tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7040353126484409527.post6959667055049619567..comments2024-03-21T08:16:46.130+10:30Comments on Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena - scientific research: The full report of the 1970 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics subcommitteeKeith Basterfieldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05367372091711887711noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7040353126484409527.post-10938877372500468452014-09-30T18:29:17.268+09:302014-09-30T18:29:17.268+09:30Thanks for posting this interesting and cogent rev...Thanks for posting this interesting and cogent review.<br />I was reflecting on if we have made any significant progress in more than 40 years since this report was written.<br />Perhaps...the wider theoretical context has certainly moved on (the relatively early appearance of life on earth, our growing knowledge of extremophiles and potential habitats (indeed the emergence of exobiology as a field), and still controversial possibilities such as panspermia and convergent evolution all influence the scale of the paradox in Fermi's famous quote.<br />Interstellar travel remains beyond us but theoretical developments have moved on considerably since 1970 and it is difficult to justify a claim that such travel is impossible.<br />Our understanding of the range of available exoplanets had developed not just in actual detection terms but also in a greater appreciation of the availability of deep time for the potential emergence if ETC...<br /><br />All the above is purely circumstantial though...<br /><br />Since 1970 we have seen the first coherent theoretical model for the UFO phenomenon (Hill, 1995) linking their characteristics to mainstream physics. We have a far greater data set including access to rare cases with significant hard quantitative data ( the USS Gyatt case from 1964 is just one example) and countries outside the English speaking world, perhaps particularly France, have contributed to provided quantitative data.<br /><br />Our understanding of misidentifications has improved, with new phenomena such as earthquake lights and meteor related plasmas being proposed. The Hessdalen study has contributed to our understanding in this regard.<br /><br />Controversially the small core or very hard cases we now have quite good data for provide a primae facie case for a technological basis for these cases. But that is a logical positivist approach and that is not sufficient to be conclusive. Highly controversially I would suggest that some small parts of the Ramey memo allow quantitative analysis which supports the read proposed by Rudiak for very small sections of the document. If that can be demonstrated to arrive at a more general consensus within the ufo logical community (there is no point hoping for a change if view more generally) I would argue that we would then have a quite decisive result.Anthony Muganhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09500170864254300321noreply@blogger.com