Mouai. C'est bien de délirer et de partir en live sur des hypothèses... Cela n'explique pas le grand vide de la casuistique en faveur de l'HET, depuis 60 ans, à apporter aucune preuve tangible, et a recourir de plus en plus, à du ad hoc
(comme ce genre d'hypothèses, le mimétisme, l'élusivité, etc) pour garder son hypothèse intacte.
La science a largement étudié les cas (et les plus solides) d'ovnis durant plein d'occasions. Souvent, il est ressorti que la science est frileuse, peureuse, voire angoissée par le sujet. Heu... Rien n'est plus faux.1953: commission Robertson.
Luis Alverez, futur prix Nobel, expert en radar
(ce n'est pas une diffamation au cas où ^^)
"...that reasonable explanations could be suggested for most sightings and 'by deduction and scientific method it could be induced (given additional data) that other cases may be explained in a similar manner".
Dans le résumé du rapport :
1955: Spécial report N°14 (Battelle)
"...there is no evidence that the phenomena indicates a need for the revision of current scientific concepts" .
1966: Commision O'Brien
"It can never be absolutely proven that "flying saucers" do not exist. This would be true if the data obtained were to include complete scientific measurements of the attributes of the each sighting, as well as complete and detailed descriptions of the objects sighted. It might be possible to demonstrate the existence of "flying saucers" with data of the type, IF they were to exist.
Although the reports considered in this study usually did not contain scientific measurements of the attributes of each sighting, it was possible to establish certain valid conclusions by the application of statistical methods in the treatment of the data. Scientifically evaluated and arranged, the data as a whole did not show any marked patterns or trends. The inaccuracies inherent in this type of data, in addition to the incompleteness of a large proportion of the reports, may have obscured any patterns or trends that otherwise would have been evident...
Therefore, on the basis of this evaluation of the information, it is considered to be highly improbable that any of the reports of unidentified aerial objects examined in this study represent observations of technological developments outside the range of present-day scientific knowledge."
1968 : Etude Condon
"Although about 6% (646) of all sightings (10,147) in the years 1948 through 1965 are listed by the Air Force as "unidentified," it appears to the Committee that most of the cases so listed are simply those in which the information available does not provide an adequate basis for analysis. ... there appears to be no verified and fully satisfactory evidence of any case that is clearly outside the framework of presently known science and technology"
1997 : panel" Sturrock"
"Our general conclusion is that nothing has come from the study of UFOs in the past 21 years that has added to scientific knowledge. Careful consideration of the record as it is available to us leads us to conclude that further extensive study of UFOs probably cannot be justified in the expectation that science will be advanced thereby."
de scientifiques confrontés aux "meilleurs cas", càad le top du top de la casuistique.
"It was clear that at least a few reported incidents might have involved rare but significant phenomena such as electrical activity high above thunderstorms (e.g., sprites) or rare cases of radar ducting. On the other hand, the review panel was not convinced that any of the evidence involved currently unknown physical processes or pointed to the involvement of an extraterrestrial intelligence ...The panel also reviewed some of the conclusions advanced in 1968 by Dr. Edward U. Condon, director of the Colorado Project. He asserted that "nothing has come from the study of UFOs in the past 21 years that has added to scientific knowledge," and that "further extensive study of UFOs probably cannot be justified in the expectation that science will be advanced thereby." While agreeing with the first conclusion and its extension to the present, the panel considers that there always exists the possibility that investigation of an unexplained phenomenon may lead to an advance in scientific knowledge."
Autrement dit, le ratio "signal-bruit" dans la casuistique est très bas, et il est possible qu'il n'y ait pas de signal du tout. (William Hartmann).
Bref, des scientifiques se sont penchés sur la casuistique.