Call for US to reopen UFO Probe

[Explorer]

Latest BBC News Website:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7091922.stm

[arthwollipot]

Sorry, but a thread title with the words "UFO", "probe" and "reopen" just makes me cringe.

[arthwollipot]

Okay, now that I've actually read the article...

Sure, reopen the investigation. Why not? It'll only cost the taxpayers several billion dollars that would otherwise be spent on education or health care (who needs them anyway), and it will produce exactly the same results as the last one.

But you have to admit - Dennis Kucinich's wife is extraordinarily hot.

[Tirdun]

Was this the huge... er HUGE news promised yesterday? Somehow the earthshattering nature of this revelation failed to reach me through any news agency.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Was this the huge... er HUGE news promised yesterday? Somehow the earthshattering nature of this revelation failed to reach me through any news agency.

It made at least one of the TV newscasts in Canada. I don't know which one but my wife saw it.

There's another thread on this one this forum based on my viewing of the Larry King show.

As best as I can tell from the group's appearance on the credulous Larry King show (one token skeptic) and their press conference they have nothing new to say.

Their continued inclusion of "cases" that have been absolutely debunked and ones that have little verification and/or reasonable alternative explanations does not speak well for their sanity.

[m_huber]

http://projectbluebook.org/

If you want some boring reading sometime.

[Brown]

As I've said before (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=35263), I've seen lots of UFOs. Most of them I was either able to identify or get a pretty good idea as to what they really were. (One of the weirdest and most baffling: the anti-abortion banner (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=26077).)

Some of my sightings remain unexplained. Yet it would be bizarre for me to assert that my lack of explanation somehow implies a sinister or paranormal explanation. As a matter of personal integrity, I cannot turn my "I don't know" into "Something beyond science must be occurring."

And yet, this is how a lot of bad science operates. Someobody says "I don't know what the explanation is, and I'm a pretty smart guy," and from these two premises concludes that current scientific analyses cannot provide an explanation at all.

The evidence of UFOs is crappy, and an investigation like this will result in a free-for-all for hoaxers.

[Explorer]

The call for this came from pilots who seem, on a regular basis see unusual objects, lights etc, in the vicinity of their aircraft. If I was a pilot I would like to know what these are, if only for the sake of the safety of me and my passengers.

It surely is insufficient to say blandly, that this is down to "natural phenomena", and walk away. If it is natural, and I am not arguing that it isn't, it should be backed up by proper scientific investigation and described correctly, so that future conditions in the air can be predicted and pilots warned accordingly, as they do for turbulence.

[arthwollipot]

The call for this came from pilots who seem, on a regular basis see unusual objects, lights etc, in the vicinity of their aircraft. If I was a pilot I would like to know what these are, if only for the sake of the safety of me and my passengers.

It surely is insufficient to say blandly, that this is down to "natural phenomena", and walk away. If it is natural, and I am not arguing that it isn't, it should be backed up by proper scientific investigation and described correctly, so that future conditions in the air can be predicted and pilots warned accordingly, as they do for turbulence.

Agreed, in a way, but at the same time it is completely irrational to reopen an investigation that was closed 40 years ago. This has already been hashed over, and it cost America millions of dollars. Today it would cost billions.

Reopening Blue Book is as irrational as reopening Stargate.

[Explorer]

I wasn't suggesting that billions be spent. A research project using technology 40 years on would probably be far more productive, and it could and should, IMHO, be restricted to the safety of passenger and military aircraft.

[fishbait]

I wasn't suggesting that billions be spent. A research project using technology 40 years on would probably be far more productive, and it could and should, IMHO, be restricted to the safety of passenger and military aircraft.This is a very timely post. Yesterday, using the technology of the Internet, an explaination was found for a baffling UFO sighting I made 15 years ago. Without the vast storehouse of data contained on the net, the sighting probably would have remained a mystery.

Link to thread about the incident:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=98882

[arthwollipot]

Has there ever been a single instance of one of these unknown radar blips suddenly swooping down and killing people?

[kittynh]

when UFOs start killing people, or say making the internet go down when I'm downloading something....
then it's time to investigate.

If all they are going to do is steal ovaries and fetuses from trailer trash.... don't spend my tax dollars

[Explorer]

Has there ever been a single instance of one of these unknown radar blips suddenly swooping down and killing people?

Dunno, but there are certainly many cases of "near misses", and whether they are unusual objects or other aircraft, each incident is usually logged, and an investigation carried out. That investigation however, will be restricted to known objects, so obviously by definition, the unknowns will tend to be filed without further input.