Derrick Pitts, Astronomer, Wants UFOs Studied With Science - Huffington Post

Nothing kills a career faster than being branded a kook, and in many circles, that's what you are when you admit you've seen a UFO.

The stakes are raised, of course, if we're talking about academic communities, and even more so among astronomers -- people who study the skies.

Many astronomers say there's nothing of any scientific merit that could result in the study of UFOs.

With the career suicide stakes for astronomers so high, some UFO researchers believe many of them are hesitant to step forward. Certainly, the Air Force's Project Bluebook -- the last officially announced government study of unidentified flying objects -- concluded that five percent of the cases investigated could not be immediately explained away.

Nevertheless, one nationally renowned astronomer, Derrick Pitts, tells The Huffington Post that it might be time for a thorough study of unexplained aerial phenomena.

(Courtesy of The Franklin Institute)

"If you say, 'Let's pursue an investigation of UFOs so we can identify where these alien spacecraft are coming from,' then people go, 'What? I'm not touching that with a 10-foot pole.' But if you say, 'Let's look at what the possibilities are that, at one time, there were environments where life possibly could have developed on Mars,' then everybody says, 'Oh, yeah, I want a piece of that,'" said Pitts, senior scientist and chief astronomer at the Franklin Institute Science Museum in Philadelphia.

Pitts, pictured at right, is also a NASA Solar System Ambassador. He told HuffPost about the idea that most serious astronomers give no credence to UFO reports.

"I can speculate about what many astronomers would say if you ask them that question. Many of them would say, 'I haven't seen anything, so I can't say that they exist. I can't say that this five percent are alien spacecraft.' But if you ask them in the same breath, 'Would you be willing to engage in a research project to figure out what these things are,' I don't know what that answer would be.

"I'd say, yeah, let's find out, let's take a look at it, because here we have a phenomenon that causes a tremendous amount of interest. Why not try to understand what it is?"

A careful look at historical records reveals how astronomers have, indeed, not only endorsed efforts to study the UFO phenomenon, but in many cases, have themselves seen unexplained objects for which they couldn't account.

In the late 1940s, astronomer -- and UFO skeptic -- J. Allen Hynek became the scientific consultant to Project Blue Book. During the nearly 20 years that Hynek was charged with explaining away UFO reports, he prepared a "Special Report On Conferences With Astronomers On Unidentified Aerial Objects."

Included in the study of 45 astronomers was a general feeling that "if they were promised complete anonymity and if they could report their sightings to a group of serious, respected scientists who would regard the problem as a scientific one, then they would be willing to cooperate to the very fullest extent."

Watch J. Allen Hynek discussing astronomers and UFOs

Hynek later went on to coin the phrase, "close encounters of the first, second and third kind," which described the various types of UFO reports made by people. As the director of the Center for UFO Studies, he was also the technical consultant -- with a cameo appearance -- in Steven Spielberg's 1977 film, "Close Encounters of the Third Kind."

Also in 1977, astrophysicist Peter Sturrock created a survey based on responses of members of the American Astronomical Society concerning UFOs. One respondent wrote: "I find it tough to make a living as an astronomer these days. It would be professionally suicidal to devote significant time to UFOs. However, I am quite interested in your survey."

A year after Sturrock's survey, Hynek found himself addressing the United Nations, pictured below, on the topic of continuing global sightings of UFOs.

 

"If it were not worldwide, I should not be addressing ... these representatives from many parts of the world," Hynek told the UN Special Political Committee in 1978. "There exists a global phenomenon the scope and extent of which is not generally recognized. It is a phenomenon so strange and foreign to our daily terrestrial mode of thought that it is frequently met by ridicule and derision by persons and organizations unacquainted with the facts.

"Yet, the phenomenon persists; it has not faded away as many of us expected it would when, years ago, we regarded it as a passing fad or whimsy. Instead, it has touched on the lives of an increasing number of people around the world."

Joining Hynek at that milestone UN initiative to try and get the world body to create an internal UFO committee was astronomer Jacques Vallee, portrayed by Francois Truffaut in "Close Encounters of the Third Kind."

"We are beginning to pay the price for the negative and prejudiced attitude with which our scientific institutions have treated sincere witnesses of UFO phenomena," Vallee told the U.N. delegates in 1978. "Lack of serious, open-minded research in this field has encouraged these witnesses to think that science was incapable of dealing with the phenomena.

"This attitude has led many people to seek answers outside the rational pursuit of knowledge to which science is dedicated. Only an open exchange of information on the subject could now correct this dangerous trend."

 

Vallee, pictured above, closed his remarks at the United Nations, saying, "All the great nations of the world are represented on this committee. Let us keep in mind that the UFO phenomenon may represent an even greater reality. It is our choice to treat it as a threat or as an opportunity for human knowledge."

Watch Jacques Vallee discussing UFOs at the 2011 Global Competitiveness Forum in Saudi Arabia.

Still close in our collective memory are all of the UFO reports that emerged from China in 2010, making almost daily headlines as unexplained lights and objects were seen throughout the country, and in some cases, responsible for airports temporarily closing down until the UFOs left the area.

Wang Sichao, a planetary astronomer at the Purple Mountain Observatory of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, said that the UFO reports "refer to events of credible facts backed by observation. But these facts cannot yet be explained by existing scientific knowledge or natural phenomena."

Wang has investigated UFO sightings in China for four decades and told the Beijing Review why there hasn't been much progress in available UFO information.

"The reason is that a UFO only appears randomly and often disappears rapidly in a few minutes. By the time large professional telescopes are started up, it has already disappeared. So, we can only rely on information from occasional sightings or encounters by observers," he explained.

Back in Philadelphia, Pitts suggests what needs to happen to ultimately lend more credibility to people who want to study UFOs and eventually solve the mystery, one way or another.

"There are two ways in which this can happen. The first way is if a UFO lands on the front lawn of the White House -- that would take care of all of that right away," Pitts said.

"Then, the other way is if some legitimate, recognized scientific institution engages in research about these particular objects. And something that would help it is if we change the name of what it is that's being investigated, because that immediately causes problems.

"If that helps to legitimize the research and makes it acceptable in a way that will bring the strength of others to bear on resolving the questions, then that's a good thing."

Chris Carter's Science and the Afterlife Experience

By  Robert McLuhan

When Chris Carter's first book came out he mentioned he'd originally tried to do it all in a single volume, but was advised to separate it into three. As a writer who was trying to do something similar I could readily relate to that, but didn't think that I had that option. As a result I spent a lot of time trying to telescope complex arguments into a small space.

Carter, by contrast, has given himself the room to do full justice to the various different topics. His first two instalments tackled psi research and NDEs. With this latest book on survival-related research - spirit communications, apparitions and memories of a past life - he has carried his ambitious trilogy to a triumphant conclusion.

This is more than a survey; it's an uncompromisingly partisan argument in favour of survival. The last person to make the case with philosophical rigour was Robert Almeder some twenty years ago, and it's fitting that the book includes an foreword by him. An earlier one was by CJ Ducasse, which Carter frequently references, also perhaps CD Broad's Lectures in Psychical Research, but these of course didn't include near-death experiences or evidence for reincarnation. Stephen Braude's Immortal Remains is up there too, but, like Broad, he's more concerned with exploration than in making a committed statement. So it's not a crowded field.... continues

Source

Derrick Pitts, Astronomer, Wants UFOs Studied With Science - Huffington Post

Nothing kills a career faster than being branded a kook, and in many circles, that's what you are when you admit you've seen a UFO.

The stakes are raised, of course, if we're talking about academic communities, and even more so among astronomers -- people who study the skies.

Many astronomers say there's nothing of any scientific merit that could result in the study of UFOs.

With the career suicide stakes for astronomers so high, some UFO researchers believe many of them are hesitant to step forward. Certainly, the Air Force's Project Bluebook -- the last officially announced government study of unidentified flying objects -- concluded that five percent of the cases investigated could not be immediately explained away.

Nevertheless, one nationally renowned astronomer, Derrick Pitts, tells The Huffington Post that it might be time for a thorough study of unexplained aerial phenomena.

(Courtesy of The Franklin Institute)

"If you say, 'Let's pursue an investigation of UFOs so we can identify where these alien spacecraft are coming from,' then people go, 'What? I'm not touching that with a 10-foot pole.' But if you say, 'Let's look at what the possibilities are that, at one time, there were environments where life possibly could have developed on Mars,' then everybody says, 'Oh, yeah, I want a piece of that,'" said Pitts, senior scientist and chief astronomer at the Franklin Institute Science Museum in Philadelphia.

Pitts, pictured at right, is also a NASA Solar System Ambassador. He told HuffPost about the idea that most serious astronomers give no credence to UFO reports.

"I can speculate about what many astronomers would say if you ask them that question. Many of them would say, 'I haven't seen anything, so I can't say that they exist. I can't say that this five percent are alien spacecraft.' But if you ask them in the same breath, 'Would you be willing to engage in a research project to figure out what these things are,' I don't know what that answer would be.

"I'd say, yeah, let's find out, let's take a look at it, because here we have a phenomenon that causes a tremendous amount of interest. Why not try to understand what it is?"

A careful look at historical records reveals how astronomers have, indeed, not only endorsed efforts to study the UFO phenomenon, but in many cases, have themselves seen unexplained objects for which they couldn't account.

In the late 1940s, astronomer -- and UFO skeptic -- J. Allen Hynek became the scientific consultant to Project Blue Book. During the nearly 20 years that Hynek was charged with explaining away UFO reports, he prepared a "Special Report On Conferences With Astronomers On Unidentified Aerial Objects."

Included in the study of 45 astronomers was a general feeling that "if they were promised complete anonymity and if they could report their sightings to a group of serious, respected scientists who would regard the problem as a scientific one, then they would be willing to cooperate to the very fullest extent."

Watch J. Allen Hynek discussing astronomers and UFOs

Hynek later went on to coin the phrase, "close encounters of the first, second and third kind," which described the various types of UFO reports made by people. As the director of the Center for UFO Studies, he was also the technical consultant -- with a cameo appearance -- in Steven Spielberg's 1977 film, "Close Encounters of the Third Kind."

Also in 1977, astrophysicist Peter Sturrock created a survey based on responses of members of the American Astronomical Society concerning UFOs. One respondent wrote: "I find it tough to make a living as an astronomer these days. It would be professionally suicidal to devote significant time to UFOs. However, I am quite interested in your survey."

A year after Sturrock's survey, Hynek found himself addressing the United Nations, pictured below, on the topic of continuing global sightings of UFOs.

 

"If it were not worldwide, I should not be addressing ... these representatives from many parts of the world," Hynek told the UN Special Political Committee in 1978. "There exists a global phenomenon the scope and extent of which is not generally recognized. It is a phenomenon so strange and foreign to our daily terrestrial mode of thought that it is frequently met by ridicule and derision by persons and organizations unacquainted with the facts.

"Yet, the phenomenon persists; it has not faded away as many of us expected it would when, years ago, we regarded it as a passing fad or whimsy. Instead, it has touched on the lives of an increasing number of people around the world."

Joining Hynek at that milestone UN initiative to try and get the world body to create an internal UFO committee was astronomer Jacques Vallee, portrayed by Francois Truffaut in "Close Encounters of the Third Kind."

"We are beginning to pay the price for the negative and prejudiced attitude with which our scientific institutions have treated sincere witnesses of UFO phenomena," Vallee told the U.N. delegates in 1978. "Lack of serious, open-minded research in this field has encouraged these witnesses to think that science was incapable of dealing with the phenomena.

"This attitude has led many people to seek answers outside the rational pursuit of knowledge to which science is dedicated. Only an open exchange of information on the subject could now correct this dangerous trend."

 

Vallee, pictured above, closed his remarks at the United Nations, saying, "All the great nations of the world are represented on this committee. Let us keep in mind that the UFO phenomenon may represent an even greater reality. It is our choice to treat it as a threat or as an opportunity for human knowledge."

Watch Jacques Vallee discussing UFOs at the 2011 Global Competitiveness Forum in Saudi Arabia.

Still close in our collective memory are all of the UFO reports that emerged from China in 2010, making almost daily headlines as unexplained lights and objects were seen throughout the country, and in some cases, responsible for airports temporarily closing down until the UFOs left the area.

Wang Sichao, a planetary astronomer at the Purple Mountain Observatory of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, said that the UFO reports "refer to events of credible facts backed by observation. But these facts cannot yet be explained by existing scientific knowledge or natural phenomena."

Wang has investigated UFO sightings in China for four decades and told the Beijing Review why there hasn't been much progress in available UFO information.

"The reason is that a UFO only appears randomly and often disappears rapidly in a few minutes. By the time large professional telescopes are started up, it has already disappeared. So, we can only rely on information from occasional sightings or encounters by observers," he explained.

Back in Philadelphia, Pitts suggests what needs to happen to ultimately lend more credibility to people who want to study UFOs and eventually solve the mystery, one way or another.

"There are two ways in which this can happen. The first way is if a UFO lands on the front lawn of the White House -- that would take care of all of that right away," Pitts said.

"Then, the other way is if some legitimate, recognized scientific institution engages in research about these particular objects. And something that would help it is if we change the name of what it is that's being investigated, because that immediately causes problems.

"If that helps to legitimize the research and makes it acceptable in a way that will bring the strength of others to bear on resolving the questions, then that's a good thing."

Science Set Free - Good News for Lumbering Robots - SF Gate

Three decades ago, few scientists were courageous enough to break ranks and question their own belief system. Even calling science a belief system sounded outrageous - religion is a matter of belief, science a matter of facts. The most far-seeing scientist who was willing to break ranks then, as now, was Rupert Sheldrake, who risked his impeccable credentials as a Cambridge biochemist with real joy, like a man suddenly able to breathe. Thirty years after his first heretical books, Sheldrake's new one, Science Set Free, is a landmark achievement. No science writing has inspired me more.

Find out more about Science Set Free here!

Sheldrake's essential point is that science needs setting free from ten blind dogmas. These dogmas embrace a true belief system as much as Roman Catholicism or any other faith. Behind the daily activity of gathering data, science assumes certain things about reality that, according to Sheldrake, are unsupportable. The first dogma, for example, holds that the universe is mechanical. If that is so, then everything in the universe is also mechanical, including human beings - or to use a phrase from the noted atheist Richard Dawkins, we are "lumbering robots." From a scientist's perspective, to understand everything that you need to know about human beings, you only have to tinker with all the mechanical parts of genes and the brain until there are no more secrets left.

Clearly such a view leaves no room for the soul, which becomes a wispy illusion that needs to be swept away. But then, so does the self, because there is no region of the brain that contains "I," a person. As long as "I" is a hallucination formed by complex neural circuitry, one can throw out - or reduce to mechanical operations - love, beauty, truth, compassion, honor, devotion, faith, and so on, the whole apparatus that makes a person's life feel valuable. A random universe has no purpose; therefore, giving lumbering robots a purpose is dubious.

Sheldrake offers an alternative to the mechanistic dogma, but let me mention a few other dogmas first. The second dogma he overturns is the belief that matter is unconscious. The whole universe is filled with atoms and molecules that have no connection to intelligence, creativity, or meaning. The problem here is that nobody can explain how atoms and molecules learned to think. No matter how closely you examine the water, glucose, and electrolyte salts in the human brain, you can't find the point where these molecules became conscious. How come the sugar water in a can of Coke isn't thinking and feeling while the sugar water in your cerebral cortex is? For science to brush this problem aside as mere metaphysics doesn't make it go away.

The third dogma is that the laws of nature are fixed and haven't changed since the Big Bang. The fourth is that the amount of matter and energy in the cosmos is always the same. And so the list grows, building toward a shocking conclusion: Science has been explaining a mirage and calling it reality. Sheldrake isn't speaking as a mystic or an enemy of science - far from it. He has kept up with the most current findings in physics and biology. Among these findings are some shattering discoveries, as far as rigid dogmas are concerned:

- The universe operates more like a living organism than a machine.
- The existence of dark matter and dark energy topples the conservation of matter and energy. Because the "dark" dimension operates outside the visible universe, the notion of fixed laws of nature suddenly looks wobbly, too.
- Purpose-driven evolution may explain life better than the random mutation of classic Darwinism.
- Genes, far from being fixed and deterministic, are involved in a far more fluid interaction than anyone ever supposed.

Sheldrake works with many more intriguing discoveries; he has a delightfully inquisitive, penetrating mind. He also seems unflappable in the face of the howling protests he has raised for thirty years, beginning when none of the above findings was even suspected. If science weren't a dogmatic belief system, there would be rational responses to his challenges rather than scorn from true believers. But a major shift is occurring. Under its title in the UK, The Science Delusion (playing off Dawkins' best-selling The God Delusion) Sheldrake's new book is getting positive reviews in high places. Even more promising, a new generation of younger scientists, who are trained (unlike Dawkins) in the shifting new realities of physics, biology, and genetics, is actually intrigued by a universe permeated with consciousness, intelligence, and meaning.

The irony in Sheldrake's career is that he has been a peacemaker all along, not an iconoclast. He wants to end the breach between science and religion. For that to happen, two dogmatic systems must reexamine their beliefs. It will never happen, as each side fantasizes, that faith will win out over science or science over faith. There is only one reality. It has been explored from inner space by great spiritual minds; it has been explored from the physical world by great scientists. Now we need synthesizers from both camps, which is what Sheldrake is. "Gene" and "soul" are comfortable words for him, because he began his quest by tearing down walls and barriers in his own world view.

Read more...

Science Set Free - Good News for Lumbering Robots - SF Gate

Three decades ago, few scientists were courageous enough to break ranks and question their own belief system. Even calling science a belief system sounded outrageous - religion is a matter of belief, science a matter of facts. The most far-seeing scientist who was willing to break ranks then, as now, was Rupert Sheldrake, who risked his impeccable credentials as a Cambridge biochemist with real joy, like a man suddenly able to breathe. Thirty years after his first heretical books, Sheldrake's new one, Science Set Free, is a landmark achievement. No science writing has inspired me more.

Find out more about Science Set Free here!

Sheldrake's essential point is that science needs setting free from ten blind dogmas. These dogmas embrace a true belief system as much as Roman Catholicism or any other faith. Behind the daily activity of gathering data, science assumes certain things about reality that, according to Sheldrake, are unsupportable. The first dogma, for example, holds that the universe is mechanical. If that is so, then everything in the universe is also mechanical, including human beings - or to use a phrase from the noted atheist Richard Dawkins, we are "lumbering robots." From a scientist's perspective, to understand everything that you need to know about human beings, you only have to tinker with all the mechanical parts of genes and the brain until there are no more secrets left.

Clearly such a view leaves no room for the soul, which becomes a wispy illusion that needs to be swept away. But then, so does the self, because there is no region of the brain that contains "I," a person. As long as "I" is a hallucination formed by complex neural circuitry, one can throw out - or reduce to mechanical operations - love, beauty, truth, compassion, honor, devotion, faith, and so on, the whole apparatus that makes a person's life feel valuable. A random universe has no purpose; therefore, giving lumbering robots a purpose is dubious.

Sheldrake offers an alternative to the mechanistic dogma, but let me mention a few other dogmas first. The second dogma he overturns is the belief that matter is unconscious. The whole universe is filled with atoms and molecules that have no connection to intelligence, creativity, or meaning. The problem here is that nobody can explain how atoms and molecules learned to think. No matter how closely you examine the water, glucose, and electrolyte salts in the human brain, you can't find the point where these molecules became conscious. How come the sugar water in a can of Coke isn't thinking and feeling while the sugar water in your cerebral cortex is? For science to brush this problem aside as mere metaphysics doesn't make it go away.

The third dogma is that the laws of nature are fixed and haven't changed since the Big Bang. The fourth is that the amount of matter and energy in the cosmos is always the same. And so the list grows, building toward a shocking conclusion: Science has been explaining a mirage and calling it reality. Sheldrake isn't speaking as a mystic or an enemy of science - far from it. He has kept up with the most current findings in physics and biology. Among these findings are some shattering discoveries, as far as rigid dogmas are concerned:

- The universe operates more like a living organism than a machine.
- The existence of dark matter and dark energy topples the conservation of matter and energy. Because the "dark" dimension operates outside the visible universe, the notion of fixed laws of nature suddenly looks wobbly, too.
- Purpose-driven evolution may explain life better than the random mutation of classic Darwinism.
- Genes, far from being fixed and deterministic, are involved in a far more fluid interaction than anyone ever supposed.

Sheldrake works with many more intriguing discoveries; he has a delightfully inquisitive, penetrating mind. He also seems unflappable in the face of the howling protests he has raised for thirty years, beginning when none of the above findings was even suspected. If science weren't a dogmatic belief system, there would be rational responses to his challenges rather than scorn from true believers. But a major shift is occurring. Under its title in the UK, The Science Delusion (playing off Dawkins' best-selling The God Delusion) Sheldrake's new book is getting positive reviews in high places. Even more promising, a new generation of younger scientists, who are trained (unlike Dawkins) in the shifting new realities of physics, biology, and genetics, is actually intrigued by a universe permeated with consciousness, intelligence, and meaning.

The irony in Sheldrake's career is that he has been a peacemaker all along, not an iconoclast. He wants to end the breach between science and religion. For that to happen, two dogmatic systems must reexamine their beliefs. It will never happen, as each side fantasizes, that faith will win out over science or science over faith. There is only one reality. It has been explored from inner space by great spiritual minds; it has been explored from the physical world by great scientists. Now we need synthesizers from both camps, which is what Sheldrake is. "Gene" and "soul" are comfortable words for him, because he began his quest by tearing down walls and barriers in his own world view.

Read more...