March 7, 2021

Hey Academia, it is Time to Stop Laughing at UFO Research

Back on December 17, 2017 the New York Times and Politico broke the story about the USS Nimitz and their encounter with the “Tic Tac” shaped UFOs/UAPs. For a time, a lot of people thought that this was the disclosure event we had all dreamed about. After all the New York Times was a newspaper of record. Surely, the topic of UFO/UAP would become respectable. For a time, it seemed as if it was becoming more acceptable. There were positive news articles referring to “Tin Foil as the New Black!

But for the past three years approaching regional newspapers and television outlets was still challenging. While there was wonderful talk of Navy Pilots having UFO/UAP encounters there was very little interest in discussing the topic with regional investigators and citizen researchers.

Efforts to approach colleges and universities and offer them free presentations on UFO/UAP statistical data and other modern research were met with silence and being laughed off the phone. In one conversation with an upstate New York physics professor, I explained that I had serious charts, graphs, and maps of UFO/UAP activity. He suggested that I should make a map with little flying-saucer icons over the locations of sighting reports. I asked him why? He explained to me that since UFO sightings were so rare it would be nice to illustrate where they had been seen.

At that time (2018) my database had over 130,000 sighting reports nationally and over 6500 in New York State. I watched the color drain from his face. “That can’t be!” he said, “The laws of physics state they (aliens) simply cannot transverse the astronomical distances to get here. The suggestion of that many sightings is ludicrous.” I was seen to the door.

In the past year, I have also approached soft sciences professors in Social Work, Anthropology, Psychology and Journalism with a similar presentation proposal. Again, I was met with the notion that introducing the topic of UFOs/UAPs and the possibility that off-worlders among us, to their students was preposterous.

Why should I have expected anything else? After all, back in early 2015, I was about to start a master’s program, when I proposed for my master’s research a study about the national volume of UFOs/UAPs I was met with clear resistance. The director of the master’s program that my proposal would be problematic. “You can’t research something that is fantasy and doesn’t exist.”
I withdrew from the master’s program and together with my wife Linda, researched and published the UFO Sightings Desk Reference: United States of America – 2001-2015.

I should also point out that presently we are preparing to publish UFO Sightings Desk Reference: United States of America – 2001-2020, in mid-2021.

What perplexes me is what are the white towers of study and knowledge so resistant to new lines of thinking and new fields of research.

In the 1840s, the topic of germ theory in medicine was laughable and considered fringe thinking. Then in 1850, a prickly Hungarian obstetrician named Ignaz Semmelweis told his doctor colleagues in Vienna Medical Society’s lecture hall, “Wash your hands!”

Over the next few years, thanks to the pioneering work of Louis Pasteur and later Robert Koch in the 1880s, the science of germ theory finally established a firm footing and became less laughable in the field of medicine.

Before 1900, the experts said the idea of a man flying in heavy aircraft was laughable. But on Dec. 17, 1903, Wilbur and Orville Wright proved them wrong.

At the end of the 19th century, academic physicists thought they had the principles of physics all nicely figured out. Then in the 1920s, the world of physics was up-ended by Niels Bohr, Werner Heisenberg, Erwin Schrödinger and their basic mathematical framework for quantum physics.

In 1940, professors at major American polytechnical colleges thought rocket science was the stuff of science fiction. About the same time when U.S. Army engineers visited Robert Goddard, an American rocket pioneer, they saw no practical application to his rocket research in warfare. Yet the German Nazi Reich demonstrated rocketry’s practical applications in warfare–in spades only a few years later.

In the late 1940s, aviation engineers said that the sound barrier could not be broken, stating that it was an absolute. But on Oct. 14, 1947, Chuck Yeager flew the experimental Bell X-1 at Mach 1 and broke the sound barrier.

For the past 70 years, we have been conditioned to think that the topic of unidentified flying objects (UFOs) was an absurd notion. We were told that people who report UFOs are delusional. Yet, for years, trained observers have reported them. In recent months, we have seen the declassified military video showing us aerial phenomena. Now, major news organizations are starting to take this topic much more seriously.

One of the problems is that within government political circles like Congress, they still think that UFOs are a laughable subject. They see it as one of those “third rail” topics that potentially could be the end of a political career. Being politically safe in their minds means they can stick their fingers in their ears and sing “La La La,” while unexplained science and advanced technology fly circles around our best aircraft. Where are the modern open congressional hearings on the topic of UFOs/UAPs?

Being safe in their minds means they should ignore the fact that this unexplained aviation technology is regularly loitering around our world’s most advanced defensive technologies, no matter whether it is ours, the Russians, or the Chinese.

You would think that after disasters like Pearl Harbor and the events of 9-11, our political and military leadership would have learned a lesson and say, “Hey, maybe we better stop laughing at UFOs and look at their potential threat and try to understand what we are dealing with.”

You would also think that Academia would at least be willing to look at the data that numerous Citizen Scientists have quiet collected. After all the first step in any research is to gather data and try to understand its meaning. Where in Academia are the forward-thinkers willing to look at the data and question, “What if.”