UFO sightings: the science

UFO sightings: the science

Where did your interest in UFOs come from?

Chronologically speaking, from my first sighting. I was a lad of six and a half and was sitting in our family car at a drive-in movie theatre. Suddenly a disturbance began brewing; people were getting out of their cars and running and shouting. What caused it was an object the colour of a red traffic signal, hovering in the evening sky. It was stunning. It illuminated the ground as far as I could see and suddenly it accelerated and went over the horizon.

But even more than that, I’m trained as a scientist. I believe that in discussing the UFO phenomenon we’re addressing the most dramatic question in the history of science: whether life on our planet is the only life in the Universe. I think the clear and resounding answer to that is no, it’s not.

What is the evidence that extraterrestrial life exists?

I believe we ufologists have provided enough strong evidence. Not just eyewitness reports, which of course are very unreliable – you have to filter them carefully to get useful information – but also the physical trace cases. Cases in which there have been landings on the ground that leave marks, or metal from craft. I don’t think we’ve explained where all of the UK crop formations are coming from too.

What’s a typical day’s work for you?

We typically receive between 30 and 50 telephone calls per day. 

We guarantee anonymity to anyone who contacts our centre, but we’ve communicated with senior military officers, members of law enforcement, senior figures in the news industry, political figures and many commercial pilots. Answering telephone calls, responding to email and collecting, proofreading and disseminating reports takes up most of my days. We also participate in many radio interviews, and respond to perhaps half a dozen queries from members of the press.

How do you investigate a reported UFO sighting?

Most of the reports we receive are of lights in the sky. Some of those may be genuine UFOs, but it’s very difficult when talking to a person over the telephone to establish what they may have been looking at. There are many different types of lights that people see in the night sky: landing lights on aeroplanes, marker lights on antennas, planets, stars. The International Space Station is reported to us frequently.

Only very few reports warrant sending out investigators to interview the witness further, to look for more data and additional witnesses who can be useful. If you have multiple witnesses looking at the same point at the same time you can triangulate the location of whatever it was they saw.

What scientific evidence would end the UFO debate?

Open contact would certainly end it, but in lieu of that I’m proposing we use an existing technology: that of passive radar. This would involve the construction of a low-cost array of antennas, which ‘listen’ for reflected radio and television signals from the atmosphere or beyond. If UFOs are real and if they reflect radio waves, then we should be able to detect them out to a distance of many thousands of miles. If we can show with an objective measuring system that these objects are here, then I think we’ll have the next degree of reliability of data that will open the eyes of the world’s scientific community.

What do you think of Steven Hawkings’s comments that we should avoid contact with extraterrestrial life?

I defer to Professor Hawkings’s expertise in matters related to cosmology and physics. I have not seen all of his comments, but in the case of Columbus, the analogy isn’t exactly parallel [Hawking suggested aliens landing on Earth could do for Humanity what Columbus’s arrival in the New World eventually did for Native Americans].

When Columbus landed in America he had a certain economic motivation and there was at least a modicum of competition between his crew and the indigenous people. In the case of aliens, they may not be in competition with us, so the resulting relationship might be completely different. We may not have anything that the aliens are interested in: they might be here simply to observe.

Can you ever say with complete confidence that a case is contact with extraterrestrial life?

Reliable information is probably the most precious commodity in the Universe. Until we have a large butterfly net that allows us to snag an object, put it on a laboratory bench and analyse it, I don’t think a scientist would ever say that’s definitely a UFO.

The only field in which there is proof is mathematics, and even some of those proofs are held in question by other mathematicians. Scientists in every walk of life are always struggling with the reliability of data. In that respect, ufology is no different from any other area of investigation.
 

Find out more

 

Comments: 5

Scuse me

Thu, 2010-10-28 13:45
Shadowwolf

For a learned person they sure are making some basic mistakes, nor do I see much evidence for his "scientific" approach.

"But even more than that, I’m trained as a scientist. I believe that in discussing the UFO phenomenon we’re addressing the most dramatic question in the history of science: whether life on our planet is the only life in the Universe.[...] If UFOs are real and if they reflect radio waves, then we should be able to detect them out to a distance of many thousands of miles."

What he says does not follow, in discussing UFOs we discuss unidentified flying objects and that is it. When we identify them, even if they were to be identified as alien in origin they would no longer be UFOs. Also the heroic leap some folks make from UFO to ET is entirely unwarranted given the complete lack of evidence beyond the open to wide interpretation circumstantial. UFOs are real, any object unknown to the observer is a UFO so I would imagine a great deal are detectable. Again the erroneous assumption is being made that some UFOs must be extra terrestrial when there is no good reason. As for his scientific credentials, well what in and why mention them? That's an argument from authority that.

"I believe we ufologists have provided enough strong evidence."

Well they would say that but as usual he is a bit light on specific strong cases, not one cited. However what has actually been provided is sparse and as far from strong as can be. Mostly those unreliable and scientifically worthless witness statements / anecdotes. Everything else tends to have plausible terrestrial explanations or is curiously never available to impartial investigators for their testing. As for crop circles, come on, how many times do guys with boards have to demonstrate this, how many believers being fooled by man made constructs does it take (like the recent QI example)? To still imply any crop circles as the work of aliens is suggestive of a desire to believe being a greater motivating factor than evidence.

"We may not have anything that the aliens are interested in: they might be here simply to observe."

Indeed we may not but until we know better we should not be making assumptions, particularly not the rosiest ones.

"The only field in which there is proof is mathematics, and even some of those proofs are held in question by other mathematicians."

I honestly cannot see any other reason for this than as weasel words, an excuse for ufology to not actually make good on their claims. Otherwise it is a meaningless observation dependent on how 'proof' is being defined in that context.

"Scientists in every walk of life are always struggling with the reliability of data. In that respect, ufology is no different from any other area of investigation."

I'm sorry but any suggestion that ufology is in the same category as science, well that is complete rubbish. Ufology operates mostly off of the subjective experiences of the witness' and not controlled, blinded studies to collect impartial data. Often the ufologists are strong believers in the alien space craft idea and hence will pollute everything with their internal bias to believe, and validate that belief. Conspiracy is frequently never far behind and any mistaken report or silence from authorities - especially military - suddenly becomes a sinister cover up. Ufologists are also often not ones for accepting contrary data, for example the fact that Roswell is still thought to be a crashed alien ship and cover, despite the entire terrestrial and much more plausible explanation being now well known; they just explain the new data away as more cover up. Or no matter how many crop circle hoaxers admit and demonstrate their craft, some one still insists that some are of unknown origin.

The guy is entitled to his views and beliefs but there is very little science here, perhaps none at all. In my own opinion ufology and its adherents are not at all relevant to anything dealing with science. They have their own platforms and until they start employing scientific investigation and critical examination, they should not be afforded an unchallenged outlet in science platforms and any attendant veneer of scientific respectability that might convey. This should not be here.

Regards the answer to Mr Dave Sorensons email letter on this.

Mon, 2010-12-06 17:04
Shadowwolf

In the latest issue of Focus a Mr Dane Sorenson rightly questions the less than critical interview of one Peter Davenport. The Editor suggests that this individual was chosen because of their solid scientific credentials, plus scientific and skeptical approach to ufological investigation. There are however some issues with these claims.

To begin with, Mr Davenport's previously unmentioned scientific credentials in biology and genetics are not exactly relevant to the field he investigates. Now whilst it can be said that that they provide a grounding in the scientific method, they are not directly relevant and furthermore do not suggest that he is actually capable of or does employ the scientific method in his investigations. Not that credentials necessarily mean all that much. Behe and Dembski for instance have scientific credentials but that has not prevented them from supporting the unscientific ID. However these credentials seem to be only parts of his skill set, he is also a Russian translator and flight instructor among other skills according to some bios. He has no employment history in scientific discovery and has no publication history in science, even in his field; science is something Mr Davenport appears to have done for school but does not appear to have done anywhere else. Ergo, his "scientific" credentials are meaningless, a part of higher schooling never utlilised beyond the acquisition of a degree. Credentials that are effectively name dropped to insinuate an air of expertise where none is warranted or exists.

The claim of a scientific and skeptical approach to investigation is even worse. It is delivered without any form of justification, as though it should be merely accepted by the readership as a given. If you are to assert that an individual has a certain competency then provide proof of the claim, or don't mention it all. The barest Google search on Mr Davenport immediately throws up the case of the Phoenix Lights. A case in which he demonstrates neither scientific nor skeptical approach to the alleged ufo event (http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc1266.htm). An event which was conclusively demonstrated to be flares dropped by USAF planes on a training exercise. Not that such plausible, mundane activity was seriously considered. No, buoyed by those useless, unscientific witness statements - witnesses that he is at pains to categorise as law enforcement officers, pilots, physicians etc as though these people are magically infallible. He then dismissed the military flare explanation in favour of an unanswered mystery along with a hint of military conspiracy. Skepticism fail.

Nor should we forget that in the very interview above he states that not all crop circles are explained. Crop circles! The result of folks with boards mashing crops into pre-set designs over and over, admitting such and this guy still insists that some are unexplained? Which ones!? How devoid of skepticism does one have to be to even posit crop circles as the work of ufos? He has no proof of any crop circle being the work of ufos yet still believes some are made by them; that is not skepticism, it's entirely the opposite.

Lastly he is a regular on the radio show of Jeff Rense, a place in which neither reason nor skepticism are welcome or to be found.

Mr Davenport is a believer, one that claims the respectable authority of science and skepticism to lend his investigations an air of credible authority. There is however no evidence - and certainly none provided - that any such scientific or skeptical investigation ever takes place. His scientific credentials are at best irrelevant, most likely worthless in this context and his investigative approach is tilted towards belief. Science and skepticism are not in evidence. Hence the question of why this guy was sought, interviewed and included in a science publication still stands. It does not belong.

Completley agree with Shadowwolf

Thu, 2010-10-28 16:52
M Paul Lloyd
When I read the original interview/article about this in Focus my first reaction was that it was far better placed with a publication such as Fortean Times.
I like that Focus treats some of the fringe areas of science to some publicity such as Piers Corbyn's sunspot based weather forecasting (which is not without historical precidense) but UFO's, aliens?
No, sorry but giving such things any credibilty at all just dimishes science.

Fortean Times more skeptical than this!

Sat, 2010-11-06 11:16
Ian Ridpath

"better placed with a publication such as Fortean Times"? Their readers are far too smart to fall for this sort of stuff. See, for example, this report on their recent UnCon at which I spoke on the highly over-rated Rendlesham case
http://spiritof1976.livejournal.com/510490.html

Keeping an open mind

Sat, 2010-11-06 22:25
M Paul Lloyd

I try to keep mine so, but not so open that my brain might actually fall out.