SCU: A prime example of pretend UFO "research"
Rich Hoffman is a good guy, a long-time UFO fan who now pro- motes SCU, a creation to "scientifically" examine UFO (now UAP) accounts.
The enterprise generates its work as a scientific regime, but, while performing "research" with a patina of scientific technology, this video shows how silly those efforts are.
Rich has switched from studying UFOs to studying UAP -- yes, he and his gaggle of "researchers" have succumbed to the UAP designation imposed on ufology by the DoD to remove hints of objects for the idea of amorphous phenomena.
And he's taken to using the word "data" which "researchers" have adopted to give the impression that their efforts are indeed "scientific" or legitimate.
(Note his giggles while telling of SCU's efforts. That's a psychological sign of anxiety and nervousness about the ploy.)
I had a recent run-in with a SCU member who protested his drone work was valuable. I insisted that his work, while commendable, perhaps, would not give us what UFOs are or from whence they come.
His effort and that of SCU takes us nowhere. It's pretend research and foolish science, a kind of Sorcerer's Apprentice thing.
Sad, delusional even...
RR
posted by RRRGroup at
Wednesday, May 17, 2023
12 Comments:
The group's report on the Aguadila object was well put together, but yeah, all the PhD's in the SCU still couldn't tell you what it was. Avi Loeb's project will probably deliver the same.
The key to the whole mystery is just not there to be found.
By
Ron, at Thursday, May 18, 2023
And the people, mostly guys, exerting this ultimately useless effort don't get it.
They delude themselves into thinking they're accomplishing something of value, and sometimes they might get a nugget of value or importance, but rarely, if ever, anything that brings forth insight to the enigmatic phenomenon -- whether UFO or UAP.
RR
By
RRRGroup, at Thursday, May 18, 2023
Ok. How do you recommend going about studying ufo or uap whatever the right terminology is?
By
Chahe Adourian, at Thursday, May 18, 2023
There is no way to study the enigma. It can only be observed and commented on.
Collecting "data" -- a bogus term used by pretend researchers -- is merely that, a collection of material...like stamps or coins. A hobby.
The only way to discover what UFOs are is to get one's hands on one. And that is beyond the ability of hobbyists, Chahe. Sorry.
RR
By
RRRGroup, at Thursday, May 18, 2023
Dr. Bruce... No one is questioning the object shown. It's indeed odd.
SCU made the point and I noted that when it was first presented.
My point here is that the effort SCU offers tells us that an odd thing was seen and analyzed.
As to what it was remains open and always remains open, no matter how much "data" is gathered.
RR
By
RRRGroup, at Thursday, May 18, 2023
You're right about the ultimate scientific status of the photo, but with regard to the work of SCU you seem not to understand how empirical science works. Of course a photo is not a proof of anything, nor is any other "smoking gun." Proof in that sense exists only in mathematics, where all of the uncertainties are offloaded to the axioms and postulates of the mathematical system. In empirical science, no single experiment or artifact can ever be definitive proof of anything because it's impossible to eliminate all possible causes, imagined and unimaginable; and science is rife with ostensible "proofs" of phenomena that turned out to have origins other than those the phenomena were meant to prove. Science works by gathering and collating data, weeding out artifacts and looking for patterns that are amenable to generalization. And of course everything remains open, but there does come a point at which you have to believe the sun is going to come up tomorrow morning, even if it's only a statistical generalization.
By
Bruce Mayo, at Thursday, May 18, 2023
What if Rutherford had said "an odd thing was seen and analyzed. As to what it was remains open and always remains open, no matter how much "data" is gathered," when his assistant reported seeing scintillations where they shouldn't be? No, that is definitely not how science progresses.
By
Bruce Mayo, at Thursday, May 18, 2023
If not revealing point-of-origin coordinates and a purpose for being in our airspace, what will the study of high-performance and super-technology data do for us? Will any of it force the hand of the DoD to reveal what they know? Will it lead to anything other than more endless discussion? I don't think anybody here believes that, but maybe SCU scientists know better.
By
Ron, at Thursday, May 18, 2023
Look me up on Academia.edu Bruce. I know what science can do and what it cannot do.
The SCU efforts are okay, but for the outcome, worthless.
SCU is looking for attention. Not real answers.
RR
By
RRRGroup, at Thursday, May 18, 2023
Ron you are saying the observation from afar is meaningless and worthless;
But that's what all the military spy satellites do and with the information they gather "remotely", so much of it is crucial to learn about the adversaries and their capabilities;
Astronomers do the same with remote galaxies and they learn a lot from observation.
You are saying they don't but the fact is that they are and they do. I can't believe you can argue against that. What am I missing here?
By
Chahe Adourian, at Friday, May 19, 2023
To put things in context, Chahe, spy satellites check out weapon systems whose locations are well known, as is their ultimate purpose. Astronomers can obtain precise measurements of stellar objects, but none of those reveal why there are stellar objects in the first place.
What have we learned after years of observing UFOs? Certainly nothing about their origin and purpose, which is what this whole quest has been about. Everything else makes for a sometimes interesting saucer story. But it's been futile trying to glean any real meaning from that.
By
Ron, at Saturday, May 20, 2023
The question "what are they?" can be folded into purpose, I think. As Rich has suggested before, if we had a real close-up photo, for example, that showed all the nuts and bolts (so to speak) of a saucer, that still wouldn't tell us agenda, et al.
By
Ron, at Saturday, May 20, 2023
Post a Comment
<< Home