Microbiologist Dr. Tyler Kokjohn commented on the latest incredible claims put forth by Dr. Steven Greer, suggesting Greer's lack of verifiable details make his assertions all but impossible to accept at face value. Greer continued his ongoing public discussion concerning an alleged dead extraterrestrial being, this time enhancing the storyline with alleged world authorities involved in its analysis. Kokjohn countered by pointing out Greer's tale is virtually void of any established scientific protocol whatsoever, and informed this writer that supposing any such authorities would jeopardize the validity of such an unprecedented discovery is an insult to intelligence.
Kokjohn further
pointed out that producing X-rays and computed tomography (CT) scans, as Greer
claimed were obtained, requires certain authorization and specific equipment.
Only “a damn fool or an utter ignoramus,” Kokjohn wrote on UFO
UpDates List, would attempt such procedures without conditions of full
biological containment, even if they received clearance to use the equipment
under such extraordinary circumstances.“Who wants to get their CT scan after ET was in there?” Kokjohn asked.
Kokjohn went on to inform us that the lack of opportunity for independent verification makes Greer's claims virtually meaningless from a practical perspective. He added that scientists and professional researchers most certainly know this to be the case. Dr. Kokjohn additionally wrote:
Time for Disclosure
Funding scientific research is always a gamble. If investigators are truly traversing uncharted territory, predicting results and anticipating experimental pitfalls may be almost impossible. How does one maximize the odds an investment in a research project will produce tangible results? Use the 3 Ds - Disclosure and due diligence.
Before any money is allocated, scientists perform a detailed due diligence assessment of the investigator’s skills, the equipment available and work plans. Investigators with a strong track record of experience and publications in the areas they propose to explore, who have the necessary facilities and equipment available for their use and who put forth a clear plan of work will be favored heavily. Investigators are expected to disclose preliminary results that bolster the central research hypothesis and provide all information that will enable their proposals to be evaluated fully. In addition, investigators must stipulate that the research will be conducted following all applicable guidelines and regulations for biosafety and work with human subjects. It is very simple, if you want money, it is up to you to prove you can actually run something besides your mouth and do it safely.
Dr. Greer has offered a pale imitation of the evaluative process used by scientists. He asserts recognized experts are collaborators, he (or someone) holds exciting preliminary data and research is proceeding apace. All good components of strong research, the problem is he does half a job and just quits right there. Failing to disclose the qualifications of key investigators, providing a work plan to judge or allowing not even so much as a glimpse at supporting data stymies any hope for informed, unbiased assessments completely. For a guy who carved a career niche out of demands for disclosure, he appears remarkably reluctant to either acquire full information from his collaborators or provide a full story to the public.
To help those wondering whether to contribute money to his effort, Dr. Greer could disclose some of the data and allow persons unaffiliated with the project or documentary to assess the value of his results thus far. How about revealing the names and qualifications of your expert collaborators? Since they are part of a team that is working on what would be the greatest discovery of our age, wouldn’t they want to have their names front and center? What is their expert opinion of the data? Let’s see the CT data and with it the particulars regarding the equipment that produced the scans and the computational parameters employed for image acquisition. While you are at it, how about the name of the institution supporting this work – you know, the organization that allowed the use of its CT facilities, computers and technicians to acquire and analyze the images. Did anyone (like an Institutional Review Board or Biosafety Committee) express concerns about putting a dead unknown entity inside a specialized piece of rather expensive equipment? Better yet, did anyone ask about how work with a possible entity unknown to science would be conducted in a safe and responsible manner?
Those are pretty easy questions, ones any scientist doing such a project would be able to answer – before any work commenced. Will the doctor follow his own prescription?
