Why should we care? Because we are scientists. Why should astronomers, meteorologists, or planetary scientists care about these events? Shouldn’t we just let image analysts, or radar observation experts, handle the problem? All good questions, and rightly so. We should be cautious of outright dismissal by assuming that every UAP phenomena must be explainable. Sagan even wrote in the afterword of the 1969 debate proceedings about the “strong opposition” by other scientists who were “convinced that AAAS sponsorship would somehow lend credence to ‘unscientific’ ideas.” As scientists we must simply let scientific curiosity be the spearhead of understanding such phenomena. Part of the reason could be the apparent taboo around UAP phenomena, connecting it to the paranormal or pseudoscience, while ignoring the history behind it. Recent UAP sightings, however, have so far failed to generate similar interest among the scientific community. He dismissed the extraterrestrial hypothesis as unlikely but still considered the UAP subject worthy of scientific inquiry. Sagan, a professor of astronomy at Cornell University, was one of the organizers of the AAAS debate. Hynek was an astronomy professor at the Ohio State University and led the Project Blue Book investigation, while McDonald, who was a well-known meteorologist and a member of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and AAAS, performed a thorough investigation of UAP phenomena. Allen Hynek, James McDonald, Robert Hall and Robert Baker. The resulting Condon Report concluded that further study of UAP was unlikely to be scientifically interesting-a conclusion that drew mixed reactions from scientists and the public.Ĭoncerns over the inadequacy of the methods used by the Condon Report culminated with a congressional hearing in 1968 as well as a debate sponsored by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) in 1969 with participation by scholars such as Carl Sagan, J. Air Force funding a group at the University of Colorado, headed by physicist Edward Condon, to study UAP from 1966 to 1968. The problem of understanding such unexplained UAP cases drew interest by scientists during the 1960s, which resulted in the U.S. The proposal to scientifically study UAP phenomena is not new. And this is where interdisciplinary scientific investigation is needed. Judging the nature of these objects (and these seem to be “objects,” as confirmed by the Navy) needs a coherent explanation that should accommodate and connect all the facts of the events. What happened before and after these video snippets? Were there any simultaneous observations from other instruments, or sightings by pilots? It’s difficult, if not impossible, to say what these actually are, however, without context. Speculations about their nature have run the gamut from mundane objects like birds or balloons to visitors from outer space. Navy and officially released by Pentagon that purportedly show "unidentified aerial phenomena" (UAP) in our skies. If (slot) slot.addService(googletag.UFOs have been back in the news because of videos initially leaked, and later confirmed, by the U.S.
(function (a, d, o, r, i, c, u, p, w, m) Was 2022 the year of the UFO? Pentagon report poses critical question - The Jerusalem Post
0 kommentar(er)
