双语阅读：不明飞行物（UFO）到底是真是假？科学家认为相关证据值得我们去认真研究

吾家有受初养成

科学小组得出结论：部分不明飞行物（UFO）的证据值得我们去研究
翻译：涂博士（微信号：jefftu95）
绘图：Phyllis（微信号：phyllis2599）
在自1970年以来对UFO现象进行的首次独立评估中，一组科学家得出结论，有些UFO目击事件伴随有物理的证据，值得我们对其进行科学的研究。但是专家小组并不认为这些证据中有任何证据违反了已知的自然法则或涉及到外星智慧。


这次独立评估由斯坦福大学应用物理学教授彼得·斯特罗克（Peter Sturrock）组织和指导，并得到了科学探索协会的行政支持，该协会为各种无法解释的现象提供了研究论坛。由9位物理科学家组成的国际评估小组对8位UFO报告调查员的报告进行了评估，这些调查员被要求拿出他们最强有力的数据来支持他们的报告。斯坦福大学电气工程学名誉教授Von R. Eshleman和应用物理学教授彼得·斯特罗克（Peter Sturrock）共同主持了评估辩论。
虽然关于UFO的报告可以追溯到50年前，但是迄今为止所收集的信息并不能证明存在着未知的物理过程或外星技术。尽管如此，评估小组的结论承认这些信息里面确实包括了足够多数量的有趣和无法解释的观察结果。 “仔细评估不明飞行物报告以提取有关目前科学未知的异常现象的信息可能是有价值的。”它补充说，要使科学界相信，“此类评估必须本着客观和兼听的精神”，而这精神正是目前所缺乏的。
这个结论与科罗拉多项目主任爱德华·康登博士（Dr. Edward U. Condon）在1968年的不明飞行物（UFO）报告中得出的结论不同。当时康登博士的结论是：“所谓进一步深入研究不明飞行物（UFO）可以提升我们的科学水平这个主张不能成立。”但是这个结论与两年后美国航空航天学会的Kuettner报告得出的结论非常相似，该报告主张“持续不断的中等水平的[研究]工作，重点放在通过客观手段和方法的进步来改善数据的收集，进行高质量的科学分析。”
在当前的研究中，科学小组将重点放在那些有某种形式的物理证据的ufo事件上，包括摄影证据，雷达证据，车辆干扰，对飞机设备的干扰，明显的重力或惯性作用，地面痕迹，植被伤害，对证人的生理影响，和碎屑等等。科学小组特别关注的是那些UFO遭遇可能伤害人们的健康的报告。在这些报告中，有一些目击者遭受了辐射型伤害。这些报告促使专家小组特别提请医学界注意UFO报告里面可能涉及的健康风险。
科学家发现，某些报告的事件可能是由罕见的自然现象引起的，例如雷暴上空的电活动或雷达导管（大气通道捕获和传导雷达波）。但是专家小组还是发现另一些与不明飞行物（UFO）有关的现象不容易以这种方式来解释开。
科学家说，对这些提供给专家组的证据的作进一步的分析也不太可能进一步揭示出这些报告背后的事件起因。尽管所涉及的这些UFO调查人员都非常积极主动和专注，但目前大多数UFO调查都缺乏科学界要求的那种严格程度。专家组认为以后更加科学地获取和分析新数据，可能会产生帮助我们提取到有用的信息，增进我们对不明飞行物（UFO）问题的理解。
评估专家还提出以了下意见：
不明飞行物（UFO）问题不是一个简单的问题，不可能有任何简单的普遍性的答案。
每当有无法解释的观察结果时，科学家就有可能通过研究来获得新的知识。
研究应集中在那些包含了尽可能多的独立物理证据的案例上。
UFO社区与物理科学家之间的持续互动可能会是富有成效的。
在该领域的研究需要机构提供相关支持。
评估小组由以下专家组成：冯·埃什勒曼（Von Eshleman）；科罗拉多州博尔德高空天文台的Thomas Holzer；兰迪·乔基皮（Randy Jokipii），亚利桑那大学图森分校行星科学教授；法国巴黎Fleximage董事总经理Francois Louange； H. J. Melosh，亚利桑那大学图森分校行星科学教授；詹姆斯·J·帕皮克（James J. Papike），新墨西哥大学阿尔伯克基分校地球与行星科学教授； Guenther Reitz，德国科隆德国航天中心德国航天医学研究所；弗吉尼亚大学夏洛茨维尔分校天文学教授Charles Tolbert；法国波尔多大学生物电磁实验室的Bernard Veyret。 Eshleman和Holzer担任小组共同主席。
提供不明飞行物（UFO）证据的调查员是Richard Haines，加利福尼亚州洛斯阿尔托斯市； Illobrand von Ludwiger，德国； 芝加哥UFO研究中心的Mark Rodeghier； 约翰·舒斯勒，休斯敦市； 奥斯福德学院Erling Strand，挪威Skjeberg市； 迈克尔·索兹斯（Michael Swords），西密歇根大学卡拉马祖分校自然科学教授； 雅克·瓦利（Jacques Vallee），旧金山； 法国图卢兹CNES的让·雅克·韦拉斯科（Jean-Jacques Velasco）。
这项研究由劳伦斯·洛克菲勒（Laurance S. Rockefeller）发起和资助。
在开始阅读英文原文之前，请先复习下列核心词汇：
scientific - adj. 科学的
panel - n. 小组
conclude - v. 做结论
UFO - 不明飞行物
evidence - n. 证据
worthy - adv. 值得
study - n. 研究
independent - adj. 独立的
review - n. 评估，审核，复习
scientist - n. 科学家
sighting - n. 目击
accompany - v. 伴随着
physicl - adj. 物理的
organize - v. 组织
direct - v. 指导，指挥
support - v. 支持
forum - n. 论坛
presentation - n. 演讲，讲座
investigator - n. 调查员
unknown - adj. 不知道的
alien - adj. 外国的，外星的，陌生的
implicate - v. 牵扯
intriguing - adj. 奇妙的，有趣的
inexplicable - adj. 不能解释的
valuable - adj. 有价值的
evaluate - v. 评估
extract - v. 提取
unusual - adj. 不寻常的
phenomena - n. 现象
credible - adj. 值得相信的，可信的
evaluation - n. 评估
science - n. 科学
rival - adj. 竞争的
hypotheses - n. 假设
differ - v. 不同于
reach - v. 到达，得出
scientific community - 科学社区，科学界
conclusion - n. 结论
在复习了以上词汇后，请将下面的英文原文一口气读完，不要在中途停下来去查那些不认识的单词。有了上面的核心单词打底，你完全可以将整篇文章读完并且理解里面的大致意思。记住，你只要做到大致明白就可以了。
阅读能力和阅读量成正比，要提高阅读量，必须是大量的泛读，如果要对每个不懂的单词都去查字典，那么就不可能通过大量的泛读来提高你的阅读量。
如果你对某篇泛读文章特别喜欢，可以在泛读一遍以后再慢慢地精读。如果在精读的过程中对某些句子不是太明白需要讲解，或者你希望以后多看到哪方面的双语阅读，欢迎联系涂博士（微信号：jefftu95）。
Scientific panel concludes some UFO evidence worthy of study
David F. Salisbury
Standford University
In the first independent review of UFO phenomena since 1970, a panel of scientists has concluded that some sightings are accompanied by physical evidence that deserves scientific study. But the panel was not convinced that any of this evidence points to a violation of known natural laws or the involvement of an extraterrestrial intelligence.
The review was organized and directed by Peter Sturrock, professor of applied physics at Stanford University, and supported administratively by the Society for Scientific Exploration, which provides a forum for research into unexplained phenomena. The international review panel of nine physical scientists responded to presentations by eight investigators of UFO reports, who were asked to present their strongest data. Von R. Eshleman, professor emeritus of electrical engineering at Stanford, co-chaired the panel.
Although UFO reports date back 50 years, the information gathered does not prove that either unknown physical processes or alien technologies are implicated. But it does include a sufficient number of intriguing and inexplicable observations, the panel concluded. "It may be valuable to carefully evaluate UFO reports to extract information about unusual phenomena currently unknown to science." To be credible to the scientific community "such evaluations must take place with a spirit of objectivity and a willingness to evaluate rival hypotheses" that has so far been lacking, it added.
This conclusion differs from that reached by Dr. Edward U. Condon, director of the Colorado Project, in his 1968 UFO report. He concluded that "further extensive study of UFOs probably cannot be justified in the expectation that science will be advanced thereby." It is very similar, however, to the conclusion reached by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics' Kuettner Report issued two years later, which advocated "a continuing, moderate-level [research] effort with emphasis on improved data collection by objective means and on high-quality scientific analysis."
In the current study, the scientific panel focused on incidents involving some form of physical evidence, including photographic evidence, radar evidence, vehicle interference, interference with aircraft equipment, apparent gravitational or inertial effects, ground traces, injuries to vegetation, physiological effects on witnesses, and debris. Of particular concern are reports that UFO encounters may be hazardous to people's health. Some witnesses have reportedly suffered radiation-type injuries. These reports led the panel to draw the attention of the medical community to the possible health risks involved.
The scientists found that some of the reported incidents may have been caused by rare natural phenomena, such as electrical activity high above thunderstorms or radar ducting (the trapping and conducting of radar waves by atmospheric channels). However, the panel found that some of the phenomena related to UFOs are not easy to explain in this fashion.
Further analysis of the evidence presented to the panel is unlikely to shed added light on the causes underlying the reports, the scientists said. Most current UFO investigations lack the level of rigor required by the scientific community, despite the initiative and dedication of the investigators involved. But new data, scientifically acquired and analyzed, could yield useful information and advnce our understanding of the UFO problem, the panel said.
The reviewers also made the following observations:
The UFO problem is not a simple one, and it is unlikely that there is any simple, universal answer.
Whenever there are unexplained observations, there is the possibility that scientists will learn something new by studying them.
Studies should concentrate on cases that include as much independent physical evidence as possible.
Continuing contact between the UFO community and physical scientists could be productive.
Institutional support for research in this area is desirable.
The review panel consisted of Von Eshleman; Thomas Holzer, High Altitude Observatory in Boulder, Colo.; Randy Jokipii, professor of planetary science, University of Arizona, Tucson; Francois Louange, managing director of Fleximage, Paris, France; H. J. Melosh, professor of planetary science, University of Arizona, Tucson; James J. Papike, professor of earth and planetary sciences, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque; Guenther Reitz, German Aerospace Center, Institute for Aerospace Medicine, Cologne, Germany; Charles Tolbert, professor of astronomy, University of Virginia, Charlottesville; and Bernard Veyret, Bioelectromagnetics Laboratory, University of Bordeaux, France. Eshleman and Holzer served as co-chairs of the panel.
The UFO investigators who presented evidence were Richard Haines, Los Altos, Calif.; Illobrand von Ludwiger, Germany; Mark Rodeghier, Center for UFO Studies, Chicago; John Schuessler, Houston; Erling Strand, Ostfold College, Skjeberg, Norway; Michael Swords, professor of natural science, Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo; Jacques Vallee, San Francisco; and Jean-Jacques Velasco, CNES, Toulouse, France.
The study was initiated by Laurance S. Rockefeller and supported financially by the LSR Fund.