The competencies required for reporting or researching UFOs

[puddlepirate]

This thread was started for the purposes of continuing the debate on the level of academic achievement and/or the competencies required by those either reporting or investigating UFO phenomena

To limit the reporting of UFO sightings and the investigation of those sightings to only those persons with a PhD or at least a degree, is to impose a restriction that would in itself inhibit progress within the field of ufology (not a term I particularly like but nevertheless...). Frequently in the fields of the various sciences, the academics themselves become embroiled in arguments about who is better qualified to comment on a particular issue - as is happening here - to the detriment of science itself. The obvious conclusion to be drawn from this argument is that a single doctorate or degree would not be enough because a range of skills and knowledge is required. Using the RFI as an example one could contend that experience and learning within the following environments are required:

To have served in the USAF and to have achieved a minimum rank of Master Sergeant across a range of specialisations (in order to fully understand the internal processes of the USAF and the procedures protecting black projects)
Qualified pilot of multi-engined jet aircraft
Astronaut
Mechanical engineering
Aeronautical engineering
Electronic / electrical engineering
Radio / radar engineering
Chemical engineering
Weapons engineering
Meteorology
Geology
Investigative criminology
Psychology
Nuclear physics
Astrophysics
and subsets of all the above where theory and design are separate from construction and maintenance

In other words the list is long and includes a very wide range of skills and knowledge beyond the scope of a single individual. Having worked with very highly academically qualified persons one thing struck me more than anything else. whilst they were incredibly intelligent etc in many instances they lacked one thing - basic common sense. Some were on the verge of eccentricity. Frequently it appeared that their highly complex reasoning tended to obscure the logical and simple

[Daniel]

Nice post puddlepirate. There are some people out there who tend to dismiss others who do not hold an academic title and the ideas or information that they're presenting. To me this can be a mistake as possible vital information may be lost, just because someone with an academic title isn't aware of such information and decides to dismiss it.

[Frank]

This discussion is a bit academic in itself ..

In a combined effort, we may be able to understand some of it if we all play by the rules of science (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method) and if we get all the true facts (which may be the biggest challenge in this case ).


Despite all this, the only ones who understand all of it are probably the ET’s ..

“I suspect there could be life and intelligence out there in forms we can’t conceive. Just as a chimpanzee can’t understand quantum theory, it could be there as aspects of reality that are beyond the capacity of our brains.”

Lord Martin Rees, president of the Royal Society and astronomer to the Queen

[DeanF]

And then there are people on this forum that are advocating you don't need any of those skills.
Laughable.

It never ceases to amaze me how naeve and arrogant some people really are.

[puddlepirate]

Well, taking that view means anyone who has not served in the USAF with a minimum rank of Master Sergeant and in so doing worked in more than one branch of the service, is immediately disqualified from contributing to the discussion. Other qualifications, irrespective of what they might be, are irrelevant without a record of service in the USAF. That also suggests the testimony of at least two of the key witnesses is immediately rendered to be of no importance because (a) they don't hold a degree (or at least have not declared themselves to be graduates and (c) did not achieve the required rank. Consequently, they are not qualified to make any comment on what they saw. As none of the witnesses, with the excetion perhaps of Lt Col Halt, are graduates then by default only Halt's statements are valid. Discuss.....

[DeanF]

I think two separate activities are being mixed up.
1) Observations of UFOs
2) Investigation

An observer happens to be an observer and trying to stipulate what experience, qualifications an observer has would be nonsense.
They observe an incident and as such their evidence, their observations are of fundamental importance, whether they have any background or not from the list you provided.

However, it's accepted, that pilots, military personel are accepted as being more credible witnesses.
What is the reason for this, if it is not that they have knoweledge, experience, formal training in some of the disciplines in the list you provided?

Quite clearly, a pilot's view is given more credibility than a random member of the public on the ground, because the pilot is seen to be an expert in the the discipline of flight and therefore knows how aircraft made by man move. And there are other reasons too.

On the investigation side,
I think it highly desirable investigators have a number of the skills on the list you provided. And the more of those skills he/she has, the likelyhood they make a better investigator.

When you have investigators/observers that have the knowledge on your list, they know the limits of what mankind has developed (subject to knowledge and technology which has been kept secret), so when they observe a phenomena, they are able to come to the conclusion that it's of earthly origin or not.

[AdrianF]

When you have investigators/observers that have the knowledge on your list, they know the limits of what mankind has developed (subject to knowledge and technology which has been kept secret), so when they observe a phenomena, they are able to come to the conclusion that it's of earthly origin or not.

Why is a Nuclear Physicist any more qualified to investigate the phenomena than a milkman? You could argue that a milkman is more qualified as a trained observer, as they are used to being outside and therefore more prone to frequently seeing anything flying around in the sky. Since last time I looked, we still don't know what all UFOs are, hence the term. So why is an engineer or scientist any more qualified than countless other specialists or regular folk?

There are some trained observers who are qualified to both observe and investigate, though they're rarely given much time in UFO circles - astronomers. It's part of their skill set, to identify objects in the atmosphere. Satellite watchers as well as aircraft enthusiasts are also good sources, but they rarely ever make a lot of comment in UFO circles, because the subject is seen as such a big joke.

[Deep Purple]

I would agree with AdrianF & PuddleP. I dont think necessarily and academic degree makes you the best investigator for UFO's there are so many components to consider. A large degree of common sense is also useful & necessary for UFO investigation.
Along with the Science / engineering/ military/ people dont forget people with Police/ fraud / legal investigation skills.
We can often see the way people manipulate situations, and the smoke screens they create. We are used to drilling down on hard fact and used to being lied to--- we have a good idea what human nature can be like,in a way that academic's may not appreciate.
The best would be a team that holds academic skills, common sense & legal/ criminal investigation skills amongst its members

[AdrianF]

Yeah, there are plenty of people, whose field of expertise, means that they can bring something to the table.
Another way of looking at this could be, who should be disqualified as a UFO investigator? If you are already inclined to believe that aliens are visiting the earth and you believe that's what UFO's are, then you might not always be very objective. I know there are a few UFO researchers who fit this bill, but still keep their integrity in tact and don't bias their research, but it should be cause for concern.

[Vortex]

If you are already inclined to believe that aliens are visiting the earth and you believe that's what UFO's are, then you might not always be very objective.

I agree. But likewise, if you're inclined to disregard the more uncoventional hyptheses for cases of true 'unknowns' (the extraterrestrial hypthosis being one such example) when the available evidence contradicts conventional explanations (as well as the RFI, I think the Belgian UFO wave of 1990 is another good example here), then this also biases your research accordingly.

In my opinion, a decent UFO researcher is truly objective and agnostic regarding the origins of the phenomenon.

[Adam]

And then there are people on this forum that are advocating you don't need any of those skills.
Laughable.

It never ceases to amaze me how naeve and arrogant some people really are.

It never ceases to amaze me how naeve and arrogant some people really are... You said it loud and clear . To actually believe what you say about needing certain skills to determine what your looking at . very laughable indeed Dean F, and very arrogant on your part . Your posts never cease to amaze me , and most others also , by the looks of it .

[Zodian]

Qualification is one thing, corroberation is another. Doesn't matter how many PhD's you have, without evidence, the whole thing falls apart. Eyewitness testimony aside, there doesn't appear to be any corroberating evidence to support the theory that the RFI, nor any other incident, should be attributed to extra-terresstrial origin. What we appear to have here is a major misinterpritation of eye-witness account, first-hand or second-hand, where 2+2=5

It is important not to lose one's sense of logic.