[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by GGG

In the private sector when you are buying things you routinely get access to lab reports.

Yeah, that's if you're buying something. If you're buying a chemical and need to know specifics on it, you can ask for that. They'll give you a general datasheet. If you want more than that, you're paying for the lab testing. Those results are then yours because you paid for them. The vendor is not going to share those results with anyone else as that may impart information to your competitors as to what you or your business is doing. That information is your business and only your business. Labs do everything they can to maintain confidentiality.

If the actual data and reports are not routinely part of the peer review process in academia that seems fairly flawed.

No, that's the way the peer review system works. I don't know what you think peer review is all about, but it is NOT granting people access to everything that goes on in research. Much of research is highly secretive and all the information pertaining to research is considered highly guarded secrets. Samples, lab work, lab reports, and lab results are not part of the peer review process as they are the intellectual property of the institution and an investment. The generalized findings from the article are the only data points commonly shared. Peer review is the process of examination of methods and findings for consistency and possible errors or omissions in application of the methodology. From a publication perspective it is determining if the research is consistent with the mission of the publication and the peer review of methods and findings has passed rigor. Research and intellectual property, just like in the private sector, remain highly guarded secrets as they generate revenues and prestige for the institution.

I would expect any decent analysis of this type to discuss sample preparation, testing methodology, and list detailed results. This does not appear to exist.

That depends on the type of journal. More technical journals will expect some of these details. Others will not. Some journals do not even require peer review for publication. Some institutions are also allowing their researchers and faculty to meet the publication requirements by going directly to print and allowing the commentary aspects of review meet the peer review component. This is completely understandable when certain subjects are using methods never used before, and the available experts to provide peer review do not exist.

All it takes is one instance. This is exactly why Leir’s work is garbage. If he has the smoking gun and has the evidence he says he has and the science is credible and not garbage then he could prove it.

This isn’t fuzzy photos, or memories. The claim here is easy to verify if he allowed access. I don’t understand how you would hand wave that away.

Well, to start with, he's dead? But while he was alive, he did allow multiple labs to examine and test the artifacts. Is that not enough? Or are one of these people who will only believe something if it is YOUR guy who does the testing? I'm not waving anything, and would hope for further exploration of these artifacts, but the guy died suddenly and with that access to the materials. Do I hope that those will see the light of day again? Yes, but as with many scientists, their death can mean the end of that work and study.

This started with you saying that there is numerous peer reviewed papers with physical evidence and you gave 3 names. I picked one, found claims with no peer review or evidence.

Yes, and I tried to explain that it is not easy to start posting links from certain databases. But I'll give you some cites from "peer reviewed" articles. First 20 hits of 97 in one database search.

Appelle, S. (1971). On a behavioral explanation of UFO sightings. Perceptual and motor skills, 32(3), 994.

Bisson C, and Persinger M.A. (1993). Geophysical variables and behavior: LXXV. Possible increased incidence of brain tumors following an episode of luminous phenomena. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 77(3_suppl), 1088-1090.

Cook, C. M., and Persinger, M. A. (2001). Geophysical variables and behavior: XCII. Experimental elicitation of the experience of a sentient being by right hemispheric, weak magnetic fields: interaction with temporal lobe sensitivity. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 92(2), 447-448.

Clamar, A. (1988). Is it time for psychology to take UFOs seriously? Psychotherapy in Private Practice, 6(3), 143-149.

Clamar, A. (1988). Symposium: The UFO experience: What psychotherapy tells us. Introduction, in: Psychotherapy in Private Practice, 6:3, 141-142

Ashworth, C. E. (1980). Flying saucers, spoon-bending and Atlantis: A structural analysis of new mythologies. The Sociological Review, 28(2), 353-376

Bader, C. D. (1995). The UFO contact movement from the 1950s to the present. Studies in Popular Culture, 17(2), 73-90.

Bader, C. D. (2003). Supernatural support groups: Who are the UFO abductees and ritual-abuse survivors? Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 42(4), 669–678.

Banaji, M. R., and Kihlstrom, J. F. (1996). The ordinary nature of alien abduction memories. Psychological Inquiry, 7(2), 132-135.

Bowers, K. S., and Eastwood, J. D. (1996). On the edge of science: Coping with UFOlogy scientifically. Psychological Inquiry, 7(2), 136-140.

Bartholomew, R. E. (1991). The quest for transcendence: An ethnography of UFOs in America. Anthropology of Consciousness, 2(1‐2), 1-12

Bullard, T. E. (1989). UFO abduction reports: the supernatural kidnap narrative returns in technological guise. Journal of American Folklore, 147-170.

Chequers, J., Joseph, S., and Diduca, D. (1997). Belief in extraterrestrial life, UFO-related beliefs, and schizotypal personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 23(3), 519-521.

Clancy, S. A., et. al. (2002). Memory distortion in people reporting abduction by aliens. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 111(3), 455

Clark, S. E., and Loftus, E. F. (1996). The construction of space alien abduction memories. Psychological Inquiry, 7(2), 140-143.

Condon, E. U. (1969). UFOs I have loved and lost. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 25(10), 6-8.

Cross, A. (2004). The flexibility of scientific rhetoric: A case study of UFO researchers. Qualitative Sociology, 27(1), 3-34.

Crowe, R. A., and Miura, C. K. (1995). Challenging pseudoscientific beliefs: Surveying evidence for exotic claims. Psychological reports, 77(3_suppl), 1263-1282.

Crumbaugh, J. C. (1959). ESP and flying saucers: A challenge to parapsychologists. American Psychologist, 14(9), 604–606.

Curtis, E. (2016). Science and technology in Elijah Muhammad’s Nation of Islam astrophysical disaster, genetic engineering, UFOs, white apocalypse, and black resurrection. Nova Religio: The Journal of Alternative and Emergent Religions, 20(1), 5–31.

A second database search returned 128 articles (max for that database). As I said, there are lots of articles that are peer reviewed and speak to the evidence discovered in support of this field of study. Is there a lot of conjecture and hogwash in some of the reports and studies? Yes there is. Just like any other field of inquiry and study. It's hogwash until it isn't.