SCU Conference (continued)

The formal dinner echoed the seriousness of the conference and SCU’s policy in general: the belief that scientific methods are the best tools available to begin to understand the UAP puzzle. Some attendees and speakers differed slightly from this philosophy, notably SUAPS founder Michael Cifone, who emphasized his position that science must evolve to meet the phenomenon through a philosophy he has coined “The Empirical Weird,” calling for a cooperative mixture of “mind-matter research and the philosophy of mind, anomalistics and the science and scholarship on the UAP as an empirical phenomenon in need of careful study.”

There is little doubt that in the last 5 years, the UAP research space has experienced an exponential flowering. The presence of scientists and researchers from both SUAPS and the SCU were in evidence, as well as cementing the relationship based in serious research between the two organizations. Among the presenters were many SUAPS board and Advisory Council members:

- Physicist Matt Syzdagis from the UAPx organization (and SUAPS advisory board member) recounted some of the papers that he and colleagues such as Kevin Knuth have published. Syzdagis emphasized future projects with doctoral-level scientists which will continue to be published in peer-reviewed journals. He commented that their attempts will be “to change the science from a forensic endeavor to repeatable observations.”

- SUAPS seminar series director Maya Cowan presented “Observing the Unknown: Emerging Cultures of Expertise in UAP Science” concentrating on issues of ontological shock in the scientific and UAP research communities. She emphasized the implications of this effect and “what the scientific epistemology of UAP could tell us about the implications of ontological shock,” as well as how the wider public may experience this scenario.

- Recent SUAPS board member and political scientist Christian Peters presented “Between Epistemic Ideals and Political Realities: Rethinking the Role of Science in Governmental UAP” which examined the political dynamics of UAP information, research, and disclosure. The legitimate boundaries of secrecy vary by national politics, even to the point where an authoritarian regime might be more efficient in pursuing UAP research than a democracy, and even though “Democracies do not operate on the idea that every truth should be made public,” Peters said. Peters’ conclusion was poignant given the current environment: “Stop asking what governments are hiding, but what their institutions are encouraging them to believe.”

- Michael Valliant, founder of UAP Check (and also a SUAPS advisory board member) called for an international standardization of UAP data and data gathering. During his years with Groupe d'Études et d'Informations sur les Phénomènes Aérospatiaux Non-identifiés (GEIPAN) the French government UFO organization, Valliant developed groundbreaking automated investigation and evaluation software to organize data from thousands of reports. He called for an international UAP reporting and organizing system that is founded on the idea of “standardization without institutionalization.”

- Kevin Knuth shared his continuing research on the physics of UAP movement, citing the well-documented Nimitz multiple witness case, noting that the observed speeds and g-forces of the objects would not only be deadly to any pilots, but would be impossible even for any known materials. Knuth has also run the numbers on interstellar travel at relativistic speeds, noting that occupants could survive a multi-year trip since special relativity dictates that the time experienced on a moving ship would be far less than for those left behind. At 99% light speed, 10 years would be experienced as less than 1.5 years to the traveler.

Cifone spoke during Saturday’s “lightning talks” and addressed the theme of the conference with “Building a Science of UAP: Institutional Design, Policy, and Scientific Legitimacy”, asking if it was possible to balance the demands of science with the demands of the National Security State. “The State’s perception is that the phenomenon is real and a threat, while the sciences answer to two different masters”. He also made a distinction between “Nature itself, which has absolute freedom, no party, no border no government” and “the State - which answers to itself.” The issue, it seems, is how these greatly differing forces and philosophies can be reconciled with a subject of study where “the forensic cannot be reconciled with the demonstrable.” This implies (and Cifone has argued) that the sciences will have to modify approaches to the phenomenon - including the concept that witness testimony must be considered as data. He concluded that “Establishing governance principles, transparency mechanisms, and ethical safeguards may be essential for ensuring that the scientific study of UAP develops with methodological openness and intellectual independence."

At Sunday breakfast, previous year’s leadoff speaker Dr. Julia Mossbridge told me that SCU’s “predominant focus has been on materialism,” even though she observed, “the only thing that can perceive the physical world is consciousness.” She felt that ignoring this aspect of the issue was doing a disservice to a better understanding of strange or uncanny experiences. “Maybe NHI are expressions of our unconscious mind,” she mused. When Powell realized that Mossbridge was in attendance he hooked her into a panel discussion at the close of the conference.

A singular honor was afforded to perhaps the longest tenured investigator in Canada, Chris Rutkowski, who led off the first day. Rutkowski highlighted the history of Canadian Ufology, remarking that “while Project Blue Book was winding down in the U.S., the Canadian [governmental UFO] project was just starting.” At times, he said, it was obvious that he knew more about the subject than the officials who were studying it. He was even sent a classified document by accident. His boosterism served to remind the audience that his country “could be used as an example of effective and thorough UFO research”.

The U.S. Government’s iron in the fire was represented by Dr. Randy Bostick, former Science Advisor for the Department of Defense’s All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office (AARO). The talk, titled “Applying Scientific Rigor to UAP Study” was precisely that; to the point where slight uneasiness crept into some in the crowd. Bostick reminded us that “the Government’s job is looking at classified data to determine a conclusion” not to advocate for any presupposed point of view. Even “pilot testimony is not accurate as far as distance and speed,” he added. As for the latest government releases of infrared images from aircraft showing starlike objects, Bostick informed the audience that this was a diffraction artifact of the camera. Perhaps the most salient point from the speaker was the realization that combat aircraft instruments are designed to provide the pilot with situational awareness in a timely fashion, not to record anomalies, and in fact most of the data is erased soon after it is gathered. Bostick ended on a conciliatory note, declaring “clearly there are things that are observed which are unidentified.”

Representing the research team located in the Hessdalen valley of Norway, Rainer Haseitl reported on newly deployed instruments to monitor the remote area for it famous light phenomena. The observed lights he said exhibited a “full spectrum” as would be expected from a plasma. He continued noting anomalies observed: Mysteriously, magnetic north will occasionally deviate by 18 degrees in the area, but only temporarily, and a distant blinking light doubled its rate when a laser was pointed at it. In a spirit of honest inquiry, Haseitl also told of strange creatures observed in the valley, and a sizable area of sod and soil seemingly “cookie cuttered” out and placed on top of the ground nearby. This happened in a remote area inaccessible by any roads.

The 20 minute lightning talks were scheduled on both days of the event, featuring three speakers in each session, which allowed for a greater breadth and depth that encompassed the emerging field of UAP studies and research:

- Doug Buettner spoke on further forensic research on the famous (and coincidentally infamous) Aguadilla transmedium UAP video. Buettner examined the raw infrared video and interpolated missing data using his own software to reconcile sporadic data points. The conclusion was inconclusive, but it seemed to disprove many of the arguments that the object captured on a DEA FLIR camera was a “trail of connected Chinese lanterns.” as the US Government study and those of skeptics have claimed.

- Stephen Bruehl confirmed data on the “transient star” phenomenon, first proposed by Dr Beatriz Villaroel, which were captured on pre-space age star-mapping photos. Skeptical claims of lens aberrations, dust, and emulsion damage were refuted by the observation that a blur, or “coma” around the suspected transients did not occur around stars in the images. He also corrected the theory that the transients were the result of debris from nuclear tests, stating that “The transients occurred on the morning of nuclear testing. Not after.”

- SUAPS AURA program manager Laura Domine from Kyoto University presented a rebuttal with a precise examination of the transient phenomenon, declaring “The public data set does not support transients.” Domine reported that the images exposed in the earth’s shadow (where there would not be reflective objects) amounted to just 20 out of thousands, and using randomly selected images “showed the same distribution” as the data supporting transients. Also, the dates for the photographs just happened to coincide with the dates of nuclear tests, which would be an effect of coincidence rather than the meaningful correlation that is claimed.

As usual at conferences, much of the exchange of information occurred in the lobby and at various restaurants and coffee shops around downtown Toronto. I had an impromptu meeting with Australian journalist Russ Coulthart. He spoke of efforts to set up remote UAP monitoring stations in his country, and digging deeper into the US Government’s role in UAP activities.

Maya Cowan introduced me to Madilyn Shaw, a doctoral candidate in Art History, who described her dissertation concerning UAP photos. We spoke of the ideas behind photography, how people regard it as an independent observer, and how photos of unidentifieds affect public attitudes. Shaw is part of the upcoming SUAPS seminar series.

The final event was a panel concerning “The Future of UAP Science: Challenges, Opportunities, and the Road Ahead” Featuring Powell, Mossbridge, Cifone and Peters, moderated by conference MC Micah Hanks. Peters offered that ““The fact that we can only ask and answer questions from a human perspective is telling as much about ourselves as the other.” Cifone commented “Any theory which attempts to posit some kind of substantial mechanics between matter and mind, is very fringe…the final word is human experience.” Seemingly taking up this thread with an overhead view, Mossbridge stated, “Our hypotheses about how we are getting our ideas and our hypotheses about our minds are incomplete” making any research or theorizing questionable since we don’t know exactly how we interact with and describe the phenomenon in the first place. Conference chair Powell returned to the theme of UAP science and data acquisition, observing “You need to get there immediately, not contaminate the site, and have an interdisciplinary team of scientists and others. But today, I don’t think there is any agency [in the government] that can respond that quickly.”

In a somewhat surprising and hopeful development, before thanking the lecturers and the attendees, Powell stated that “We will address the consciousness question at next year's SCU Conference.” Powell later told me that the SCU board was going to be inviting more speakers from the soft sciences and the humanities in the future.