This organization (A&S Research), working together with scientific groups such as N.I.D.S. and other scientists worldwide has set forth to compile and analyze physical evidence relating to various areas of Phenomenology. In the course of doing so, we were exposed to the aforementioned case approximately eight years ago. A& S Research has determined that this case represents the greatest abundance of physical evidence of any like case on record.
Example of physical evidence yet to undergo examination:
1. Anomalous magnetic or electromagnetic phenomena involving the encounter site.
2. Soil taken from the front yard involving landing traces.
3. Powdery substances covering a wristwatch.
4. Samples of fluorescence taken from the walls of the closet and bedroom.
5. Footprint castings.
6. Anomalous video footage.
Future studies involve:
1. Wound analysis of body marks as well as physiological testing and blood analysis.
2. Analysis of the ambient background involving temperature fluctuations, electromagnetic anomalies, and light and sound affects.
3. Infared photography.
In actuality, the “Claw” is only one portion of this totality currently under investigation. The “Claw” was given priority because of the importance of possibly finding nonterrestial DNA. It is the opinion of A& S Research that the results of this most comprehensive DNA investigation does not contribute to either the strength or weakness of possible extraterrestrial involvement in the case. It is also our opinion this intensive and expensive scientific investigation serve as an example of how academic science can be mated with Phenomenology to produce clear cut acceptable results. These results can then be subjected to the normal peer review processes with publication in scientific literature. It should also serve to illustrate why the current standard of research in numerous areas of Phenomenology lacks veracity and acceptance. What good does it do to make claims based on opinion and then publicize them through the media to the general public without subjecting these claims to scientific methodology? We believe this to be foolish and serving to no one.
Stay in touch with the conversation, subscribe to the RSS feed for comments on this post.