Is the subject of UFOs worth serious study?

There's a phrase that has gained some currency that I find deeply unscientific. It is Sagan's razor, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." The fact is that what is extraordinary is a value judgment and has nothing to do with science. A hypothesis is testable. It works as long as it handles data – as soon as it ceases to do so, it requires modification. That's all.

Certainly, we should be cautious too readily accepting new information in to our collective knowledge. However this isn't to say we should rule out fringe subjects as not being worth further investigation and open-minded analysis. Especially when it comes to subjects like UFOs, which possibly represent an area with serious repercussions for humanity.

With every pro we should consider the con. Likewise with every newly claimed discovery we should put it through peer-review to ensure it holds water. However to falsely maintain that something hasn't passed a bar to uphold a personal belief, counter to well established fact, is insidious and in opposition to the scientific method.

The Concept of "UFO" being no different a place-holder than "dark matter"

When I say UFO I don't imply Dr. Hartman's definition ("the stimulus for a report made by one or more individuals of something seen in the sky ... which the observer could not identify as having an ordinary natural origin, and which seemed to him sufficiently puzzling that he undertook to make a report of it"), nor Dr. Hynek's definition ("a UFO is a report the contents of which are puzzling not only to the observer but to others who have the technical training the observer may lack"), nor do I imply the ET hypothesis or alien spacecrafts. Rather when I say UFO I define it to mean "a process to identify an unidentified aerial sighting."

More specifically I see 'UFO' as a series of steps starting first with the observation, followed by the post-analysis (or confirmation of the sighting – with the potential for it to reach a "true" unknown status), the hypothesis, and the eventual identification of the unknown. When I use the word 'UFO' I attempt to qualify it with a descriptor to explain which of the stages it is I'm describing.

To graphically illustrate this:

If you look at the diagram in Fig. 1 you'll notice something I termed the "official escalation of explanation loop." The problem in the here-and-now is there are very few bodies that are willing to do "official" evaluations to complete the "official escalation of explanation" loop.

It's interesting to note that the US government was confronted by many scientists who agreed average people were reporting a "true unknown" phenomenon throughout the '40s and '60s (Drs. Mirarchi, LaPaz, Hynek, Thayer, Shough, J. E. McDonald, S. Friedman, R. Leo Sprinkle, Garry C. Henderson, Roger N. Shepard, Robert Hall, James Harder, Robert M. L. Baker, Frank Salisbury, Seymour Hess, Charles B. Moore, Al Cameron, Robert M. Wood, Eugene Epstein, Gordon MacDonald, Robert Wilson, etc). In response to this the USAF / AFSAB started Twinkle and escalated to Project Sign, Grudge, Blue Book and finally the Condon Committee.

Unfortunately Dr. Edward Condon's report was authoritative enough to render all opposing viewpoints moot despite 30% of the reviewed cases remaining unknown after spending $500,000 of taxpayers money. Even scientists with an anti-UFO position, like Dr. Thornton Page, considered the report rubbish because the "Conclusions and Recommendations" and "Summary of the Study" didn't accurately reflect the contents of the study.^[1]

In part due to this, as well as the implied conservatism at the heart of the report, I believe history will ultimately view Dr. Condon in an unfavorable light. As humans we know that we don't understand all of reality and thus we accept the following Fig. 2 Venn diagram as true.

By shouting down the study of UFOs Condon was stating that there was nothing new in our skies that is "truly unknown" that could be learned through the anecdotal testimony of the average person. In Dr. Condon's words,

“

As indicated by its title, the emphasis of this study has been on attempting to learn from UFO reports anything that could be considered as adding to scientific knowledge. Our general conclusion is that nothing has come from the study of UFOs in the past 21 years that has added to scientific knowledge. Careful consideration of the record as it is available to us leads us to conclude that further extensive study of UFOs probably cannot be justified in the expectation that science will be advanced thereby.[2]

”

With the help of hindsight we can prove Dr. Condon wrong.

Sprites, large-scale electrical discharges that occur high above thunderstorm clouds, were documented with anecdotal reports since 1885.^[3][4]

It wasn't till 1989 that scientists photographed the phenomenon. Colin Price, a geophysicist at Tel Aviv U., believes Sprites are the cause of many UFO reports.^[5]

Some have argued that Condon was using a different definition of UFO (i.e. alien craft). I'll quote the Condon Report's definition verbatim,

“

An unidentified flying object (UFO, pronounced OOFO) is here defined as the stimulus for a report made by one or more individuals of something seen in the sky (or an object thought to be capable of flight but seen when landed on the earth) which the observer could not identify as having an ordinary natural origin, and which seemed to him sufficiently puzzling that he undertook to make a report of it to police, to government officials, to the press, or perhaps to a representative of a private organization devoted to the study of such objects.[6]

”

Since we have an example where Condon was incorrect does that not also suggest other ‘true unknowns’ could account for other sightings? Obviously, it doesn't take a full treatment of PSMI to accept this notion.

Thus, the concept of true UFOs, as just that, unidentified objects, represents a place holder for something waiting to be identified. This concept is a useful tool for science as is evidenced with dark matter. It allows us to create a bucket of things that represent genuine unknowns, that deserve serious study, which may be unknowable now, but perhaps in 20 to 50 years may become answerable if only because the question was on the table and asked in a manner that encouraged real scientific analysis.

UFOs as a subject area that represents possible defense concerns

... and repercussions for our entire species (i.e. mutually assured destruction)

The question boils down to this. Since there are UFO cases with numerous corroborating ground/air radar and ground/air visuals, even the most skeptically minded person who is unwilling to accept that as proof of something physically being in the air as an "Unidentified Flying Object," has to accept that these incidents affected the pilots wet-ware, their hardware, and ground radar stations. For example, the Lakenheath / Bentwaters '56 incident, is on the record as having caused a large ruckus for the UK and the US military. That makes it an issue that could have serious repercussions in a wartime situation.

So the question becomes, "You have one unknown. What makes more sense, let the tin-foil hat people study the subject or continue to run something like Blue Book till more is known?"

Conclusions

So lets cut the crap already. As long as there are unknowns that cause military radar-visual hiccups there needs to be an investigation in play. To treat this subject as a joke is to laugh at the very principle of science, to rigorously understand the unknown.