Given the lack of evidence and scientific rigor I’m not sure what “THE institute in the field” means. That’s not unlike this issue with the meaning of “UFOlogist.”
Do you know ANYTHING about the man or his work? No. So, you can’t really swing the “without scientific rigor” bat with any credibility now can you?
This was the man who came up with most of the accepted “debunking” explanations that you’d likely defend. Not all UFOlogists think UFOs are aliens from outer space. It’s how they got the name UNIDENTIFIED FLYING OBJECTS. When you name them that way, they’re existence proves itself (at least some of the time) until otherwise proven.
That’s prolly why they’re not called Alien Space Ships.
Someone ought to swing it. I don’t think you’re doing it.
But lots of them do, and that’s why the terms have become interchangeable to most people. I ask again: if they’re not from space, who cares what they are?
Something you may not realize is that the term UFO was created by people who believe in UFOs but don’t believe they’re alien crafts of any kind. The Air Force coined the phrase. To say “UFOs don’t exist” is just silly. And to say “the field lack scientific rigor” is also silly when you consider than almost half of the work done in the field is done to prove the theories of the non-believers.
It’s not really their fault that they haven’t done a very good job though. It’s a lot harder to prove that something doesn’t exist than that something does. If you don’t believe me, look at the number of posts in the “Atheists” thread. Now, THAT’S a group of frustrated individuals. It’s a tough job in both cases.
Actually you’re wrong. I do it all the time. Most of the people talking about UFOs are kooks. The UFO dudes know it too, but what can ya do? That’s probably why their so sensitive about mixing in subjects they don’t believe in.
See what I did right there? Full circle. 
Weeeeeeee!
If you’re looking for prominent people who link the paranormal and alien visitors, here’s a whole conference of them from about a year and a half ago. A bunch of names there.
How about this interview of Grant Cameron on the Skeptiko podcast, called “Grant Cameron on UFO Sightings and Extended Human Consciousness”?
Here’s an article: Human consciousness research connected to UFO disclosure. Notice the name of the site: UFO Digest - UFO and Paranormal News from Around the World.
Wikipedia has a whole article on it: Paranormal and occult hypotheses about UFOs. Several prominent names there to get you started.
There is so much of this stuff out there, that you can find hundreds of prominent examples in a fraction of a second.
Was your point that this stuff doesn’t exist?
Clear up the REST of the question: unless you’re linking UFOs to extraterrestrials, why are they of any interest whatsoever?
That’s one of the many baffling things in your posts. If I’m reading you correctly, UFOs are sufficiently interesting even in the absence of an intelligent, otherworldly explanation.
That just doesn’t match anybody’s actual experience.
ETA: Actually, I have one, but it’s still pretty mundane. Some UFOs have been revealed to have been secret military test aircraft. That’s rather interesting in one sense, but it’s certainly still not the reason the majority of people find UFOs interesting nor the reason most people choose to study them.
Okay I’ll answer you.
There’s a group that claims that alot of UFOs are actually animals that live in the outer atmosphere. We don’t see them that much because the move more quickly than the human eye can detect. Sometimes they slow down and we see them. If you use a somethingorother telescope thingymabobber you can see them all the time.
(see? kooks - but you asked who cares)
And I care if we’re shooting stuff at 'em or scrambling fully armed aircrafts to chase them over American cities or if, as in the case in Malstrom where our nuclear weapons powered down on their own during a sighting. I care about those things, but I also care that people know the truth, process whatever it is, and shut up about the whole thing too. Don’t tell me you wouldn’t like that! So, you care just a little bit too there now don’t ya!?
I’m aware. The problem is that whatever intention went into the phrase, UFO has become just as synonymous as “flying saucer” and other terms were. That’s why you’re now quibbling with Czarcasm about how it’s silly to say UFOs don’t exist when he definitely meant UFOs as alien craft. I was a little more careful earlier but the meaning was not that hard to parse.
What is the peer review process? How is the data checked when it’s collected and what kind of work is done on reports before they get published? Scientific rigor doesn’t mean “some says it is and some says it isn’t.” Your comment earlier that you can tell when people are lying and prefer new tellings of old stories doesn’t exactly scream “careful evaluation of the evidence.”
Anything the government feels compelled to shoot at is interesting to me.
Plus also, the other stuff in my last post - (look up! or down! Whichever)
I can’t control what somebody else means by words that clearly mean what they mean. It seems to me that people on this forum hold others to a higher standard of clarity than they do themselves. That’s not a good thing. Also they nitpick and throw back garbled unsubstantiated facts.
As for what qualifies as “peer review” that was my answer to what I thought the qualification should be. There’s a less formal process in play here where participants at all levels basically skewer the loser who rights a book the majority of them find to be poorly done. It’s not a perfect system, but it does weed out a lot of people. For example, one dude wrote a book detailing his investigation, but he only used initials instead of providing the full names of his subjects. They beat the crap outta that guy. I don’t think he’s written since. Now, that’s a HIGHER standard than “scholarly work”. I’ve seen dissertations where the names were subject X and subject Y.
Anyway, it is what it is. There’s a hierarchy whether we believe in it or not.
Presumably they’re not firing at their own test craft.
Of all the UFO sightings, a vanishingly small percentage actually result in military action. Apparently, they’re not so bothered they feel compelled to do much about the vast majority of sightings nor bother spend many resources studying them in any case.
Also, the “government” is a bad way to put it. It’s not like the President or the SecDef or one of the Joint Chiefs is ordering military sorties against UFOs. It’s some officer who happens to be in charge of some base on a given day. Attributing that to the “government” is a way of legitimizing the argument in a way that’s not justified. It’s not the “government”. It’s some random dude who happens to work for a branch of our government doing his job and not necessarily with the knowledge of his own superiors.
That rivals alien visitors for sheer stupidity.
Then why is this an argument about UFOs and not military technology and procedures and logistics? That would be the real issue.
I care about knowing the truth, but I’ve stopped expecting people to process and accept the truth and then shut up. They never do it.
You seem to be stuck on this. I am not a UFOlogist and don’t claim to be. I research a subject (meaning a person) and write about them. I don’t inject my own opinion or conclusions into a piece on a subject with which I have no expertise.
That’s not the job of a writer. I write ABOUT the experts. My job is to find out who is regarded as an expert and why. I researched every single person on that list and there isn’t one I’d remove. The only ones who are a little thin are the military guys with first hand accounts because of exactly what you’re saying. They lack scientific discipline, but for the most part they source the heck out of their work and that seems to do the trick.
Um, no…belief doesn’t come into it for me. I base my opinion on actual evidence, of which there isn’t any solid evidence for either ghosts OR UFOs of extra-terrestrial origin. Anyone who does ‘believe’ in either does so based on belief, not actual, solid, scientific evidence. See how that works?
Unless they’re freaking out because they are afraid of UFOs. Read up on Battle Over Los Angeles. It’s freaky and UFOs are definitely the issue that seems to be the lynch pin - alien or not.
You got that right.
Boy, lack of evidence doesn’t squash the snarky around here does it?
Feel free to read the rest of my posts, but I do believe there is evidence worth looking at more closely. I don’t contend nor conclude that the sightings are of aliens - just that they deserve more attention. And mixing “weird crap” together as a category doesn’t help the search for “evidence” that everybody claims to be so fond of.
[QUOTE=RadioActiveRich]
Boy, lack of evidence doesn’t squash the snarky around here does it?
[/QUOTE]
Lack of evidence and a willingness to push a pet theory without it is like a snark magnet around here. 
But most UFO sightings ARE explained reasonably…it’s simply that most UFO types don’t accept the explanations. Maybe you’ve already provided this and I missed it, but what’s your best case for an unexplained UFO?
If your contention is that UFOs are simply unexplained phenomena of natural origin, or that they are unexplained military air craft, well, that’s hardly controversial around here, and certainly it’s not on par with ghosts. However, that’s a rather unconventional view of UFOs, to say the least.
No- your lack of evidence is definitely not going to squash any snark.
That’s either very naive or an absolution of responsibility, if not both. It certainly sounds like you’re doing your own evaluation of who is an expert and who isn’t and making judgments based on that. Those judgments ought to be informed. Who do you think provides a more valuable service: someone who publicizes the claims others people and says it’s not his job to evaluate what they’re saying, or someone who carefully evaluates what he’s hearing and provides a viewpoint for readers? Writers can do both.
Not pushing a theory. Just defending the rights of others to have a theory without it being crapped on by people who get their news from Google and Twitter.
Actually, you’ve inspired me. I was going to write a book about the fifty dumbest government explanations for UFOs. Now I HAVE TO do it. I’ll put you in the dedication if you tell me your real first name.
And I’m not going back and forth again about which UFO story is blah blah blah. I cite an actual government document and you cite a blog or Wikipedia. Then I cite sworn testimony and you inject a conclusion not based in fact. That’s not the point of this thread.
And there are people who have dedicated their life’s work to studying UFOs. Now as you read that you assumed that these people are believers. Many of them are not. UFO in and of itself is a non-believers term. The study of (whatever they are) as generic airborne objects is completely fair and reasonable under a lot of circumstances. I personally have never contended that any sighting is a craft from outer space, but I don’t rule out any possibility before each side presents their facts. And if you dismiss them based on no research because of what you saw in a documentary or on the news, then you suffer from information bias, which explains lumping dissimilar subjects together. My main contention is that whatever they are - prove it and tell the truth about it. If they’re balloons so be it. If it’s E.T.'s Honda Civic - so be it.