Pentagon releases UFO videos

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald

I expected this type of response. I did a straight search and reported the return, because that is the academic approach. No cherry-picking data, just dumping what was there. And yes, some of the titles don't read well, and ultimately may present the subject matter in a negative light. But that data is still valuable. And many times, the data does not reflect the title.

Ok, I’ve been following this back and forth and now I’m just even more confused. You said there were peer reviewed articles discussing the physical evidence, Fuzz said show me, and after avoiding it you dumped like 20 random articles you did not even look into to see if they answered his request and you’re calling it “the academic approach”?

If there are articles that actually satisfy Fuzz’s fairly specific request, like you said there were, why aren’t you just linking those ones?

[handgroen]

Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald

Not everyone, you just land in that select group. j/k




Yup, title is definitely how you determine what information and data is present in a journal article, whether it is relevant to the issue, and the positivity/negativity toward an issue. Might be why you're landing in that select group.

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.

You presented this as evidence, if this is indeed proof of extraterrestrial life as I suspect it’s not, then what’s the white apocalypse and why is it featured so prominently in the title.

You performed some sort of database query and copy pasted the results, despite the fact that many of the titles betray the fact that they explore alien encounter DELUSIONS

You’re tldr post was read by no one, not even you.

[photon]

The paper's abstract:

This article explores the centrality of science and technology to religious thought and practice in Elijah Muhammad’s Nation of Islam from the 1950s through the 1970s. Tracing the dynamic meanings of scientific knowledge in the context of the postwar United States, the article’s central argument is that like other UFO and extraterrestrial religions, the Nation of Islam emphasized scientific, material, and empirical over spiritual and supernatural understandings of religion. It also suggests how members of this new religious movement studied and attempted to live according to the scientific and mathematical principles derived from their prophet’s cosmological, ontological, and eschatological teachings on the nature of God, the origins and destiny of the black race, and the beginning and end of white supremacy.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

If there are articles that actually satisfy Fuzz’s fairly specific request, like you said there were, why aren’t you just linking those ones?

Why does Lanny have time to write long meandering posts with very low information content, yet no time to directly answer the questions people ask him that would likely contain far less verbiage?

It's a method beloved by academics with no real understanding of the subject they are pontificating upon. “If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bull####.”

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald

Or it could be as simple as responding to this.

NSFW!

Makes sense when NASA is going to use Webb to look for sources of artificial light from another galaxy? Emission of light may attract interest from other life forms?

Another reason is likely that the United States has the infrastructure to collect and report such events, and also is culturally programmed to report anything out of the ordinary? This is the most paranoid country on the planet for a reason.

There are also other nations who have a history of reporting UFOs/UAPs or whatever name you want to use. If you look on that image again, I'm sure the light bulb will go on, and I bet you can easily figure out where they are.

Well if you actually look at that map objectively, the human-generated light is distributed pretty evenly across the lower part of the upper hemisphere. Europe and japan are just as intense as the US.

The bold explains it much better than any of your logical attempts did.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Ok, I’ve been following this back and forth and now I’m just even more confused. You said there were peer reviewed articles discussing the physical evidence, Fuzz said show me, and after avoiding it you dumped like 20 random articles you did not even look into to see if they answered his request and you’re calling it “the academic approach”?

The dump was to satisfy the request that there were not peer reviewed academic articles pertaining to the matter. I did not do any filter because I did not want to be accused of cherry-picking data and hiding articles that would be detrimental to the subject. This was the result of the specific query. I could have cherry-picked them, but that would have been dishonest. Also, I was not going to go through 97 articles from one database to meet his request.

The problem with what Fuzz asked for is what his perception of evidence is. Mine is the body of work, much of it interdisciplinary. Fuzz wants this.



I can't provide that, because that type of evidence does not exist in academic papers I have access through my institution. What you have is focused research from schools of thought evaluating the claims and using theory to explore the evidence/events. For example, in a discussion on regressions, burn evidence is described, but no pictures are provided. Articles may be speaking to the topic of regression therapy, disclosing what would be evidence, but not delve deeper into it because of the focus of the article and journal - providing greater exposure to the positives or negatives of the topic. The type of physical evidence is mentioned, just lost in the larger discussion.

If there are articles that actually satisfy Fuzz’s fairly specific request, like you said there were, why aren’t you just linking those ones?

What Fuzz really wants is at the Center for UFO Studies, which was a refereed journal. That is J. Allen Hynek's site - the guy behind Bluebook. Everything is now paywalled for the academic papers. Lots of free information on the site though. I was hesitant to link this as it is paywalled.

Here are the types of articles that probably is what Fuzz wants, from another academic database. It took some time to hunt down the right database and access. This is a start.

Plaza del Olmo, J. (2015). A Review on the Geographical Distribution of UFO Reports. Journal of Scientific Exploration, 29(3).

Hernandez, R., Davis, R., Scalpone, R., & Schild, R. (2018). A Study on Reported Contact with Non-Human Intelligence Associated with Unidentified Aerial Phenomena. Journal of Scientific Exploration, 32(2).

Murphy, W. (2018). The Close Encounters Man: How One Man Made the World Believe in UFOs by Mark O’Connell. Journal of Scientific Exploration, 32(2).

Donderi, D. C., Davis, T., & Hopkins, B. (2013). The UFO Abduction Syndrome. Journal of Scientific Exploration, 27(1).

Plaza del Olmo, J. (2015). Modeling the Law of Times. Journal of Scientific Exploration, 29(2).

Jacobs, D. M. (1). A Brief History of Abduction Research. Journal of Scientific Exploration, 23(1).

da Silva, L. A. (2014). Unidentified Aerial Phenomena: The VASP-169 Flight Brazilian Episode Revisited. Journal of Scientific Exploration, 27(4).

Hernandez, R., Davis, R., Scalpone, R., & Schild, R. (2018). A Study on Reported Contact with Non-Human Intelligence Associated with Unidentified Aerial Phenomena. Journal of Scientific Exploration, 32(2).

Dagnall, N., Drinkwater, K. G., & Parker, A. (2011). Alien Visitation, Extra-Terrestrial Life, and Paranormal Beliefs. Journal of Scientific Exploration, 25(4).

I doubt these will change any minds though.

[PepsiFree]

And all those articles are peer reviewed and discuss physical evidence?

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Are there any peer reviewed articles referencing these? And I mean the physical effects on people, not any of the sensor data.

Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald

Yes, there are.

Which of the above papers meets the request? Preferably one that you have read.

[karl262]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

So in one breath you say they weren't investigated, then provide evidence of them not being investigated by referencing Project Blue Book, which did exactly that? Well I'm convinced, it's a coverup! Maybe the project was closed because it was a waste of time when they themselves realized it was mostly BS.

You really have no idea what you're talking about, so shut the fuk up

[Dion]

Scientific panel concludes some UFO evidence worthy of study

In the current study, the scientific panel focused on incidents involving some form of physical evidence, including photographic evidence, radar evidence, vehicle interference, interference with aircraft equipment, apparent gravitational or inertial effects, ground traces, injuries to vegetation, physiological effects on witnesses, and debris. Of particular concern are reports that UFO encounters may be hazardous to people's health. Some witnesses have reportedly suffered radiation-type injuries. These reports led the panel to draw the attention of the medical community to the possible health risks involved.

The scientists found that some of the reported incidents may have been caused by rare natural phenomena, such as electrical activity high above thunderstorms or radar ducting (the trapping and conducting of radar waves by atmospheric channels). However, the panel found that some of the phenomena related to UFOs are not easy to explain in this fashion.

Further analysis of the evidence presented to the panel is unlikely to shed added light on the causes underlying the reports, the scientists said. Most current UFO investigations lack the level of rigor required by the scientific community, despite the initiative and dedication of the investigators involved. But new data, scientifically acquired and analyzed, could yield useful information and advance our understanding of the UFO problem, the panel said.

The reviewers also made the following observations:

• The UFO problem is not a simple one, and it is unlikely that there is any simple, universal answer.

• Whenever there are unexplained observations, there is the possibility that scientists will learn something new by studying them.

• Studies should concentrate on cases that include as much independent physical evidence as possible.

• Continuing contact between the UFO community and physical scientists could be productive.

• Institutional support for research in this area is desirable.

https://news.stanford.edu/pr/98/980629ufostudy.html

[Enoch Root]

Yes, because, despite Lanny's pontifications, the scientific community is not against study, they are all for it.

(this doesn't say what you think it says)

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by karl262

You really have no idea what you're talking about, so shut the fuk up

I think if you’re at the point where you’re telling someone to “shut the F up” over a conversation about aliens, it’s time to walk up the basement stairs, tell mom you’re going outside, and get some fresh air.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by karl262

You really have no idea what you're talking about, so shut the fuk up

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Yes, because, despite Lanny's pontifications, the scientific community is not against study, they are all for it.

Not entirely true. There are still publications out there that won't touch the subject matter, institutions that will attempt to move out faculty who research such content, and members of the academy that will go out of their way to discredit and blackball others who pursue this subject matter. This is just as toxic as being a cryptozoologist or a paranormal researcher in most institutions. Tenure is the only thing that keeps people who pursue these topics on faculty. Academia is filled with close-minded curmudgeons who have lost the curiosity that drove them to the library in the first place.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald

Not entirely true. There are still publications out there that won't touch the subject matter, institutions that will attempt to move out faculty who research such content, and members of the academy that will go out of their way to discredit and blackball others who pursue this subject matter. This is just as toxic as being a cryptozoologist or a paranormal researcher in most institutions. Tenure is the only thing that keeps people who pursue these topics on faculty. Academia is filled with close-minded curmudgeons who have lost the curiosity that drove them to the library in the first place.

Why would Academia be different than any other group in society?

And Truth needn't fear adversity - if/when there is actual evidence of extraterrestrial life, it would not be denied or repressed, it would be celebrated like nothing before.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Dion

Scientific panel concludes some UFO evidence worthy of study





https://news.stanford.edu/pr/98/980629ufostudy.html

You know this is 25 years old right?

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Why would Academia be different than any other group in society?

And Truth needn't fear adversity - if/when there is actual evidence of extraterrestrial life, it would not be denied or repressed, it would be celebrated like nothing before.

They'll celebrate it, but it will have to take something significant to gain acceptance. I look forward to that day though. It will be like finding intelligent life in Washington, or a hot girl in Edmonton.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald

They'll celebrate it, but it will have to take something significant to gain acceptance. I look forward to that day though.

Do you think at that point in time they would release that they had covered it up for years or continue the cover up?

[Snuffleupagus]

This thread has turned into...well, out of this world.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald

The dump was to satisfy the request that there were not peer reviewed academic articles pertaining to the matter. I did not do any filter because I did not want to be accused of cherry-picking data and hiding articles that would be detrimental to the subject. This was the result of the specific query. I could have cherry-picked them, but that would have been dishonest. Also, I was not going to go through 97 articles from one database to meet his request.

The problem with what Fuzz asked for is what his perception of evidence is. Mine is the body of work, much of it interdisciplinary. Fuzz wants this.
-snip-

I WANTED you to cherry pick! That's what I asked for. Specific physical evidence YOU found compelling. I didn't want a literature review. Just your own personal "woah, that's a really interesting piece of evidence" because I wasn't sure it existed, but you said it did, and I was interested. Man, this has been a long walk.