Monday, 25 August 2008
FOs contributions of members of the AIAA:
UFOs contributions of members of the AIAA:By PETER A. STURROCK, Stanford University
Most UFO reports concerning the experiences of lovers, but scientists and engineers disclose accounts similar when one takes the trouble to ask them a detailed report of their experience.
For many years the "UFO phenomenon" has greatly concerned the public but received comparatively little response from scientists. The "UFO phenomenon" is equivalent to this question: reports of unidentified flying objects (UFOs or indicate they establish a set of facts that can not be interpreted in terms of natural phenomena known and technological devices? And if yes, these facts can be modelled and interpreted? popular discussions about the UFO phenomenon pay special attention to the possibility that some of the comments correpondent an effective model supporting the hypothesis that vehicles extraterrestrials visit earth.
Most scientists have hoped that the problem would certainly be clarified and probably settled by the "Condon Report" (1) based on the "Draft Colorado." Examinations of the report reflected differences of opinions. (2.3) The report published Conference on UFOs organized by the American Association for the Advancement of Science in 1969 indicated a wide range of opinion about the Condon report at the time. (4) It is without doubt the same today.
The American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics the (AIAA), alone among the established scientific organizations took the initiative to try to bring the UFO phenomenon known to scientists seriously. In 1967 its technical committee of the area and Atmospheric Science has created a subcommittee to acquire a new objective perspective on the UFO problem. " In 1970 this subcommittee has edited a publication on its position. (5) The discussions also led to the publication of two reports extensive comments notable UFO. (6.7)
Scientists no undoubtedly discouraged to take the problem seriously by the bizarre nature of some reports and the emphasis on "extraterrestrial hypothesis" (ETH). The fact that most reports are anecdotal nature and come from non-scientic is also a cause for scepticism.
In his book "The UFO Experience" (8), JA Hynek confronts and denies the widespread idea that "scientists do not comment UFO" it cites a number of reports of comments from scientists .
Hynek he targeted a particular group of scientists, or is there actually much more suitable reports by scientists that what you believe? It turned out that this issue could be addressed by a simple overview of a limited group of scientifically qualified person, and it was also possible to obtain a sample of opinion about the UFO phenomenon by scientists.
The executive committee of the section of San Francisco Chapter of the AIAA has authorized a study of its members. This article describes the study and its results contains
The questionnaire shown below was sent to all 1,175 members of the section of San Francisco on April 9, 1973, and 423 questionnaires (36%) were returned completed. All percentages that follow here refer to the total returned completed questionnaires.
The first question asked is: "what is your subjective assessment of the likelihood that the UFO phenomenon represent a scientifically significant?" Sue the 423 returns, 93 (22 percent) gave numerical scores (see T-1) of this likelihood and have indicated a widespread dissemination of opinion, the median assessment about P = 0.4, twenty-two P returns with close to 0,
Most respondents (290, or 69 percent) gave verbal answers to Question 1. T2 combines, and comparison purposes, includes numerical answers. Those who give verbal responses shows more dispersion in their views. Of those who make verbal responses, 25 percent are defined ( "impossible" or "some"); those responses are digital, only 16% are defined (P = 0 or P = 1).
Of the 40 responses remaining 33 did not reply to Question 1, two responses were not related, or said that the issue had no importance, or that the issue is exciting, or that the matter should be studied , And two (in a way justified) it is said that the issue is unclear.
You see here the reports submitted in response to question 2 of the questionnaire, arbitrarily classified by time of day or the person has had the experience.
Many people giving a negative response to the comments offered in question 2, however. For example, eight were of the opinion that more research is needed, as they have indicated the opposite to answer 1. Two have offered the opinion that UFOs are extraterrestrials, and four have indicated they are not. Five were of the opinion that UFOs are normal phenomena, or have called a false phenomenon, and three said they believe UFOs as "real." Three made remarks "rejection" of the subject as a whole, and four said they have an open mind about this.
A part of these reports explicit, several correspondents said they had witnessed phenomena air that they had been unable to identify, but did not describe a specific event in detail. One person thought that the phenomena may have been identified if it had been competent in meteorology. Others have said he frequently saw what he believed to be shooting stars. Another person recalled having observed an event he could not identify at the time but which turned out to be launching a missile from the base of Vandenberg AFB.
An airplane pilot with 41 years experience, many of the night, a lot of observations of meteors, satellites and other objects. On a six-hour flight from Honolulu to Nandi, he has seen in the past four satellites (in the form of points seen by the light reflected from a distance of 150-200 n.mi.). He reported also see meteors as well as space debris burning in emitting light, showing various colors, and resembling the aérolithes.
Another correspondent had referred to an event recorded on film exposed in an experiment rocket at the base of White Sands missile in 1965. Details of this observation were not included in the questionnaire, but I had been communicated at a later date, regardless of the questionnaire. For this reason, the details of this event are not included in this article.
Scientists, as can be seen the reader, respond to a questionnaire about UFOs. The questionnaire sent to the members section of the AIAA San Francisco generated a high proportion of responses, and almost all respondents were willing to give their names. It is likely that the guarantee of anonymity has contributed to the high number of responses.
The responses show no consensus whatsoever about the nature and the scientific importance of the UFO phenomenon. The views cover the whole spectrum of possible answers, "certain" to "impossible" to answer the question, "UFOs represent a scientifically significant phenomenon?"
Of those who have given positive reports (answering "yes" to question 2), some have interpreted their latest observation as a phenomenon known (R3, R.10, and R.16). Some others may in fact be known phenomena. For example, R.5 may have been caused by an experience of a cloud of barium; R.7 could have been a missile launch Vandenberg AFB; R.9 may have been a fire of St. Elme, and R.13 may have been a drag rocket.
On the other hand, some reports are very similar to types of observation UFO classified by Hynek. (8) (Hynek classification is concerned, naturally, only with a comment that could not explain in terms of phenomena or devices known.) In particular, R.1, R.5, and the first part of Discs Moving the words R.12; R.3 describes a pair of stationary discs, and the last part of R.12 tells a group of more than ten discs.
It is notable that in 21 or more events involved in the return of the survey, only two précédamment observations have been reported. In no case is a scientist has publicly claimed to have seen a strange phenomenon. Thus it is clear, by this questionnaire, if you want to discover if scientists see UFOs, you should ask them, and you should probably guarantee them anonymity.
This study has certainly achieved its goal. It proves that a group of scientifically qualified persons related phenomena similar to air "UFO reports."
by erectusplus at 10:53 |
<< Home