdity.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMr. Shermer is right, it takes a lot of work to get the square peg rammed into that round hole.
We are living with almost 7 billion people on our little planet, each of us has a 100 billion of neurones that create together an "image" of our universe, from all the matter that surrounds us we "SEE" only 4%, the rest is dark matter and dark energie (see comment of JTDwyer), we think that we are the top of what we call "Creation", and indeed have flaw theories of the origin of our universe, physics is like philosophy nowedays (Quantum Physiscs), we talk seriuosly about 12 dimensions , on this subject you can achieve a ph.d., where is the Higgs Boson ?, billions are spended to search this ghost particle (LHC), all this because of the egocentric thought that we have all the wisdom somewhere available, and if we "observe" an UFO, we are afraid to tell nonsense.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWilhelmus
oeps.... isn't it the first of april ?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"The scientific community does not share that belief. On the contrary, professional physicists often speculate on faster than light travel. The problem that astronomers find in claims that aliens are here is not that they cannot possibly go here but where is the empirical evidence that they are here? Show them a piece of the flying saucer. (Roswell turned out to be a weather balloon)"
Perhaps you are correct. However, the last book I read on this subject was entitled “The Eerie Silence” by Paul Davis. He does speculate on faster than light travel but then dismisses the whole idea since OUR CURRENT theories on such a possibility require vast quantities of ‘negative mass’ particles even beyond, in Dr. Davis opinion, the capabilities of an advanced alien super-civilization, assuming such particles exist at all. He also dismisses any kind of antigravity because it would, as I stated previously, conflict with the principle of equivalence in General Relativity (pretty cocky I think, as we haven’t even tested the principle on antimatter, and our current ignorance with regard to the nature of dark-matter and dark-energy cannot be understated). It seems to me that if Dr. Davis took the notion that Special & General Relativity are not the last word in physics seriously, then the title of the book might have been “The Expected Silence.” Anyway, I would appreciate it if you could give me a scientist who does SERIOUSLY speculate on what we might encounter in a universe where Special & General Relativity are not the last word in physics. Because it seems to me that this is exactly what we have with the UFO phenomena.
As to physical evidence, what is it that you are expecting from craft of an alien super-civilization with 10 million years on us? A piece of the craft you said. You mean like when the shuttle takes off and pieces fall off it?! The equivalent of a loose hubcap perhaps…
We have eye-witness accounts. Not very satisfying as far as scientific investigation goes true, but what else would you expect?
There is little to no doubt that a cover up of the UFO phenomenon lead by the U.S. government military, CIA, FBI and the White House under the guise of national security. Fraud, deception or just outright lies are common in any investigation of credible UFO sightings or crashes like, http://www.ufodigest.com/news/1009/russian-disk.php
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisby Ronald Nussbeck
On November 29, 1968 the newspaper Sverdlovsk reported, "Berezovsky Dreams" with the account of Flying Lightning Balls, one of which crashed near Berezovsky. This Opinion article may well be the most important UFO research piece ever written, it reveals never before seen images of a UFO Crashed Disk. I would also like to thank Ron Stewart for the many long hours of research and development of the images, without people like Ron this would never make the light of day.
The Soviet Defense Ministry wrote in March 1969, Order No. 481 addressed to the Commander of the Air Defense Forces in the Sverdlosvsk Military Region Lieutenant General A.G. Ponomarenko. He was ordered to assist in every way the local KGB authorities in the operation "Sverdlovsk Midget" (small aliens), signed by the Deputy Commander in Chief of the USSR Air Defense Forces, Colonel General S.D. Lebedey, Seal stated, General Staff of the USSR Defense Ministry.
In a second letter from November 3, 1969 on the KGB letterhead addressed to Deputy Chief of the Scientific Research Department KGB USSR, Colonel Grigoriev. The letter stated that on March 5, 1969 information was received about discovery of the unidentified object wreckage, 3 meter high and 5 meter in diameter with remains of small unknown human like creature, Operation called "Sverdlovsk Midget".
Ron S. Stewart using APEP (Advanced Photographic Extraction Process), a Microscopic Digital Imaging system. APEP uses X-Ray, Thermo, Infrared and high magnification along with increased DPI (dots per inch) to extract images. The articles photos reveal the Russian's may have in there possession a crashed Disk from another planet.
Below is the image and documents smuggled out of Russia from Berezovsky crash, in the region of Sverdlovsk in 1968. The image is a third generation photo but the details extracted are shocking to the human mind.
Death Certificates signed by Doctors Kamyshoy, Savitsky and Gordeenko were issued in Moscow region on March 24, 1969. Certificates in the USSR are printed by Gosznak, the documents are only some of the damning evidence found. Large volumes of information are available on the web including autopsy photos and expert testimony to the veracity of the crash.
This event is just one of hundreds that documentation has leaked to the public. Academics and Physicists with I.Q.'s beyond 150 are nearly all in agreement, UFO are real and possibly pervasive in static orbits around Earth. The evidence of ex terrestrials visiting Earth are beyond doubt.
New tools for investigating UFO's are now being used, here are some scientists are now using.
Analysis of distant planetary bodies, Cosmic events, chemical compounds found across Universe for the purpose of determining what is the cause of atom construction is recognized as one of the most challenging technical aspects of Astrophysics for the next 100 years but now may have been solved using ORIE.
New scientific diagnostic tools have been developed by the
Respondent. The technology uses all known imaging technologies, e.g.,
X-Ray, Infrared, Radar, Thermo and all Optical devices but advances
instant imaging capabilities to the next-generation of investigative and
analytical capability. It is here that the respondents and of this
scientific paper show that a new scientific investigative direct
imaging diagnostic tool is now available, that may be able to create
images on a much deeper from microscopic to unlimited enlargement
capabilities levels than has ever been attained or seen before. That
will give scientists and Planetary researchers a much better look at
the Universe. The name of this new microscopic imaging technology is
named:"ORIE". Which is the acronym meaning;" OPTICAL- REMOTE - IMAGING
- ENHANCEMENT "
Now the science of Astrophotography using ORIE has enabled enhanced
visual image of Planetary bodies, Cosmic events and Gamma ray bursts using a Color Algorithm, capability photo- study ªORIEº real-radar electron-resolve color. This is chiefly due to the finite capability of the Photo Imaging instruments which
enable unlimited magnification of study subjects in space. A recently
developed analytical method and process called, ORIE (Optical Remote
Image Enhancement), enables visual observation and real time analysis
of distance Cosmic Events, using recorded or raw
data (regardless of the source), e.g., photographs, micrographs,
radiographs, aperture radar signals, sonograms and electron
micrographs, but not limited to only these, better and deeper visual
analytical capability along with heretofore absent ability to re solve
minute cellular and molecular components and structures while revealing
true color, cell component macro/micro structure, spatial
relationships, fractal enhancement amplification and pixel recognition.
The ORIE system identifies structure, elements and compounds contained in the subject of study. Study subjects contained in any photograph, radiograph, aperture radar / Optical processes, - etc. Study subject exploits
involving other means of imaging including a image of a Gamma Event and
imaging involving e.g.,- x-ray, imaging from microscopes to micrographs
from cellular atomic electron imaging levels the ORIE technologies may
have in hypothetical, theoretical, experimental exploratory Space
Imaging, and in real time applications have an infinite range of applications in many and varied areas of Astrophysics imaginable research.
That would not only produce the next several generations of
Planetary/Cosmic Event Analysis enabling to help what is known about
Cosmic Events.
ORIE is owned and operated by Ronald Nussbeck
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUFO'S USING EARTH'S LIGHTING STORMS TO COLLECT ANTI-MATTER FOR INTERSTELLAR TRAVEL?
by Ronald Nussbeck
Nearly fifteen years after NASA's launch of STS 75 Space Shuttle Columbia mission TSS-1R, USMP-3 on February 22, 1996 from Kennedy Space Center, Florida answers are emerging as to what happened in space during the failed Tether science mission. The missions duration was to be 15 days, 17 hours with a Orbit Altitude of 160 nautical miles and a total distance to be traveled 6.5 million miles.
The crew of STS-75 consisted of Commander Andrew M. Allen, Pilot Scott J. Horowitz, Payload Commander Franklin R. Chang-Diaz, Mission Specialists Maurizio Cheli, Jeffery A. Hoffman, Claud Nicolier and Umberto Guidoni.
The Shuttle was conducting a science mission using a U.S./Italian Tethered Satellite system 12.1 miles long for measuring voltage generated across the Tether reaching as high as 3,500 volts. The gas from the satellite's thrusters interacted with the ionosphere creating a glow similar to a florescent light bulb or a plasma wake, this was created by moving a body through the electrically charged ionosphere. After the Tether broke away from the Shuttle it created a phenomenon caught on tape by the Shuttles CCD camera showing many unidentified flying objects (UFO's) circling the Tether and then moving away and over lighting storms in the upper atmosphere. See you tube (sts75 ufo's) and all related STS Shuttle mission videos on UFO's. These UFO's are not what you see filmed over Earths cities each day in photos and videos, these are the Bulk cruisers measuring 2 1/2 miles in diameter, the measurements were taken as these Crafts flew behind the Tether which acts like a ruler giving precise measurements.
On December 14, 2009 Nasa's Fermi satellite was flying over Egypt, the spacecraft intercepted a particle beam from a terrestrial gamma-ray flash which occurred over it's horizon. Fermi's Gamma-ray burst monitor detected the signal of positrons annihilating on the spacecraft, twice, some of the particles reflected off a magnetic mirror point and returned. Studies of lighting storms using high-speed cameras reveal a whole world of activity in the upper atmosphere that no one expected, anti-matter particles created high above ordinary storm clouds by bolts of lightings. These Terrestrial Gamma-ray flashes send beams of anti-matter arcing through the Earth's atmosphere in thunderstorms as high as 100 kilometers and are sometimes referred to as Blue Jets. It is now believed that as many as 500 or more Gamma-ray flashes happen everyday with thunderstorms coughing Positrons (anti-electrons) anti-matter up the Earth's magnetic field.
Over the last Ten years I have studied NASA video's of STS missions and the Bulk Cruisers seen in them showing the crafts stationary over thunderstorms producing Bolts of lighting, this has lead me to postulate why we have so many UFO sightings, is our planet something special? Is our planet one of only a handful in this section of the Milky way Galaxy that has large amounts of liquid water which produces mass quantities of thunderstorms and lighting with huge amounts of anti-matter fuel produced from them? Earth with 2/3 of the planet being water and NASA knowing most planets are waterless, at least in and around our solar system means traveling Aliens need Earth for fuel. Earth produces mass quantities of water vapor that forms high altitude thunderstorms that are needed for production of anti-matter. Many great minds have also postulated that Aliens would need anti-matter or a similar fuel to travel the Universe, the question was how do they get it, now we know? Collecting anti-matter is already being done by scientist today, for a group of advanced life forms this would be like humans going to our local gas station and filling up!
My kneejerk reaction used to be laughter when writers of articles, like this one, speculated the triangular object described by witnesses was an early prototype stealth bomber.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI mean, everyone knows that early prototypes behavior included "moving very slowly without making any significant noise but, in several cases, accelerating to very high speeds."
You see, folks, the Air Force realized that behavior, described by witnesses, was too upsetting. So, when they released the final version of the Stealth, they dumbed it down. Now it can't move "very slowly without making any significant noise"! That way, there's no risk of it moving to "very high speeds" from that slow, hovering stance.
Laughing out loud! Nice article, genius.
I really don't know if there are aliens or not. It doesn't really interest me, but there seems to be some confusion over the term 'evidence' as it applies to science. In science, this usually refers to repeatable measurements. First hand testomonial is usually not used as scientific evidence because there can be a repeatability issue. I do think that the review was a bit biased but it isn't a scientific book. So why is it being reviewed by Scientific American in the first place?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPaul Davies is not very imaginative. General relativity allows 'faster than light' travel by compressing spacetime. This requires an enormous amount of energy but theoretically possible. This is the favored approach by physicists like Michio Kaku (there are others just watch Discovery Channel)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI suppose flying saucers are made up of matter. So a physical evidence would be traces of exotic elements not naturally occuring on earth found on alleged UFO landing sites. Of course the best eye witness account would be an interview with ET.
If I hear another pseudo-intellectual babble "UFO's exist, there are always unidentified things flying around in the sky." I think I am gonna throw up. The evidential challenge promoting Ockham's Razor Plurality on this issue, afforded by the eyewitnesses, is staggering and overwhelming. There is only one thing less reliable than eyewitness accounts, and that is pre-cooked rationality and pro-active ignorance - surreptitiously masqued under fake skepticism.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMichael's editorial is a completely lazy, pseudo-scientific, piece of 20 minute "Hit Send and look for my paycheck" balderdash.
Get off your butts and meet with the people seeing these things. Including mechanics who work on the B-2, pilots, professionals and scientists.
Denial is when you ignore data, as Michael has done. Dissent, is when you have a different idea.
I dissent and do not agree that Michael's pat answer here is correct.
Craigger hit the nail spot on: ''Michael's editorial is a completely lazy, pseudo-scientific, piece of 20 minute "Hit Send and look for my paycheck" balderdash.''
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWho is really to blame? Scientific American's lax editorial standards, of course! This type of article is typical of late. In all fairness, you get what you pay for, and in the case of many, that's one big fat $zero. (I happen to be a paid subscriber but I see these articles and this forum are read by all.)
The thing of it is, one has to take these articles with a grain of salt because Scientific American simply cannot afford in these lean times to exert any editorial standards. I guess the whole benefit, then, is in people tearing articles apart and learning from that tearing down process. When life hands you lemons, make lemonade, didn't someone advise that route under dubious circumstances?
Lamorpa, you seem to have it largely right. The UFO belief phenomenon is tied to our general "...need to believe...."! I'd love to say more, as I've put a lot of thought into "the need to believe" (mostly some 40+ years ago); but, at this moment, I'm in need of the proverbial "little slice of death" -sleep!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisR. Carlson
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this..."Of course the best eye witness account would be an interview with ET."
You mention Michio Kaku, I think the following quotes are fairly representative of physicists’ attitudes:
"When we physicists look at the equations of Albert Einstein, we cry. We cry because they are so gorgeous." – Michio Kaku
"Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity changed forever our ideas about space and time. It is so beautiful, it has to be right" – Stephen Hawking
I would not look to these people for serious speculation on what we might expect in a universe where Relativity was not the last word in physics.
As to an interview with E.T.,that would be nice. If we were lucky enough to have E.T.'s with a few hundred or even a few thousand years on us within as many light years I would expect that sort of thing. A meet and greet at the U.N. perhaps. However that would be an incredible stroke of luck, far more likely would be E.T.'s with millions of years on us - and with about as much much interest in contact with humans as we would have interviewing pond-scum.
Look, I understand that some individuals might have a problem with Mr. Shermer's characterization of this topic. And I certainly wouldn't endorse avoiding a systematic treatment of any unresolved topic, even one as improbable as alien visitations. However, I don't understand all of the intractable support for this "UFOs as aliens" bs. Let's be honest. There's no evidence that any aliens have visited our planet and there is even less reason to believe that such surreptitious visitations would be likely to occur. The very idea that highly advanced aliens would be interested in secretly stalking our civilization is both bizarre and ludicrous. There is a reason that Shermer classes this hysteria along with psychic phenomena and religious hogwash. Perhaps you UFO folks need to start looking at your fantasies with a more critical eye.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe debate of the existence of alien life and the place we as humans in the grand picture we call this universe, is really at the heart of the issue. All things, in time, can be explained and placed in its proper contents in relations to the "big picture". As the church pushed the doctrine, in the time of Galileo, that the world was flat and that the sun revolved around the Earth. Now we laugh at how idiotic the concept was that the world was flat and the sun revolved around Earth was, but future generatios will think no less of us for believing that we are the crowns of creation and no other intelligent life exists outside of the planet Earth. The government can explain away the UFO debate as easily as the Inquistor could explain away the idea that the world was round tha the earth revolved around the sun; and we were not the center of the universe. Although most people do believe that we surely are the center of the universe.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat's the point of expounding evidence to someone who wilfully distorts what is presented? If Shermer had read the book with care and attention he would not have made the statements he made in the his review (see post by scottp118 04:07 PM 3/31/11). His analysis of the two sets of quotes are either sloppy, in which case he is guilty of disrespect or laziness, or they are wilfully attempting to distort what has been presented - take your pick Dr Strangelove. And where do you sit? Are you sloppy or just intent on wilful misrepresentation?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI dispute your requirements for evidence. What you define only relates to scientific evidence. And it is true, I am not aware of any such conclusive physical evidence being publicly available. However, in the realm of human affairs there are forms of evidence besides the scientific ones that you propound. And not all of these can be relegated to the sphere of superstition either. The rules of legal evidence, for instance, recognise the value of corroborating and independent eye-witness reports. Many of the human sciences rely fundamentally on other forms of evidence than those acceptable to a physicist. Could there be phenomena which the physicist is not capable of identifying because their characteristics (physical or otherwise) sit outside his or her area of current knowledge or expertise, if not in radically different paradigms of understanding. That, is a philosophical perspective, but even science relies to some extent on fundamental philosophical insights about what can count for physical evidence.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut what do you make of the fact that sightings are being reported in such massive numbers? Are you even aware of the sightings that have taken place over the entire metropolitan area of Phoenix on March 13 1997, the waves of UFOs that entered Belgian and British airspace in the 90s, and simultaneously tracked on radar and by airborne jets? Are you aware of these? The explanations, if they are ever provided, remain either ludicrous or non-existent. I can understand if you want physical evidence, but surely you can also recognise that something is going on in these incidences that defies known laws of physics.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut that is where you end up getting into this logical trap - if they are operating outside the known laws of physics, well you say, where then is the physical evidence? But the physical evidence that you are looking for remains within the realm of your current known laws of physics... what is needed is for a scientific approach to this problem which commits a dedicated team of scientists to measure something about these sightings based on the premise that what is being observed defies the rules of motion as we know them.
Because the combined eye-witness evidence should sway any open-minded scientist to recognise something truly worthy of serious and systematic investigation. Kean wants the government to set up a small-scale scientific office to investigate this stuff, publicly, properly and officially. That's all! As an appeal of this kind, I would have thought that the scientific community could muster a more respectful and considered debate than the one that Shermer has foisted upon us with his ridiculous review! We want a real discussion, not one where one side of the discussion doesn't know what we're talking about. Kean's book is nothing sacred... it's just a good compendium of the most baffling and unresolvable cases, most of them written by the officials involved in the sightings, presenting their own evidence. And instead, Shermer resorts to derision through sloppy and selective quoting.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI agree completely - its simply outrageous that a journal like Scientific American could publish something this sloppy.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhen you say 'there is even less reason to believe that such surreptitious visitations would be likely to occur', whose reason do you have in mind?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"The rules of legal evidence, for instance..."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTake a look at Elizabeth Loftus' research on eyewitness testimony. Highly replicable and well verified. Based upon this field alone, evidence suggests that the use of eye witness testimony in legal cases may play a major role in the high rate of wrongful convictions in this country.
"But what do you make of the fact that sightings are being reported in such massive numbers?"
The numbers have been increasing along with globalization and exposure to the idea of alien spacecraft landing on this planet. Prior to the first broadcast of "War of the Worlds" I don't think that this phenomenon was observed at all.
"Because the combined eye-witness evidence should sway any open-minded scientist to recognise something truly worthy of serious and systematic investigation."
As per above, this is a fallacy. Combined eyewitness testimony is not so much more reliable than individual eyewitness testimony (again, see some of Loftus' work). Not to mention, in this case, the eyewitnesses have the opportunity to corroborate their evidence prior to its being aired to the public. Clearly, you have fallen into the trap of believing that anecdotal evidence becomes stronger in higher volumes. In fact, it follows that if anecdotal evidence is based upon a misinterpretation of facts, then the number of people reporting similar anecdotes is irrelevant, as all of these witnesses may being erring in the same fashion.
In contrast, science attempts to use unbiased observation, where possible alternate explanations are precluded. When proper controls are used in experimentation, this form of evidence differs from anecdotal evidence in that an accumulation of objective evidence becomes stronger (although not infallible, as even "unbiased" reports may sometimes be systematically biased) with corroborating evidence.
"...whose reason..."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou are welcome to propose suitable situations in which these scenarios are likely to occur. However, it does not follow from an a priori stance that if there were alien lifeforms with space craft that they would act in this fashion. As a result, it is incumbent upon you, as the claimant, to provide reasonable evidence in support of this claim. As has been well documented, eyewitness claims in support of a phenomenon are not strong evidence to suggest that the claim is correct. As these claims have not--and, apparently, cannot--be verified objectively this so-called "evidence" is moot. Moreover, the claim that "UFOs are aliens" is the least parsimonious of a variety of alternate explanations for these phenomena. Taken together, I think these points illustrate why conspiracy theories, psychic phenomena, religious visions, alien sightings and paraphenomena in general are all relegated to the realm of witchcraft and lunacy.
Alright, that's my fun for the day. Now I have actual work to do.
This is just a game to you isn't it? Outwit the silly non-scientist with your well-defended worldview. You are even willing to effectively relegate the western legal system to the realm of quasi superstition because it does not follow rules of evidence that satisfy current scientific method! That is hubris - do you know the meaning of the word?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAre you familiar with the Rendlesham Forest incident in Britain which involved numerous military personnel stationed at two adjacent US Air Force bases who encountered strange lights and objects in the woods just outside these nuclear-armed facilities on a sequence of nights in December 1980? One of the military police officers is on record as saying that he touched one of these objects which was sitting on the ground - he even took notes of the unusual symbols he saw insribed on the body of this object while he was investigating. He was there with another officer who corroborates his evidence. How arrogant of you to simply dismiss this serviceman's testimony, along with that of many others, because it does not fit into any of your pigeon holes for legitimate scientific discourse. Deal with the facts - do not distort the facts so that they fit into your predefined concepts of what is real or possible.
If I wanted to, I could easily make an anthropological mockery of the narrow-minded way in which you apply scientific method to defend yourself against possibilities that unnerve you. What is the objectivity involved in a bunch of scientists confirming each other's prejudice that certain phenomena are beyond the realm of the possible or probable. This is a self-sustaining myth that has all the hallmarks of the Church's decision to persecute Galileo for daring to suggest the possibility of heliocentrism. It is also the equivalent of a child putting his hands over his ears, closing his eyes and shouting 'it's not true! it's not true! it's not true!'
zstansfi, what do you make of the many cases where ground radar, or air radar, or both, corroborate the testimony of multiple high-quality witnesses? (Testimony and radar that indicate not merely distant lights in the sky, not clutter or interference, but instead, highly maneuverable, solid, reactive objects, with no wings or lifting surfaces, no apparent engines, not even of the B-2 or "flying wing" type, etc....)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMany such cases do exist. Google the RB-47 case, for one of the more intriguing. In it, an aircrew, ground radar, and multiple independent air radar receivers all confirmed the presence of an object that was visible from the cockpit of the RB-47, and seeming to toy with it.
If you care to familiarize yourself with the work of Dr. James McDonald (physicist, U. Arizona), that would get you started and point you to several radar cases from well before 1970.
Even in the Belgian wave (the discussion of which was the subject of Shermer's article here), it was decided that Air Force jets would not be scrambled until: 1) the objects reported by witnesses were also seen by police, and 2) those objects were also confirmed on radar. And F-16's were scrambled. Is this simply all coincidence or a hoax or what?
Clearly, many people would simply prefer to not hear of things like this.
What is it, exactly, that causes otherwise intelligent people to stick their fingers in their ears even in rational discussions of this topic? Science is failing us here, badly, largely because of the attitude in the U.S. Why?
It is true, science is failing, and if zstansfi's attitude is anything to go by it can be boiled down to the following formula:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTheory X or study Y show that a phenomena can't be happening or possible, therefore reports about a phenomena cannot be believed and must be mistaken, therefore we don't have to actually look at the substance of what is being reported because it would just be a waste of time.
Correct me if I am wrong zstansfi...
I'm sure physicists love Einstein and general theory of relativity. But don't rely on a single quote. Read Kaku's books particularly the "Physics of the Impossible."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDon't lose hope. We do study pond scum (bacteria and algae). And if they could only talk, we might interview them.
"And where do you sit?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI say to see is to believe. I haven't seen ET so I can't say he's real. If a team of distinguished scientists examines the evidence and concludes, yup that's ET, I would be inclined to believe.
"Are you sloppy or just intent on wilful misrepresentation?"
You must be referring to eye witness testimonies. I can't be sloppy nor misrepresenting what I haven't seen nor claim to see.
"what is needed is for a scientific approach to this problem which commits a dedicated team of scientists to measure something about these sightings based on the premise that what is being observed defies the rules of motion as we know them."
Defying the laws of physics is not a premise. It is a matter of observation. If you measure an object moving faster than light, that's an evidence. A premise that defies all observations is invalid.
I disagree. Theory X, study Y and common sense Z have provided strong alternate explanations for these so-called phenomena--explanations which are more reasonable (reads: more mundane, probable and replicable) than those which you appear to subscribe to. Now, this fact, in and of itself, might not be sufficient to quash the legitimacy of calls for further investigation; however, it is more than sufficient to cast doubt on every piece of evidence that you attempt to marshal. If we further consider that numerous government initiatives analyzing such phenomena have failed to provide strong evidence in support of any extraterrestrial hypothesis, it becomes clear that the most tenable position is one of skepticism.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI should also point out that, contrary to your beliefs, I would be exceedingly interested to discover life elsewhere in the universe, even technologically advanced life in our own backyard. But my desires have no say in the matter. I choose to save my wild fantasies for the world of fiction, rather than confabulating dreams into reality.
hello they are secret military planes!! why would an alien species come all the way here and have collision lights on their spacecraft? this whole thing is silly and probably fed by your tax dollars (or your child's drug addiction).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhose common sense? Yours, mine, Einstein's, Joseph McCarthy's, Harry Houdini's?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere are government records obtained under FOI that provide evidence that the US government wanted to discredit the study of UFOs while indicating that it would carry out research in secret. But I guess you don't recognise documentary evidence since you hold onto such a rigidly scientist view of the world?!
SETI is based on a flawed premise - as if any technological civilization would remain fixated with radio! SETI is a creature of a 20th century human worldview.
But it is practically impossible talking with you about this. You just want us all to go away and leave you alone. The fact remains that Shermer's review stinks and is emblematic of the moronic approach taken by you and Dr Strangelove!
zstanfi, you make a false claim (which you would know is false, had you actually read the book in question), and you also conveniently failed to respond to the more difficult issues I raised in my earlier reply. That's a typical tactic in these discussions: dismiss what's most easily dismissed, ignore what isn't, hope no one notices, and then top it all off with an unfounded generalization. All that's missing is a restatement of something patently obvious, like "unknown does not equal extraterrestrial."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou say "numerous government initiatives analyzing such phenomena have failed to provide strong evidence in support of any extraterrestrial hypothesis." Which government initiatives are you referring to? On the flip side, are you are intellectually honest enough to admit that it would be pretty extraordinary if it could be shown that other world governments take the extraterrestrial hypothesis quite seriously?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisScientists for the most part will not participate in any intellectual debate involving UFO's, regardless if they know a cover up is taking place or not. Academia has learned over the years that grants or research money can dry up if they are tied to uncovering what has been buried by the U.S. government. Here are a few images using the most advanced imaging process in the world, beyond NASA's capability.
http://www.ufodigest.com/news/1208/tether.html
http://maya12-21-2012.com/2012forum/index.php?topic=9558.0
The technology uses all known imaging technologies, e.g.,
X-Ray, Infrared, Radar, Thermo and all Optical devices but advances instant imaging capabilities to the next-generation of investigative and analytical capability. The name of this new microscopic imaging technology is
named:"ORIE". Which is the acronym meaning;" OPTICAL- REMOTE - IMAGING- ENHANCEMENT "
Now the science of Astrophotography using ORIE has enabled enhanced visual image of Planetary bodies, Cosmic events and Gamma ray bursts using a Color Algorithm, capability photo- study ªORIEº real-radar
electron-resolve color. This is chiefly due to the finite capability of the Photo Imaging instruments which enable unlimited magnification of study subjects in
space. A recently developed analytical method and process called, ORIE(Optical Remote
Image Enhancement), enables visual observation and real time analysis of distance Cosmic Events, using recorded or raw data (regardless of the source), e.g., photographs, micrographs, radiographs, aperture radar signals, sonograms and electron
micrographs, but not limited to only these, better and deeper visual analytical capability along with heretofore absent ability to re solve minute cellular and molecular components and structures while revealing
true color, cell component macro/micro structure, spatial
relationships, fractal enhancement amplification and pixel recognition.
The ORIE system identifies structure, elements and compounds contained in the subject of study. Study subjects contained in any photograph,
radiograph, aperture radar / Optical processes, - etc. Study subject exploits involving other means of imaging including a image of a Gamma Event and
imaging involving e.g.,- x-ray, imaging from microscopes to micrographs from cellular atomic electron imaging levels the ORIE technologies may
have in hypothetical, theoretical, experimental exploratory Space Imaging, and in real time applications have an infinite range of applications in many and varied areas of Astrophysics imaginable research.
I guess you mean the scientific SETI approach is moronic and the conspiracy theory approach is non-moronic.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYears ago I read "The Official Guide to UFO's" in which Gordon Evans (I think he was science writer/editor for Popular Science) wrote: "The task for physics set by the E.T.'s - to discover the secret of their remarkable craft."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe do this not by setting up yet another committee to us what we already know - these craft have a mastery of inertia and gravity that our current theory holds to be impossible. Instead we should be testing the current theory in ways that we have not been. For example, we should determine the gravitational acceleration of antimatter. Speculation that antimatter might exhibit antigravity began shortly after the discovery of the antiproton and antineutron back in 1956! Yet in over half a century since we still do not know experimentally (and that is what counts in science people) if antimatter falls up or down! We know the mating habits of shrimp in low Earth orbit but we don't know if antimatter falls up or down! The discovery that antimatter falls up would represent a discovery on the level of fire or the wheel - a one time transformative event in the history of humanity. Who knows,maybe that is what E.T. is waiting for; a discovery that triggers contact. However, as things stand they continue to patrol our skies waiting for the know-it-all morons below to run the experiment!
"these craft have a mastery of inertia and gravity that our current theory holds to be impossible"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat requires evidence that the 'craft' (UFO) actually defied the known laws of physics. It cannot simply be assumed since all experimental and astronomical observations conform to the laws of physics. An exemption should not be denied but has to be proven. If I tell you I can levitate, you will not automatically believe me until I've proven it because you know things don't just levitate.
Anti-gravity has been speculated in science fiction for a long time. This is not to say it is impossible. But we do know that anti-matter does not have negative mass nor anti-gravity properties since anti-matter had been produced at CERN and they conform to the Standard Model.
If scientists say we do not know if anti-gravity exists since we have not actually observed it, does that make them know-it-all morons?
"Wisest is he who knows he does not know" - Socrates
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"But we do know that anti-matter does not have negative mass nor anti-gravity properties since anti-matter had been produced at CERN and they conform to the Standard Model."
Dr. Strangelove you are not correct. It is true that we know that antimatter has positive inertial mass. However, we do NOT KNOW (experimentally) if antimatter has positive gravitational mass. Yes, I know it must be the case under OUR CURRENT theory - General Relativity. But this is an assumption, it has never been verified experimentally. This was my point earlier - what if General Relativity is not the last word in gravitational theory? Aliens or not, we should test the theory in ways it has not been tested before. Fourtunately, the very people you mention at CERN are planning an experiment called AEgIS (see below). Look for results by 2014.
"The primary scientific goal of AEGIS is the direct measurement of the Earth’s local gravitational acceleration g on anti-hydrogen. In spite of its limited precision, this measurement will represent the first direct determination of the gravitational effect on antimatter."
Yes, in the general relativity, a positive mass has attractive gravitational force. And general relativity has been experimentally verified countless of times. For antimatter to have anti-gravity, general relativity must be violated. In the absence of experimental evidence against general relativity, scientists believe, with abundant supporting scientific evidence, that general relativity is valid and antimatter has attractive gravitational force.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is similar to my example of my claim that I can levitate. In the absence of evidence, you do not believe it until I have proven it because you have plenty of evidence that things don't just levitate. But if you are biased and really want levitation to be true, you can believe me in the absence of evidence.
BTW, antimatter is made up of anti-particles and anti-particles obey special relativity, which is just a special case of general relativity. All known anti-particles obey the Standard Model, which is consistent with special relativity.
For the sake of argument, suppose UFOs are antimatter with anti-gravity property. Upon entering the earth's atmosphere, the UFO will get into contact with the ordinary matter of air. When matter meets anti-matter, they annihilate each other in a burst of gamma rays. Not of very good description of UFO sightings.
"BTW, antimatter is made up of anti-particles and anti-particles obey special relativity, which is just a special case of general relativity. All known anti-particles obey the Standard Model, which is consistent with special relativity."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEvery theory, including OUR CURRENT theory, has a domain of validity. The equations of Relativity reduce to Newton's (1687 - 1905) under a limited domain and the equations of the Next Theory will reduce to Einstein (1905 - ?) under a limited domain. That is the only requirement. I do not pretend to know what that limited domain is for Relativity, but I do assume an Alien Civilization with 10 million years, and no doubt, several hundred scientific revolutions on us does.
Based on the above I hope you understand that no argument based on theory will convince me. Only an experiment, like the one they are planning at CERN will do that. Until then antimatter antigravity will remain a possibility.
"For the sake of argument, suppose UFOs are antimatter with anti-gravity property. Upon entering the earth's atmosphere, the UFO will get into contact with the ordinary matter of air. When matter meets anti-matter, they annihilate each other in a burst of gamma rays. Not of very good description of UFO sightings."
No, I am not saying the UFO's are antimatter. I am speculating that a component of the drive is antimatter. Perhaps the antimatter is in a state of extreme density (like that of neutron-star) smaller than a pea yet with about the mass of the craft, so dense that it is gravitaionally self-isolating, meaning that any matter that got too close (say a few mm) would experience tremendous anti-gravitational force - a nice safety feature that prevents annihilation. In any case please don't ask me (pond scum) to design a craft built by a science and technology 10 million years in advance of our own!
Yet again you seem intent on manipulating what is said to suit your needs. What is moronic is the extent to which your acceptance of current scientific knowledge blinds you to evidence of anomolous phenomena that simply cannot be explained by that current scientific knowledge that you accept. That lack of intellectual curiosity is moronic, especially in the face of the compelling evidence of concommitant radar, airborne observation and ground observations that simply defy conventional explanation. Without a willingness to actually look at what we are talking about, you effectively brand yourself as unscientific, and the practitioner of some obscure form of scientistic faith in the status quo of knowledge.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI do not support conspiracy theories, but there has beeen enough documentary information released from government sources to indicate that elements in the government have had an interest in this subject that belies the official and stated position.
SETI is premised on a set of assumptions about the potential for ET communication based on radiowave-based technology as developed in the twentieth century on Earth. Not completely absurd, but similar to trying to find a needle in a haystack!
What if the Fermi paradox turns out to be no paradox at all? What if the ETs are here and we simply cannot recognise, detect and confirm their presence to a degree that satisfies current scientific knowledge? Is this something that you are at least capable of acknowledging as being possible?
Kramer: Having wasted much more time reading Michael Shermer's CRAP than would have been justified if he had anything novel or intelligent to say, I need to let him know that just because the final Unusual Cock-eyed Krap (FUCK) is too sensible and well evidenced for his limited mind, is no nreason to doubt it's existence or that of the Extra-terrestrial Biological Entities (EBEs) they have been bringing to visit us for 40 Millennia. I would waste my time to show such a narrow minded twerp why the truth of each individual sighting is undeniable to a reasonable mind even if not to him. ut abstractions are the province if thepseudo-skeptical pseudo-mind!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI was disappointed to see atheist Michael Shermer’s article printed in the April issue of Scientific American. It is not that Shermer does not believe in evidence for UFOs: he does not believe in an honest, sane, educated, rational, logical, mathematical, scientific inquiry into evidence for God. You lose scientific credibility by giving him a forum in your magazine and by not balancing his Humanist religious views with the facts. Many highly respected scientists, including two of the most highly acclaimed of all time (Albert Einstein and Isaac Newton) did believe in God.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn Principia, Sir Isaac Newton affirmed, "The most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion on an intelligent and powerful Being."
The Encyclopedia Britannica says of Albert Einstein: "Firmly denying atheism, Einstein expressed a belief in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the harmony of what exists."
Please read this article: www.palmoni.net/gematria.htm
It gives mathematical evidence for the existence of God. The reason math evidence is so strong is that there are formal proofs for math. Only somebody who is mentally ill or in denial will try to reject math evidence. The Bible’s gematria patterns, with their through-the-roof statistical probabilities, could not be due to chance—at least not to careful, educated readers who are rational, logical, mathematical, scientific and sane. In other words, having read the article, one has no reasonable excuse for not accepting the existence of God.
Take care,
Mark Hines, M.A.
This is a ridiculous, amateurish hack job on Keans logical and well-researched book. Shermer is a pathological skeptic, who cannot open his mind to evidence that contradicts the small world view he is heavily invested in. Shermer takes cheap, illogical potshots at things that just dont matter, and ignores the strongest evidence in Keans book. Did Shermer even read the book?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisScientific American should be ashamed to publish this unscientific garbage by Shermer.
Its obvious from the comments here that the pathological skeptics have not actually read Keans book. The silly, snide criticisms are juvenile compared to the serious, logical discussion of the evidence found in Keans book.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe pathological skeptics are blocking the progress of science.
Glad to see I'm not the ONLY one to do this! (I REALLY annoyed a person one day by pointing out that UFO didn't necessarily mean "ALIEN CRAFT!) *GRIN*
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEvery DAY we find out we weren't NEARLY as smart as we THOUGHT we were... what makes anyone think TODAY is going to be any DIFFERENT? Let's just say that if there ISN'T a "HIGHER INTELLIGENCE" somewhere else... we're pretty much HOSED!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am unconcerned about the subject of UFO's but I am concerned about what passes for valid comment on science and Michael Shermer's "UFOs, UAPs and CRAPs is a great example of the shoddiness of current commentary.An "investigative journalist's" opinion and not data on the subject is quoted as a source. That's science,huh? What about validity, statistical analysis, reliability? Didn't see anything about those in the article or the work quoted.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe conclusion, "...the residue (definition?) of anomalies (definition?)... does not mean that the prevailing theory is wrong or the alternative theories are right" could not get a passing grade in Science 101. It also does not mean that the prevailing theory is right or the alternative theories are wrong. It only means that Mr. Shermer made the statement and nothing more and it's of no value at all.
The term, "accepted paradigm" means "consensus" and consensus is not science. It just means consensus and there isn't any data to show that it is.
Mr. Sherman doesn't "believe in" UFOs which is his right but to desire the reader infer, from how his belief is stated, that it's any more meaningful than a statements from a nut wearing an aluminum foil hat is pure crap. It is exactly what the article tries to imply and that is people believe things that have not been proven to be fact, or have been subject to actual scientific analysis.
Reading chicken entrails is still voodoo and wearing a sports jacket, or calling oneself a skeptic or investigative journalist doesn't make it meaningful or valuable.
Bit of a late comment, but what the heck....
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm amazed that Shermer is recognized as an actual contributor to this esteemed journal. I have found his commentary to be almost universally sloppy.
While very often possessing the smug superiority of an elite scientist (despite having only a humble MA in Psychology/Biology and no actual science done in his name), he never seems to demonstrate scientific rigour.
For example, he mentions the Belgium 1989-90 UFO activity wave. For that case alone, less than a few hours are needed to review the various startling details regarding the quality and number of the witnesses, and information on the aerial performance of the reported objects. Put in this light, Kean's slight "description creep" is quite understandable in the context.
Once again, Shermer shows that he's just either not prepared or not able to do a simple review of facts before wading in with an observation of only tangential relevance. Yes, Michael, we see that some UFO researchers are occasionally prone to mild exaggeration! Gosh, such revelation! Surely you'll be able to find work for years on the strength of that "discovery"! (Ironically, he is finding plenty of work ...)
Shermer is patently unqualified to talk on this subject. His debunking of Belgium 1989-90 amounts to "secret US/Soviet military technology". This shows that he is either a) too lazy to review the data, and/or b) mentally incapable of effective analysis. The data shows that large (120ft) triangular craft were reported multiple times, over several months, by first-class military, police and civilian witnesses, and was tracked on radar. Aerial characteristics included travelling at very low speed (<10 mph), sudden acceleration, almost silent in operation.
So either Michael didn't bother review this information, or he is gullible enough to believe that any military force in the world would be testing such a secret military device over residential areas of Belgium over a period of several months.
22 years later, and we still have not seen anything built by humans remotely close to such a device, in civilian or military arenas. We are testing hypersonic planes (eg Aurora etc, Mach 10+) - but still with chemical fuels, and very, very noisy.
I'd love to hear what sloppy Shermer would say to a set of directed questions on the hard facts of the other solid UFO cases. How about the Tehran 1976 event, Michael? Another secret military project, I suppose?
Try working a little harder for that paycheck, Shermer. It's clearly coming too easily.
Would be interesting to see Shermer actually have the courage and rigor to face up to the criticisms raised about his article. Not a word though - that in itself is telling. I suspect that we are wasting our time waiting for US scientists to address this problem in a methodical and considered way, by which I mean a genuine openness to studying the actual data. My suspicion is that those who might be in such a position do not publicly come out to do this because they are concerned about their careers and attracting professional criticism. I also suspect that many scientists in general may have a psychological and professional blockage which prevents them treating the subject seriously. I think they find the possibilities raised by UFOs so unthinkable and threatening to their professional discourse and the existing scientific consensus which is their bread and butter, that they simply are unable to engage with it seriously. And finally, perhaps for this very reason, scientists may be useless insofar as establishing a rigorous investigation of the UFO phenomenon and the available data. Most of the data in fact is actually more amenable to the social and human sciences - perhaps physicists and astronomers simply don't have the analytical tools to even ask the right questions about the phenomenon or the kind of creative intelligence required to investigate it with an open mind.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this