Восприятие профессорско-преподавательским составом неопознанных воздушных явлений — Исследовательский документ, изучающий мнения сотрудников университета по поводу UAP.
Похожие записи:
Что такое «рукотворные миражи»?
Бывший подрядчик по обороне и разведке Майкл Виа рассказывает свою историю о том, как Лу Элизондо объяснил ему, как диск превращается в треугольник. и UAP в форме сигары летают, и почему с ними связаны огни и шары.
Создайте таблицу со всеми наиболее интересными заявлениями Боба Лазара и поставьте шкалу от 1 до 10, чтобы они были правдой.
Офис по разрешению аномалий во всех доменах ищет заместителя директора, так как приближается крайний срок в пятницу — подведение итогов
Легитимность кругов на полях
Если Джон Рамирес и другие правы в том, что 2027 год будет важным годом, это может быть связано с тем, что НАСА проводит испытания ядерного ракетного двигателя Draco в космосе, которые в настоящее время запланированы на 2026 год (см. Заявление о представлении)
Огни Феникса 2: Электрический бугалу?
НОВЫЙ КОМИКС ДЕНЬ ВЫБОР НЕДЕЛИ | СИНЯЯ КНИГА, ВЫПУСК 4, ДЖЕЙМС ТАЙНИОН IV
Я купил на eBay настоящую проклятую коробку с диббуком
НАСА публикует график своих презентаций UAP 31 мая. FAA, Пентагон, НАСА проведут презентации для общественности относительно UAP/UFOS, включая презентацию о «недавних наблюдениях за пределами атмосферы Земли».
In this national study—which is the first to thoroughly examine faculty evaluations, explanations, and experiences regarding UAP of which the authors are aware—tenured and tenure-track faculty across 14 disciplines at 144 major research universities (N = 1460) participated in a survey.
Results demonstrated that faculty think the academic evaluation of UAP information and more academic research on this topic is important. Curiosity outweighed scepticism or indifference.
Overwhelmingly and regardless of discipline, faculty were aware of reports but not legislation. Faculty varied in personal explanations for UAP, and nearly one-fifth reported UAP observations.
This is a pretty bid deal, as Nature journals carry a good amount of prestige in academia.
OH FUCKKKKK!!! A PAPER IN NATURE ON UAP! This is what I’ve been waiting for.
Now the academics knows what everyone else is thinking, they are up to speed on what is going on, AND they can send this to others without looking batshit crazy.
Great step in the right direction! Slow disclosure for academia, because when they answered «I am not aware of legislation» they became aware. This study just pushed out information to academics across the US.
>»Among those who reported at the beginning of the survey that they were not at all curious about the topic (n = 251), 15% (n = 38) reported a slight or moderate increase in interest. Among those who reported interest in the topic initially (n = 1209), 52.9% (n = 639) reported a slight, moderate, or significant increase in interest.»
Response bias is a very real critique. The researchers explain it away as:
>»Most faculty reported some degree of curiosity about the UAP/UFO topic, perhaps suggesting they were more open to participating and less inclined to think the survey was spam, thus introducing bias. That said, only ~6% of faculty shared that they frequently or very frequently seek news on this subject, suggesting that if curiosity did play a role, it is likely minor.»
Here, researchers conveniently don’t mention that 18.9% of the sample had or knew someone that had a witnessed a UAP and 8.77% reported «may» have. There’s a likely culprit for response bias😉They should have brought that up. I would have liked to see answers broken down by those who reported witnessing vs not witnessing, and reporting of any changes in the findings. That 19-27% of people could be skewing things.
As a community, we can perform a follow up study. If we repeated the Gallup poll of US adults’ beliefs towards UAP we would add a third data point (2019, 2021, 2023?) for % believing in UAP being non-human. This could be used to determine any changes in the past upwards trend (accelerating, for example). If we also asked how many had a sighting, we could better gauge how common sightings are (The authors note no one has looked into this) and interpret this present study’s 18% better. Crowdfunding amount would be $3,000 or so for the polling. It would be pretty sick if r/UFOs started publishing research.
Here’s something funny.
(Paraphrasing)
The main response to «what kind of proof would satisfy you?» was «meta-analysis.»
Meta analysis is running an analysis that aggregates previously analyzed datasets.
So most people chose
>>meta-analysis of peer-reviewed studies that strongly support this explanation
as proof of UAP they’d accept.
However, nobody wants to do the analysis because of the stigma. So they’re literally asking for impossible proof. There’s not enough previous analysis to support a meta analysis.
The stigma prevents research. The lack of research perpetuates the stigma.
>>Many faculty responded that they would be more inclined if another scholar in their discipline who they considered to be reputable did so
Everyone’s waiting for someone else to do it.
Edit: I forgot the best part! The survey asked if **seeing a UAP** would be proof enough, to consider that UAP exist, *and they said no*!!! Peak self-debunk.
This is a really good paper, bravo 💯 table 3 was fun 😎
>>My father and his old Cold Warrior colleagues know plenty about UAPs, but they won’t say much.
My background is in biology, chemistry and medicine and this fairly closely mirrors my perspective (and I think pretty much anyone in the world with an academic/scientific mindset, I’d bet). My answers would basically summarize as “I don’t know what the fuck this is, but I think it deserves serious scientific scrutiny so we can figure out what the fuck it is and remove uncertainty and speculation.” And had I been asked “would you study it?” my response would have been “not my field.” I’m a neurologist, not an engineer or physicist.
A scientist will honestly answer “I don’t know” and “but I want to know”. A charlatan will answer “I know already, and I can give you all the answers”.
A sizable (like seriously, over 50%) of this subreddit needs to keep that in mind to avoid continuously getting bamboozled, hoodwinked and variously duped, conned, grifted and hornswaggled.
*Even if* the person saying it appears to be a respectable scientist.
lol… gotta read more, but there are more questions than answers in the Conclusion… come to think of it there were no answers in the conclusion, other than to say they need an agreed language