outside the minds of observers.
Procedure:
1) Obtain historical evidence of UFO sightings that involve the observations of craft over 100 meters, (i.e. large
“triangle” craft), along with reliable latitudes and longitudes. These observations should be time stamped and
documented.
2) Attempt to validate these sightings with historical satellite archival data, which should also be time and date
stamped. Insure that what we are looking at in the historical satellite data is large enough to rule out any earth
technology.
3) If the anecdotal accounts agree with satellite archival data, then we have conclusive physical proof that there
is indeed something physical to the UFO phenomenon.
4) If we cannot find any physical satellite images that would agree with historic accounts, then we would have to
re-examine our UFO hypothesis.
Discussion:
It is important to use only historic accounts in order to rule out the occasional hoaxer who might look for anomalies in
existing satellite data, and attempt to construct a story line that would match current images. While the amount of
images and data needed to document the possible existence of a physical anomaly is daunting, it is a valid method in
which we can show real physical evidence from two non-related sources. This would be used to encourage other
researchers to focus on the UFO issue. On a side note, it is important to understand that the U.S government has
very advanced imaging methods in both NASA, and military, (such as NORAD), where by observation of unidentified
craft could have been done decades ago. Unfortunately, private citizens can only use images with 100 to 250 meter
resolution, which limits our research to the “triangles” greater than 100 meters. The prospect of obtaining evidence of
UFO sightings from historic satellite data, that agrees with documented witness accounts should satisfy any skeptical
researcher, and give impetus to increased research.
Second Approach:
The next experiment we need to perform is a re-creation of the “Cattle mutilation” issue. I will touch briefly on this
second experiment, and follow up with more detail in later papers.
Design Criteria:
The scientific community ignores the idea of cattle mutilation as a result of UFO visitation due to the lack of physical
evidence, and the non-repeatable nature of this occurrence. What would make this investigation more amenable to
the scientific community is a methodology by which we can recreate the cattle mutilation scenario, and determine if it
is indeed a result of animals, or something more interesting. As with the last experiment, we already have ample data
concerning cattle mutilation, in order to re-create an event, and determine if animal predation could account for the
cattle mutilations in question.
Design:
1) Use existing data to determine the exact locations of questionable cattle mutilations.
2) Obtain an animal that died from natural causes, and use the existing data to place the animal in the desired
spot, along with motion sensitive video equipment.
3) Keep the experiment going until the animal is fed upon, or becomes degraded to the point where the
experiment is determined to be a success.
4) Compare the carcass, and bite marks with the historic mutilations in question. This would determine if
scavengers could make the “laser” cuts, with the precision shown in the historic carcasses in question.
Conclusion:
While the History Channel attempted a small scale experiment such as the one mentioned above, they did not see it
through, and document the results. What is needed is a controlled experiment whereby the test animal is placed in
the exact environment, and observed with equipment that would not interfere with the experiment, (via smell, or
sight, or lighting). Once this experiment is set up correctly, it would be a relative easy task to determine if the historic
animals in question could have become mutilated by simple predation. This experiment would be needed if we are ever
to get the main stream scientific community interested in pursuing these occurrences. A more detailed methodology
will be summated in the near future.
Procedure:
1) Obtain historical evidence of UFO sightings that involve the observations of craft over 100 meters, (i.e. large
“triangle” craft), along with reliable latitudes and longitudes. These observations should be time stamped and
documented.
2) Attempt to validate these sightings with historical satellite archival data, which should also be time and date
stamped. Insure that what we are looking at in the historical satellite data is large enough to rule out any earth
technology.
3) If the anecdotal accounts agree with satellite archival data, then we have conclusive physical proof that there
is indeed something physical to the UFO phenomenon.
4) If we cannot find any physical satellite images that would agree with historic accounts, then we would have to
re-examine our UFO hypothesis.
Discussion:
It is important to use only historic accounts in order to rule out the occasional hoaxer who might look for anomalies in
existing satellite data, and attempt to construct a story line that would match current images. While the amount of
images and data needed to document the possible existence of a physical anomaly is daunting, it is a valid method in
which we can show real physical evidence from two non-related sources. This would be used to encourage other
researchers to focus on the UFO issue. On a side note, it is important to understand that the U.S government has
very advanced imaging methods in both NASA, and military, (such as NORAD), where by observation of unidentified
craft could have been done decades ago. Unfortunately, private citizens can only use images with 100 to 250 meter
resolution, which limits our research to the “triangles” greater than 100 meters. The prospect of obtaining evidence of
UFO sightings from historic satellite data, that agrees with documented witness accounts should satisfy any skeptical
researcher, and give impetus to increased research.
Second Approach:
The next experiment we need to perform is a re-creation of the “Cattle mutilation” issue. I will touch briefly on this
second experiment, and follow up with more detail in later papers.
Design Criteria:
The scientific community ignores the idea of cattle mutilation as a result of UFO visitation due to the lack of physical
evidence, and the non-repeatable nature of this occurrence. What would make this investigation more amenable to
the scientific community is a methodology by which we can recreate the cattle mutilation scenario, and determine if it
is indeed a result of animals, or something more interesting. As with the last experiment, we already have ample data
concerning cattle mutilation, in order to re-create an event, and determine if animal predation could account for the
cattle mutilations in question.
Design:
1) Use existing data to determine the exact locations of questionable cattle mutilations.
2) Obtain an animal that died from natural causes, and use the existing data to place the animal in the desired
spot, along with motion sensitive video equipment.
3) Keep the experiment going until the animal is fed upon, or becomes degraded to the point where the
experiment is determined to be a success.
4) Compare the carcass, and bite marks with the historic mutilations in question. This would determine if
scavengers could make the “laser” cuts, with the precision shown in the historic carcasses in question.
Conclusion:
While the History Channel attempted a small scale experiment such as the one mentioned above, they did not see it
through, and document the results. What is needed is a controlled experiment whereby the test animal is placed in
the exact environment, and observed with equipment that would not interfere with the experiment, (via smell, or
sight, or lighting). Once this experiment is set up correctly, it would be a relative easy task to determine if the historic
animals in question could have become mutilated by simple predation. This experiment would be needed if we are ever
to get the main stream scientific community interested in pursuing these occurrences. A more detailed methodology
will be summated in the near future.
REAL SCIENCE AND THE UFO QUESTION-THE DEBUNKER vs. THAT SKEPTIC by Robert King
ADVERTISERS
ASK ABOUT
ADVERTISER RATES
AND REACH YOUR
NEW CUSTOMERS!
ASK ABOUT
ADVERTISER RATES
AND REACH YOUR
NEW CUSTOMERS!
| WANTED Frontier Science Researcher Writers |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
Introduction:
The UFO question has become a “cottage industry” in the past decades. Rather than apply real science to these
questions, and decide if we can obtain a valid hypothesis from the given information to date, we have constructed a
mythology, which remains unanswerable by existing methods. Being a chemist by training, I have decided to tackle
these questions from a logical perspective. What is important for the UFO community to understand is the difference
between "skeptics” and “debunkers”. Being a skeptic should be a requirement in any field of inquiry. A skeptic is
simply someone who approaches the issues with an open mind, and without any preconceived beliefs. A true skeptic,
or scientist goes where the data leads him or her, no matter how that might conflict with there belief system. A
“debunker”, on the other hand comes in with an agenda. They have a preconceived idea of what they want the results
of the experiment to be. While most in the UFO field realize that over 90 percent of the UFO reports are easily
explained events, it’s the 1 or 2 percent of these events that make any scientist worth the ink there degree is written
on, to stand up and take notice.
The UFO question has become a “cottage industry” in the past decades. Rather than apply real science to these
questions, and decide if we can obtain a valid hypothesis from the given information to date, we have constructed a
mythology, which remains unanswerable by existing methods. Being a chemist by training, I have decided to tackle
these questions from a logical perspective. What is important for the UFO community to understand is the difference
between "skeptics” and “debunkers”. Being a skeptic should be a requirement in any field of inquiry. A skeptic is
simply someone who approaches the issues with an open mind, and without any preconceived beliefs. A true skeptic,
or scientist goes where the data leads him or her, no matter how that might conflict with there belief system. A
“debunker”, on the other hand comes in with an agenda. They have a preconceived idea of what they want the results
of the experiment to be. While most in the UFO field realize that over 90 percent of the UFO reports are easily
explained events, it’s the 1 or 2 percent of these events that make any scientist worth the ink there degree is written
on, to stand up and take notice.
ROBERT KING retired
from Federal Government
service after managing
infrastructure of Northern
Colorado 43 acre research
station and field
stations. King was
awarded the DOE Energy
Savers award for federal
facilities engineering,
along with developing
strategies for managing
energy in federal
buildings.
King holds two
undergraduate degrees
and is currently at
Colorado State University
pursuing advanced
degrees in Chemistry and
Physics. He is a member
of ASHRAE, Electronic
Technician’s Association
(ETA), and the American
Chemical Society.
King became interested in
the UFO phenomenon
after hearing first hand
experiences from
seasoned veterans who
wished to remain
anonymous due to
damage such information
would do to their career.
A member of MUFON
since 2008, Robert’s
focus is in bringing the
UFO question out of the
realm of pseudo-science
by means of rigorous
experimental
methodology, using
current, publicly accessed
technology in order to
demonstrate to the
mainstream scientific
community the physical
validity of these
occurrences.
King’s contact email is
bking@rams.colostate.edu
from Federal Government
service after managing
infrastructure of Northern
Colorado 43 acre research
station and field
stations. King was
awarded the DOE Energy
Savers award for federal
facilities engineering,
along with developing
strategies for managing
energy in federal
buildings.
King holds two
undergraduate degrees
and is currently at
Colorado State University
pursuing advanced
degrees in Chemistry and
Physics. He is a member
of ASHRAE, Electronic
Technician’s Association
(ETA), and the American
Chemical Society.
King became interested in
the UFO phenomenon
after hearing first hand
experiences from
seasoned veterans who
wished to remain
anonymous due to
damage such information
would do to their career.
A member of MUFON
since 2008, Robert’s
focus is in bringing the
UFO question out of the
realm of pseudo-science
by means of rigorous
experimental
methodology, using
current, publicly accessed
technology in order to
demonstrate to the
mainstream scientific
community the physical
validity of these
occurrences.
King’s contact email is
bking@rams.colostate.edu
The Journal of Frontier
Science is looking for
intelligent, informed,
talented Writer-
Researchers in the
fields of:
furthering the study of
Ufology.
JFS is an excellent
format for publishing
your own research for
peer review and
education purposes.
See the Submissions
page for information!
Science is looking for
intelligent, informed,
talented Writer-
Researchers in the
fields of:
- Ufology
- The Paranormal
- Cryptozoology
- Parapsychology
- Etc.
furthering the study of
Ufology.
JFS is an excellent
format for publishing
your own research for
peer review and
education purposes.
See the Submissions
page for information!
| Copyright © 2009 JFS |
We have both historic data, and experimental methods
which would lead to the construction of a real hypothesis.
With today’s technology, it should take no longer than three
years to determine whether the pursuit of UFO’s is real, or
just a construct of human imagination.
I have focused on two historic UFO issues, and methods by
which the use of existing data, and experimental methods
should result in a direction we should focus our continued
research on.
The first approach uses existing historic UFO reports from
sources such as MUFON , and archival satellite data, in order
to validate the reports via physical evidence. Sites such as
EarthNow! , J-Track , and NASA sites. This will give both
real time, and historic satellite data, along with anecdotal
evidence from UFO reports. This should determine whether
there is real evidence as to whether these phenomena exist
which would lead to the construction of a real hypothesis.
With today’s technology, it should take no longer than three
years to determine whether the pursuit of UFO’s is real, or
just a construct of human imagination.
I have focused on two historic UFO issues, and methods by
which the use of existing data, and experimental methods
should result in a direction we should focus our continued
research on.
The first approach uses existing historic UFO reports from
sources such as MUFON , and archival satellite data, in order
to validate the reports via physical evidence. Sites such as
EarthNow! , J-Track , and NASA sites. This will give both
real time, and historic satellite data, along with anecdotal
evidence from UFO reports. This should determine whether
there is real evidence as to whether these phenomena exist
| TODAY IS |
1. http://www.mufon.com/
2. http://earthnow.usgs.gov/earthnow_app.html?sessionId=a7efea3b62d6e070c58a273cd0defa8932907
3. http://science.nasa.gov/RealTime/jtrack/
4. http://worldwind.arc.nasa.gov/java/
2. http://earthnow.usgs.gov/earthnow_app.html?sessionId=a7efea3b62d6e070c58a273cd0defa8932907
3. http://science.nasa.gov/RealTime/jtrack/
4. http://worldwind.arc.nasa.gov/java/
