UFO Conjecture(s)

Sunday, June 19, 2011

How Should We Really Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence? by Dr. Colin Ridyard,

An interesting, intelligent paper, with analyses of some UFO sightings.

Click here for the PDF


  • This is a very interesting paper, advocating a policy of transparency in the face of a enigma, with the critical factor being that the military has placed a lid on it's own inability to come to terms with same, covering up not an encyclopedic knowledge, but rather an inconvenient truth. However, what is striking in this premise, is that it bypasses the issue of intelligence services manipulating and obscuring,which they have admitted, hence raising the level of signal noise that makes any analysis in the face of covert operations a well aimed shot in the foot. Such a policy of transparency would require such operations to cease and desist. Another is "trickier."
    That is if we survey monthly or daily the amount of rubbish ( fraud, cultism, exaggerated claims, paranoia, fantasy etc) without transparency, can you imagine what that signal noise ratio would be if transparency was in place? The weak critical path is there is no way to put the rabbit back in the hat, measured in decades of political football..
    If you look at it this way, lets say a homicide detective practices transparency during an investigation, what would the results be? Holding back information ( sorry Dolan ) makes sense. paranoiac fantasies aside.
    A good read, thanks for sharing.

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Monday, June 20, 2011  

  • Bruce:

    The whole secrecy blanket has mucked up credibility and truth in many quarters.

    And you're right...the rabbit can't be put back in the hat.

    Thus, we "outsiders" must devise a way to circumvent the obfuscation and hidden.

    How to do that is the problem, since most of those who wish or hope for transparency are as nutty or nuttier than than those who've gotten us into this mess.

    (Not you and me, of course, but almost everyone else.)


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Monday, June 20, 2011  

  • The way out of this is the issue of being actually organized versus the stew of ongoing ad hoc, juvenile goofiness at MUFON. A five year study might do. If a private organization was managed to simply gather evidence and focused on only on that aspect, nothing more nothing less..stayed out of the public domain, and published an annual report that would be forwarded to a team or panel of multidisciplinary scientific ( qualified) researchers to analyze, and those with a serious interest supported these efforts..like the former SETI model of donations of hard-drive time etc..we might have something more than the Bud Hopkins, Whitley Striber, Bruce Duensing curve balls to consider. We need a formal management structure, and someone with experience in scientific investigative techniques to be paid to keep it on topic and out of the limelight. The other issue is intelligence interference, before this is even begun, it should be made clear that this organization would like to partner with governmental agencies, and share information with the caveat that both parties have a strict non disclosure agreement. At the end, the results could be peer reviewed and published in a reputable journal. Pie in the sky?
    Yes. Necessary in some similar form? Probably.

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Monday, June 20, 2011  

  • Bruce:

    We have a small group at our Ann Arbor venue -- The Einstein Fellowship -- that is doing what you suggest, somewhat.

    The approach is cosmological, and excludes any side-trips to sasquatch, Nessie, ghosts, chupacabra, et cetera.

    (That paranormal group is anathema to the Fellowship.)

    The group there comes from the confines of U of M mostly and contains academics plus students.

    I have a few things from them, but we don't put them online at our blogs, but keep them inside our private web-sites.

    A few UFO names are involved too, but only a few....


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Monday, June 20, 2011  

  • Good to hear this and my best wishes to this effort.

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Monday, June 20, 2011  

  • From an e-mail (suggesting methodologies for an ETI search):

    If the search for ETI has any future at all, I feel strongly it will lie in the efforts of independent groups such as the Einstein Fellowship. You have already made one critical decision - to ignore the many distracting side issues and focus intensely on aspects of the UFO mystery.

    As interesting and provocative as Dr. Ridyard's paper is, it will serve as no government manifesto. In fact, it is itself too diffuse and it is constructed in a way that will elicit little but scorn from the scientific community.

    In the parlance of my colleagues, it lacks a central research hypothesis and sufficient credible preliminary data.

    Further, it attempts to build a case with data that are unknown and not in hand for evaluation - the presumed existing evidence for ETI allegedly currently under wraps in classified data files and archives. Unless and until full disclosure reveals something utterly amazing, good luck with that one.

    I have no special insights into the intentions and strategies of our government, but (unfortunately) the 'woeful lack of understanding' regarding unidentified aerial phenomena seems advantageous to all who develop and field test new military technology.

    Developing public interests, building investigatory capabilities and disclosure are totally inimical to secrecy -dependent operations. Unless, that is, one seeks to reincarnate Project Blue Book. Seeking federal support for your work seems ill advised to me.

    Dr. Ridyard outlined some critical ideas you can utilize.

    First, I urge you to formulate a specific working hypothesis to organize your effort; something like 'unidentified aerial phenomena (of interest) are artificial, mechanical craft.' You then set about deploying the essential methods/tools to obtain the objective evidence to prove that idea. But, assuming a small, underfunded group, I suggest you bore down into the narrowest possible work scope. Select one location, preferably a 'hot spot' which will provide optimal opportunities for productive, proactive and repeated observations of a defined phenomenon. And select one or two methods to obtain the most convincing data. In my humble opinion, you want data about the primary phenomenon itself. That means steering completely clear of trace evidence and the like which seem likely to bog you down in tedious and possibly expensive analyses (mostly without valid comparison controls) while never yielding definitive information.

    I keep hearing that Sedona, Arizona, is a UFO hotspot. Perhaps you could investigate a location like that - one that your group members might enjoy coming to as a sort of working vacation. I have never seen any UFOs, but I can tell you that Sedona is beautiful, full of hiking trails, Anasazi ruins and star-filled skies. At least you can have a good time while you search.

    Best wishes and good hunting.


    Tyler A. Kokjohn, Ph.D.
    Professor of Microbiology
    Midwestern University
    19555 N. 59th Avenue
    Glendale, AZ 85308

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Wednesday, June 22, 2011  

  • Dr. Kokjohn,

    The Fellowship is well funded and has extensive laboratory facilities as our Facebook friends know.

    Also we can get to any locale in a short time, whenever we want or need to.

    (Facebookers know this too.)

    The Fellowship is composed of persons who don't abide vacation-like activities in the pursuit of its goals.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Wednesday, June 22, 2011  

  • Josh -

    Thank you for informing me of the status of the Fellowship.

    I look forward to the publication of your findings.


    By Anonymous Tyler Kokjohn, at Wednesday, June 22, 2011  

Post a Comment

<< Home