Frank Drake — Evidence/Data Methodologies In Ufology
By
Frank Warren
© 2005-2008
In November (05) I sent the
following correspondence to Frank Drake:
Dear Mr. Drake,
Back in
July a colleague of yours, Seth Shostak debated Stanton Friedman on the idea
that some UFOs are indeed ET spacecraft; Friedman took the "pro position" and
Shostak of course opposed the notion.
One thing the two men agreed upon
was that they both adhered to the concept of “intelligent life existing in the
universe.” As the debate progressed Shostak took issue with the evidence that
Ufologists in general present for their theorem—this brings me to my
question:
It would seem that most of the ideologies presented today from
“mainstream Astronomers” e.g., extra-solar planets, rogue planets, black holes
etc., are based on “circumstantial evidence”; for example, the idea of
“extra-solar planets” is deduced by a “star’s wobble”; my observation, as well
as the question, is why the guidelines for Astronomers in regards to evidence is
acceptable in “their field” but they won’t apply the same rules to
Ufology.
I would certainly appreciate your thoughts on the “evidence or
data methodologies” used in Astronomy, and why said methodologies don’t seem to
be adequate for Ufology.
Thank You,
Respectfully,
Frank
Warren
He kindly responded:
Hi:
Well, it is hard to give a
short answer to your query.
However, the rules of evidence for mainstream
astronomy and UFOlogy are actually the same.In both cases we look for
well-observed, calibrated data, which can be verified by repeat observations or
experiments, best done by more than one observer.
All the astronomical
claims of actual existence you mention are supported by such solid, repeatable
evidence. The wobbles in stars are seen to repeat, and to follow a complicated
pattern which fits precisely the wobble expected when a star is being pulled on
by a planet moving with a changing speed in an elliptical orbit. This is a very
definitive requirement, which is met precisely by the observations. Furthermore,
in some cases there is more than the wobble to go on—the light of the star is
decreased by just the right amount and with the complex time history expected if
the planet passes in front of the star. And it repeats as it should. So there is
no doubt here.
Some things are still speculations, of course. Rogue
planets are one. There are no observations of such a planet. But it is fair to
speculate they exist from our growing modeling of what takes place as a
planetary system is formed, and the prediction from this modeling that some
planets will be ejected from the system. Indeed, it would be amazing if this did
not occur.
When it comes to UFO reports, none of the evidence criterion
are satisfied. No observations can be repeated. None has ever been definitively
recorded. So the rigid standards of science are far from met. As Carl Sagan
said, "Grand claims require grand evidence", and that evidence is not
there.
Frank Drake
I replied:
FW: Dear Mr. Drake, Thank you for you for your
expeditious reply to my inquiry.
FD: Hi:
Well, it is hard to give a short
answer to your query. Actually I was looking forward to a "detailed
explanation." However, the rules of evidence for mainstream astronomy and
UFOlogy are actually the same. In both cases we look for well-observed,
calibrated data, which can be verified by repeat observations or experiments,
best done by more than one observer.
FW: Allow me to play devil's advocate based on
your affirmation of equality in regards to evidentiary protocol of Astronomy and
Ufology.
FD: All the astronomical
claims of actual existence you mention are supported by such solid, repeatable
evidence. The wobbles in stars are seen to repeat, and to follow a complicated
pattern which fits precisely the wobble expected when a star is being pulled on
by a planet moving with a changing speed in an elliptical orbit. This is a very
definitive requirement, which is met precisely by the observations. Furthermore,
in some cases there is more than the wobble to go on—the light of the star is
decreased by just the right amount and with the complex time history expected if
the planet passes in front of the star. And it repeats as it should. So there is
no doubt here.
FW: To be clear,
(from a layman's [me] point of view) since we have "empirical evidence" of our
own sun's orbit presumably being affected by the gravity (pull) of Jupiter (and
other large planets in our own solar system), and the orbit (wobble) seems to be
directly proportional to the mass of said planet; we therefore can presume the
"same effect" takes place in other solar systems, with their stars, and although
we cannot see the planets, we can observe the wobble, via "Doppler Shift" etc.
Since the "wobble" is directly proportional to the "mass of a planet" (at least
it appears to be here, in our solar system) we can determine the mass of said
planet by mathematical equation.
In addition to the wobble of a distant
star, going on the assumption that it is indeed a planet's gravity causing the
wobble, one could assume that if said planet were to cross between the earth and
the star being observed, the light from the star would be measurably
diminished.
You finally, state, that "there is no doubt here." I take
that to mean that this is going "beyond theory" and is accepted as fact . . .
interesting.
First I'd like to state that the "circumstantial (indirect)
evidence" put on the table for "extra-solar planets" is more then enough "for
me," for validation of their existence; however, playing "Devil's
Advocate":
1). Can we state emphatically that there aren't "other forces"
in the universe that aren't currently known that would "mimic the pull" caused
by gravity of a "Jupiter sized planet?" Could another "space borne" object of
the same mass cause the wobble?
2). Are there other actions that could
affect "Doppler Shift," or any other form of detection in the same manner that
"star wobble" does, e.g., pulsations etc.?
3). Given the fact that the
most detection methods of "extra-solar planets" is relatively new, (with
technology expanding by leaps and bounds) and not without controversy, i.e.,
("Barnard's Star and possible planetary bodies, David Gray's disputation of 51
Peg,") isn't possible that either "new information" could surface, or the
interpretation of the data may change, and affect the current
conclusions?
IMHO if the answers to any of the afore mentioned questions
is "unknown" or "it's possible," then that would leave "some" doubt, albeit
little to the "absolute existence" of extra-solar planets based on the current
methodologies used for their reality; that said, what we're left with is strong
"circumstantial evidence" in support of the "theory" of extra-solar
planets."
FD: Some things are
still speculations, of course. Rogue planets are one. There are no observations
of such a planet. But it is fair to speculate they exist from our growing
modeling of what takes place as a planetary system is formed, and the prediction
from this modeling that some planets will be ejected from the system. Indeed, it
would be amazing if this did not occur.
FW: Agreed.
FD: When it comes to UFO reports, none of the
evidence criterion are satisfied. No observations can be repeated. None has ever
been definitively recorded. So the rigid standards of science are far from met.
As Carl Sagan said, "Grand claims require grand evidence", and that evidence is
not there.
FW: Here I have to
respectfully disagree; you stated that the criterion for the rules of evidence
for mainstream astronomy and UFOlogy are actually the same. In both cases we
look for:
1). Well-observed, calibrated data.
2). Verification by
repeat observations or experiments.
3). Multiple observers.
First
let me clarify some points: The bulk of UFO reports over the last 60 years after
thorough investigation, can be attributed to more conventional explanations,
e.g., known aircraft, celestial bodies etc.; however, the ones addressed
here
are the smaller percentage that cannot be explained in a conventional
manner.
The ones I speak of are of an "unknown airborne craft" that
exhibit characteristics beyond man-made technologies. It is true, that this
phenomena can't for the most part be repeated "on demand" it is a "transient
uncontrollable unpredictable event"; however, it certainly does repeat, and
observations are to numerous to count. It of course isn't the same as observing
a "fixed celestial body" and doesn't have the same obvious advantages for
scientific research. It does/has re-occurred, often, and can/has been recorded
in a number of ways to allow for scientific investigation; for
example:
1). In most cases involving a "craft" there is "direct
evidence," i.e., "eye witnesses.
2). The craft "occupies
space."
3). It moves as time passes.
4). It emits "thermal
effects."
5). It exhibits light emission and absorption.
6). It
effects the atmosphere.
7). It can be photographed.
8). It has
left residual "after-effects," i.e., forensic evidence etc.
9). It has
caused electric, magnetic and gravitational disorders.
10). It has been
tracked by radar
The list goes on . . .
You've stated that none
(UFOs) have been "definitively recorded." This is inaccurate. UFOs, in this
instance "unknown craft" have been photographed, video taped, tracked by radar,
and those readings recorded. In addition, they have been pursued by "our
aircraft," and those of other countries.
Finally, "all" the criterion you
cite for evidence have been met for Ufology with one more addition, "eye
witnesses." One only need to look at the data. This is not to say that all the
questions have been answered; in fact, it evokes this one—"why doesn't Ufology
receive that attention it deserves from mainstream science?"
You quoted
one of Carl Sagan's often used statements; I might add that he also said, "In
physics, as in much of all science, there are no permanent truths; there is a
set of approximations, getting closer and closer, and people must always be
ready to revise what has been in the past thought to be the absolute gospel
truth."
But back to the quote you mention, "grand claims require grand
evidence." Is what Ufologists suggest so grand, so far out? By your own device,
("Drake's Equation") you suggest the number of planets in our galaxy with
intelligent, technological civilizations. Is it so far out that one of these
civilizations is far more advanced then we, and have mastered space travel; or
travel in ways beyond our comprehension. Using our own technological advancement
as a baseline we have progressed in a few generations to what only our ancestors
could describe as "magic" given some examples; think what might and most
assuredly would happen in thousands of years, or more! I've always found it odd
that intelligent people admit to advance ETI, yet believe that when it comes to
traveling to earth--they (ET) "played hooky" from that class!
Omitting
the evidence, the data, for a moment (regarding Ufology) and agreeing on the
common point(s) that there is "abundant intelligent life in the universe," the
question is not "are they here," but "why wouldn't they be?
I would like
to hear your thoughts on what I've presented, as well as my last question if you
would be so kind.
Thank you for your attention to this matter, and I look
forward to your response.
Sincerely,
Frank Warren
Mr. Drake
hasn't responded to date.
~~BOOK SALE~~