I agree with that article completely Wolverine, especially this part:
"the scientific method must be employed as the basis for drawing conclusions regarding paranormal claims." But if most scientists abide by this, then why are they not particpating in the inquiry more actively?

I like science; it’s the best thing since soap. I’m saying we need to apply it to the ‘sighting’ phenomenon, rather than leaving it up to the cranks to draw wild-eyed fantasies about it. But ever since Project Bluebook was closed, the only place people have to turn, even if they have a compelling case happening right in front of them, is to the –least qualified- people in the country. Am I the only one here who appreciates this problem?

This is why I’m saying we need –scientists- to look at this stuff, because the layman isn’t equipped or qualified to meet this high standard of skepticism. You’re asking the layman to do the work of a group of top-notch scientists. The scenario itself is fundamentally flawed, which is why it’s been leading nowhere but to greater division on this issue. The scientific community has left ‘us,’ the witnesses, with nobody but the ‘UFOists’ as you call them--the cranks and the crackpots and the pseudo-scientists, to investigate the issue. So of course the field of inquiry harbors no respect. I come here to calmly discuss the issue, and I get flamed for making claims I’m not even making. All I’m just saying is we should look into it, and suddenly I’m one of ‘them’--the hoaxsters/crackpots/knuckleheads. If we can’t even look at the question objectively, and without prejudice, how are we –ever- going to have solid answers?

Such as? Tell me what an average person could bring to your attention that would make you think twice about this issue, short of a chunk of alien technology.

That was uncalled for, and you too R.A.F., with the ‘pseudo-science’ crack. We accept far more tenuous evidence for astronomical phenomena—we often don’t even have –photos- of things we assume to exist because of secondary or tertiary effects, such as black holes, and somewhat less so, 'dark matter.' The evidence is far from ‘irrefutable physical evidence,’ yet we move forward with those investigations with the banner of empirical reductionism flying high. So is that ‘pseudo-science’ too? Of course not. So really, this is about a double-standard, in principle anyway. It’s a conceit of those scientists who don’t feel they need further evidence to base their opinions upon, viz ‘I don’t need to know what that is because I’m pre-convinced that it’s not what you think it could be.’ This, despite a reasonable theory that backs up the claims of eyewitnesses. Your 'Creationism' slur only validates the public perception of scientists as self-aggrandizing, belligerent, patronizing priests of ‘The One and Only Truth,’ which is horribly tragic, because the scientific enterprise is probably the single most heroic undertaking of human history. Your words, John, soil the nobility of that endeavor.

Don’t lecture me about science, I probably appreciate its essential nature better than you do. Where have I ever asked anyone to ‘believe’ or ‘disbelieve’ –anything-? Never. We know what we know, the rest is guesswork…and you don’t know there’s nothing interesting going on, that’s an opinion, and you know what they say about those. By support, and I specified this, I mean a sound investigation. The Air Force felt this was justified in the Sixties, but now you proclaim that it’s beneath science to investigate these unidentified phenomena…based on nothing more than belief and supposition. I was always taught that there’s no such thing as a foolish question, because not asking is the foolish alternative. The sightings issue is an open question, but you make me out to be a fool for asking it. That isn’t wisdom, and that isn’t science.

This is ‘armchair refereeing.’ This is not scientific thinking—you expect to sit back and wait for people who are not scientists to fumble forth with whatever paltry evidence they can muster on their own, and then proclaim how inadequate it all is from your pillowed throne. The investigative spirit is at least half of real science—you have to be available when opportunity knocks, to go out there and take samples and photos and castings and bring them back to the lab and scrutinize the evidence you collect. I went over this. The general public doesn’t have the know-how or the technology to bring solid findings to your doorstep. They need help, scientific help, to find answers that explain what they’re observing—they can’t convince anyone of anything without some inside help—and—you’re already predisposed to Not believe them when they tell you what they’ve experienced. Thus, the Catch-22. The scientific community in general refuses to help, and the public thinks less of them for it—and they’re right.

The hoax scenario you just described is appalling, because it assumes that the evidence is faked, when in fact most people who see these things are as good and honest, and sometimes as careful at observing, as anyone on this board. To justify –not even looking- at what they have, because ‘it could have been faked’ does –all- of those good people a profound injustice.

Do you see the hypocrisy at work here—you’ll assume that if it didn’t come from Lawrence Livermore Labs, it’s probably a fake, or useless or whatever. But Lawrence Livermore isn’t looking. This is an untenable situation—and you can’t blame the public for it—it’s the ‘ivory tower’ mentality of much of the science community that has barred the doors to honest investigation.

What? Okay, I see--the analogy slipped by you: the bully is the difficult task of trying to wrestle with an enigma without the facilities, tools, or training, the stuttering girl is the group of people trying to wrestle with that insurmountable task, and the scientific establishment en masse is passing the popcorn rather than helping out. No name-calling, just a fairly fitting analogy.

And you, the armchair referee, are assuming that I have been mistaken/fooled/etc. Besides, that’s my entire point—I’m not qualified to draw scientific conclusions from my observations, that’s why we need scientific help to establish what’s going on. I’m not saying I know what it is. But five people I knew well saw exactly the same thing, and there are –thousands- of people who report similar sightings. Are they all liars or deluded? Do you have any idea how conceited it sounds to hear you dismiss –all of these incidents- without so much as a nod that there –might- be something happening that –you don’t know about-? And you didn’t even answer the question, jeez. You can’t say the ETH is ‘unlikely,’ when scientists have been saying for decades that they should be here right now, under our noses.

I never said it *must* be there, I said it ‘might’—we won’t get on better footing until good science takes the reigns from the quacks. And don’t twist my words, that’s dirty pool.

And ‘if’ cows could fly, then there’d probably be good reason for that too, heh. This is parabolic logic, at best.

This is all emotional topic-shifting—I never said that astronomers aren’t doing their work, and doing darn good work at that. I’m proud of the work scientists do...the progress they make with modeling the intricacies of the universe, it’s all a magnificent and majestic undertaking that I support 100%. A couple of my closest friends are brilliant scientists, and I’m proud to say it.

Ahh, the demon shows it’s face…so now everyone who videotapes something unusual in the sky, is a ‘woo-woo.’ That kind of prejudice is woeful. I think this will be my last reply to you. Anyway, for the millionth time, I’m not saying that science is flawed; I’m saying that we should apply it to the sightings of our people, because that’s how we’ll get answers. Science isn't going to find those answers if it doesn’t –look-, and it’s –not looking-. Man, I feel like a broken record, but this is just not getting through. And I don’t know where you came up with this ‘scourge vs. science’ malarkey, I guess it was that analogy you misinterpreted—to reiterate, I accused the scientific establishment of sitting on the sidelines of the debate, not beating anyone up, sigh. A refreshing exception was the Mexican Air Force case, but it took world-wide press to get that done, and better cases every year are relegated to the likes of Hoagland.

And you’d know this…..how? By sitting back and willfully –not investigating the consensual claims of thousands of rational people-? Thought so.

Imagine that. After having to deal with countless people who’d rather call me an idiot than get off their haunches and look at the situation, for thirty years… It’s not a 'complex' if you really –are- being persecuted, and most of your post here proves the point.

Sure, though I'm not saying I know one way or the other, so I can't really be 'wrong'--I can only be 'sure,' which is more than I can be now. Anyway, I’m not talking about my sole experience; I’m talking about a phenomenon that’s basically sweeping the globe. I’ll probably never come any closer to knowing for sure what it was I saw with my neighbors and friends that day, but that’s ultimately irrelevant. Sightings are going on nearly every day, and some of those may have something amazing to teach us. We need to focus on those—cases that are fresh, have some kind of evidence, photographic, radar, whatever. Strike while the iron’s hot, and maybe we’ll get to the bottom of it. If it all is just some weird synaptic design failure of the species, at least we’ll learn more about that…who knows what else that understanding could lead to…but in any case, it would be valuable knowledge (and put a lot of people’s mind at ease in the process, to have solved the riddle).

Okay, so you’re obviously not a scientist, thanks for clearing that up. You’ve taken all the calm, rational discussion I’ve presented previously, and brewed it through your contempt filter for the entire field of inquiry we’re discussing, then heaved out a meaningless string of ignorant biases that have nothing whatsoever to do with what I’ve said through this whole thread. “Harsh” doesn’t even begin to cover it, that was downright abusive, not to mention deeply insulting.

I’ve done nothing more than tell my story, and request a fresh look and careful examination of the issue at hand using the rigors of the scientific method that I have grown to love and respect. For some, like yourself, the words aren’t heard, and anyone attempting this is obviously going to be subjected to your preposterous abusive nonsense. When Wolverine showed me evidence that the Mexican Air Force footage was actually plumes from oil platforms, I accepted it (gratefully, I might add). But when I ask you to consider that thousands of your neighbors, friends, family, and countrymen might be telling the truth about some fascinating sightings they’ve experienced, you go on some potty rampage about how I’ll never accept any explanation other than little green men and all that, pfft. So of the two of us, who holds a more sincere and unqualified interest in finding the truth?