Scientific Ufology: How the Application of Scientific Methodology Can Analyze, Illuminate and Prove the Reality of UFO's


Over the last fifty years, there has been a consistent attempt to withhold solid information about alien visitation from the general public. Newly release letters reveal how time and again the U.S. government and its military forces have lied about their involvement in UFO research. Never has this controversial issue received the objective review it demands and deserves--until now.

For the first time, noted author Kevin D. Randle--former Air Force intelligence officer, the ...

See more details below
Available through our Marketplace sellers.
Other sellers (Paperback)
  • All (10) from $1.99   
  • New (1) from $58.77   
  • Used (9) from $1.99   
Sort by
Page 1 of 1
Showing All
Note: Marketplace items are not eligible for any coupons and promotions
Seller since 2008

Feedback rating:



New — never opened or used in original packaging.

Like New — packaging may have been opened. A "Like New" item is suitable to give as a gift.

Very Good — may have minor signs of wear on packaging but item works perfectly and has no damage.

Good — item is in good condition but packaging may have signs of shelf wear/aging or torn packaging. All specific defects should be noted in the Comments section associated with each item.

Acceptable — item is in working order but may show signs of wear such as scratches or torn packaging. All specific defects should be noted in the Comments section associated with each item.

Used — An item that has been opened and may show signs of wear. All specific defects should be noted in the Comments section associated with each item.

Refurbished — A used item that has been renewed or updated and verified to be in proper working condition. Not necessarily completed by the original manufacturer.


Ships from: Chicago, IL

Usually ships in 1-2 business days

  • Standard, 48 States
  • Standard (AK, HI)
Page 1 of 1
Showing All
Sort by
Sending request ...


Over the last fifty years, there has been a consistent attempt to withhold solid information about alien visitation from the general public. Newly release letters reveal how time and again the U.S. government and its military forces have lied about their involvement in UFO research. Never has this controversial issue received the objective review it demands and deserves--until now.

For the first time, noted author Kevin D. Randle--former Air Force intelligence officer, the foremost expert on the Roswell incident and one of the most respected names in UFO research--examines the physical evidence of these visitors from beyond our solar system.

Ignoring biased government documents and sensationalized media accounts, Randle mounts the first serious, independent analysis of UFO phenomena in this hard-hitting investigative report. Bringing methods of scientific methodology to his research, the author scrutinizes eyewitness reports, photographs, video footage, radar images, landing traces, and unidentifiable crashed vehicles. Captain Randle shows how strict adherence to scientific principles can provide proof that alien spacecraft are indeed here on Earth--as are their occupants.

Skillfully researched and detailed, Scientific Ufology provides for the first time accurate and riveting answers to questions about alien life and UFOs that have puzzled mankind for decades.

"Well worth your time and money."(— UFO Magazine)

Read More Show Less

Editorial Reviews

Publishers Weekly - Publisher's Weekly
Coauthor with Dennis Schmitt of UFO Crash at Roswell and The Truth About the UFO Crash at Roswell, Randle is a big name in the study of UFOs. Here, the retired air force captain issues a plea for scientific rigor. Laying out a sound method for UFO research is important, he writes, because government-sponsored projects have a history of bias, creating a need for neutral studies. Randle's criteria for what constitutes a sighting worthy of investigation include eyewitness testimony (preferably by multiple witnesses in different locations) photographic evidence and written documentation (most valuable if recorded immediately or within a very short time of the event). Randle then recounts 15 cases of sightings that he contends meet his criteria. These studies comprise the bulk of the book as Randle provides painstaking critiques of the investigations conducted in each case, poking holes in the findings of government officials and commissions. Randle takes pains to appear disinterested: "There is no evidence that conclusively proves that UFOs represent alien visitation," he writes in the book's final chapter. "There is, however, a great deal of evidence that is suggestive of that conclusion." Randle is an expert at bringing the language of science to the topic of UFOs. The problem is that methodology is dry stuff to begin with, and Randle, almost as if he thought a little color would diminish his credibility, makes no attempt to liven things up. (Sept.) Copyright 1999 Cahners Business Information.
Read More Show Less

Product Details

  • ISBN-13: 9780380798520
  • Publisher: HarperCollins Publishers
  • Publication date: 9/1/1999
  • Pages: 241
  • Product dimensions: 5.28 (w) x 7.99 (h) x 0.76 (d)

Read an Excerpt

Science and the UFO

There is a problem with the so-called science of UFOlogy: Those practicing it are anything but scientific in their approach to it. All too often we in the UFO community talk about applying the rigors of scientific methodology to our study, and then we fail to do so. For the most part, we believe in science but a too often reject it when it does not conform to our beliefs about UFOs.

Scientists, on the other hand, reject UFOlogy because of our lack of scientific standards. To the scientific community, we fail to make our case within a proper scientific framework. Our information, according to them, is anecdotal, poorly documented, and without foundation. They claim we have presented no physical evidence for our beliefs in UFOs; in fact, according to scientists, we have no physical evidence with which to make our case.

It seems that we—the UFO community and the scientific community—are at opposite ends of a long spectrum, never to meet. Until or unless something spectacular happens, that is the way the situation will remain-neither side conceding a point to the other.

Of course, this is often the situation in which science and the general public finds itself. Science will make a pronouncement and not be believed simply because it is inconvenient for the public to do so, the pronouncement violates a long-held belief, or it is in conflict with what science said just last week, last month, or last year.

Much of this is the public's fault. We listen to the scientists' words and then interpret them incorrectly. When science suggests a causal relationship between a chemical and cancer, for example, we don't hearhow the interpretation of evidence is phrased. We leap to the conclusion that the use of the chemical will cause cancer-not that those who use the chemical are at a higher risk for developing cancer, which isn't exactly the same thing.

Or, in the case of the tobacco companies and cigarettes, we hear the government scientists telling us that smoking causes cancer, while the tobacco scientists are telling us that the evidence for that is not conclusive. Here we have two groups of scientists telling us two things that are mutually exclusive, so both can't be right. One set of scientists has to be wrong, Both are credentialed, both have the same sort of training, and both groups are at opposite ends of the spectrum. How can we, the lay public, understand the situation?

In this case, it is easy. All we have to do is look at who pays the scientists. If they are government scientists and they discover no causal link between cancer and smoking, they'll get paid. If they discover the causal link to cancer, they still get paid. The scientists have no agenda other than learning the truth.

On the other hand, the scientists working for the tobacco companies have an interest in discovering no causal link to cancer. If they find one, they are pressured to cover up or reinterpret the results. We've all seen the scientists on 60 Minutes telling us about the pressure applied on them by the tobacco companies to hide their results. The scientists have an agenda to convince the public that smoking is not harmful. Given these facts, it is fairly simple to determine which sets of data are most accurate and most likely correct.

But what do we do when the agenda of the scientists isn't as clear-cut? How do we determine whether science is being fair to the question? How does the layperson determine the truth without having to spend years studying the questions for him or herself? And isn't that what scientists are supposed to do? Aren't they supposed to answer these questions for us accurately, fairly, and with no agenda attached?

Yes, I think so. I think that we all rely on the expertise of others because, in today's world, no single individual can possibly know everything needed to survive. You could spend years learning the law, but that doesn't help if you catch a virus. You can understand the workings of the IRS, but that doesn't help build a personal retirement fund. You can become a master gardener, but that doesn't make you a farmer. The point is that all too often we must leave the answers to those whose expertise can help us learn those answers.

But we have all heard stories of how the experts have been wrong, time and again. We forget that the experts often merely parrot the conventional wisdom of the time and have no expertise beyond what the lay public possesses.

We in the UFO community often point to the fact that the French Academy of sciences, at the beginning of the nineteenth century, rejected the idea that rocks could fall from the sky. Everyone knows that there are no rocks in the sky, and those who suggest otherwise must be deluded, insane, lying, or simply mistaken.

What we rarely talk about is how the French Academy of sciences reversed itself in 1803 when a proper scientific study, along with physical evidence, was offered, proving that rocks could fall from the sky. Jean-Baptiste Biot published his report, and the scientific community in France accepted his study. We in the UFO community could certainly benefit from understanding how Biot accomplished this.

Three weeks after the residents of a Normandy village reported that rocks had fallen from the sky, Biot traveled there from Paris to begin his investigation. I mention this only because it is often weeks, months, or even years after a UFO event has occurred that any sort of investigation begins. Being on the scene of the event is not necessary to proving that the event took place, especially if there is some form of physical evidence left behind...

Read More Show Less

Customer Reviews

Be the first to write a review
( 0 )
Rating Distribution

5 Star


4 Star


3 Star


2 Star


1 Star


Your Rating:

Your Name: Create a Pen Name or

Barnes & Review Rules

Our reader reviews allow you to share your comments on titles you liked, or didn't, with others. By submitting an online review, you are representing to Barnes & that all information contained in your review is original and accurate in all respects, and that the submission of such content by you and the posting of such content by Barnes & does not and will not violate the rights of any third party. Please follow the rules below to help ensure that your review can be posted.

Reviews by Our Customers Under the Age of 13

We highly value and respect everyone's opinion concerning the titles we offer. However, we cannot allow persons under the age of 13 to have accounts at or to post customer reviews. Please see our Terms of Use for more details.

What to exclude from your review:

Please do not write about reviews, commentary, or information posted on the product page. If you see any errors in the information on the product page, please send us an email.

Reviews should not contain any of the following:

  • - HTML tags, profanity, obscenities, vulgarities, or comments that defame anyone
  • - Time-sensitive information such as tour dates, signings, lectures, etc.
  • - Single-word reviews. Other people will read your review to discover why you liked or didn't like the title. Be descriptive.
  • - Comments focusing on the author or that may ruin the ending for others
  • - Phone numbers, addresses, URLs
  • - Pricing and availability information or alternative ordering information
  • - Advertisements or commercial solicitation


  • - By submitting a review, you grant to Barnes & and its sublicensees the royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable right and license to use the review in accordance with the Barnes & Terms of Use.
  • - Barnes & reserves the right not to post any review -- particularly those that do not follow the terms and conditions of these Rules. Barnes & also reserves the right to remove any review at any time without notice.
  • - See Terms of Use for other conditions and disclaimers.
Search for Products You'd Like to Recommend

Recommend other products that relate to your review. Just search for them below and share!

Create a Pen Name

Your Pen Name is your unique identity on It will appear on the reviews you write and other website activities. Your Pen Name cannot be edited, changed or deleted once submitted.

Your Pen Name can be any combination of alphanumeric characters (plus - and _), and must be at least two characters long.

Continue Anonymously

    If you find inappropriate content, please report it to Barnes & Noble
    Why is this product inappropriate?
    Comments (optional)