More Serious UFO Reporting

[Atticus11]

You want a scientific example?

About | tangledfields

Where did she get her undergraduate degree?

she claims to have a degree from Johns Hopkins University

Lucianne Walkowicz Keynote Speaker Bio - KEYNOTES.ORG

What was it in?

She has provided enough information that, should she advance an extremely unusual claim that goes against mainstream science and uses anonymous sources and YouTube videos, I now have the ability to check the statuses of her degrees using the National Student Clearinghouse, and also to verify the rest of her biographical details. If, like Richard Sauder, she intentionally omitted the institutions where she claimed she received her degrees, I would not have that ability. Sauder has made himself "Imbrognoing-proof." (I'm not saying he has anything he's hiding, just that - if he were - he's protected himself from being outed like Imbrogno was by making verification impossible.)

Did you have another point you were trying to make or was that all?

 

[Frank Stalter]

she claims to have a degree from Johns Hopkins University

Lucianne Walkowicz Keynote Speaker Bio - KEYNOTES.ORG



She has provided enough information that, should she advance an extremely unusual claim that goes against mainstream science and uses anonymous sources and YouTube videos, I now have the ability to check the statuses of her degrees using the National Student Clearinghouse, and also to verify the rest of her biographical details. If, like Richard Sauder, she intentionally omitted the institutions where she claimed she received her degrees, I would not have that ability. Sauder has made himself "Imbrognoing-proof." (I'm not saying he has anything he's hiding, just that - if he were - he's protected himself from being outed like Imbrogno was by making verification impossible.)

Did you have another point you were trying to make or was that all?

The gaps! What about the gaps? That's highly suspicious don't you think?

You should investigate Sauder . . . he's clearly one of the most well-known and respected UFO researchers out there. Proving he lied about his credentials would prove to be a feather in your cap! Everyone will be shocked and the entire UFO research community will be discredited because you brought down the king of the pseudoscientific hill . . . . Richard Sauder . . . . if that's even his real name!

 

[mike]

Richard has had a very rough trot lately.

Got beaten up to the point he spent a long time in hospital, and when he asked people for help via paypal, they froze his account
Event Horizon Chronicle

In a follow-up e-mail yesterday here is what PayPal sent me:

Dear James Sauder,

We emailed you a little while ago to ask for your help resolving an issue
with your PayPal account. Your account is still temporarily limited because
we haven't heard from you.

You may be onto something re his real name...........

 

[Randall]

OK ... OK ... we get the point that "More Serious UFO Reporting" should include the work of ufologists with a track record of a genuine and constructive interest combined with evidence that can be verified. Fair enough. Are there any suggestions on how we can make some progress in that regard? There have been attempts at UFO Watchdog type websites. But they have not been very successful. My effort has been to start a dues free interest group in which every member has voluntarily declared that they have a genuine and constructive interest in the UFO phenomenon, and I operate a website that IMO represents a conservative and responsible approach to ufology. The Paracast is an excellent forum where views from all sides are discussed with minimal flaming and personal attacks. Some of us are really making an effort in our own way to make a difference. Anyone who wants to submit serious articles is encouraged to contact me either here or on the USI website and we'll get your articles posted on a serious ufology website dedicated to that effort.

@Atticus11

You're invited to start submitting researched bios on ufology personalities. They will be indexed and linked to relevant articles within the website.

Examples:

• Richard Hall
• J. Allen Hynek
• Carl Sagan
• Edward J. Ruppelt
• Jacques Vallée

 

[Atticus11]

You should investigate Sauder

I can't. As I've said four times now he's made himself "Imbrogno-proof" through obfuscation and vagary, just like many noted ufologists. Please try to keep up. Thank you.

[for point of ongoing clarification, I'm not accusing him of anything, only saying he has made verification of the details he's using to market his books through promotion of respectability (e.g. claims of various advanced degrees) impossible]

 

[Atticus11]

Richard has had a very rough trot lately.

Got beaten up to the point he spent a long time in hospital, and when he asked people for help via paypal, they froze his account
Event Horizon Chronicle



You may be onto something re his real name...........

LOL at this ...

I have been forced to retain expensive legal counsel to defend my personal interests, including life and limb. I have filed criminal complaints. In the course of all of this I have incurred thousands of dollars of medical expenses and legal fees.

... this type of bizarre drama queening is so typical of ufologists. Ufology attracts a semi-lucid personality and the best of them keep the craziness under wraps but, occasionally, it bubbles to the surface.

Remember, this is the drama queen to whom Richard Dolan has attached his name as the author of book forewords; in fact, the person, who Richard Dolan publishes.

Ufology is a circus of misfits, roleplaying gamers, charlatans and shut-ins ... a few of them know how to tie a necktie and not drool at dinner; those few are lifted on ivory pedestal and feted as respected researchers. The laughs never end - this is why I love ufology!

 

[Atticus11]

@Atticus11
You're invited to start submitting researched bios on ufology personalities. They will be indexed and linked to relevant articles within the website.

That sounds like a good and worthwhile endeavor; your website looks nice and I wish you the best. However, I can't accept Ufology as a "phenomenon" anymore than I could accept Amway selling as a phenomenon. Ufology is a confidence game, or low-level huckstering scheme, that viciously preys on society's feeble-minded and lesser-educated.

That point aside, however, I think you have a great idea and I look forward to keeping up with your site as it sounds like it has the potential to be a great resource.

 

[Randall]

... a few of them know how to tie a necktie and not drool at dinner ...

Speaking of not drooling at dinner ... is that avatar actually you? What exactly is it that's on the plate there?

And how about getting on board with the bios there? Such info should stand on its own regardless of the nature of the subject matter. While we're at it we could develop some kind of rating system.

 

[Frank Stalter]

I can't. As I've said four times now he's made himself "Imbrogno-proof" through obfuscation and vagary, just like many noted ufologists. Please try to keep up. Thank you.

[for point of ongoing clarification, I'm not accusing him of anything, only saying he has made verification of the details he's using to market his books through promotion of respectability (e.g. claims of various advanced degrees) impossible]

If you're that concerned about Richard Sauder, why don't you contact him directly and ask like a real investigator would? Or contact Dolan about the author he profiles on his website. You could call Dolan directly and ambush him live on his own podcast! Why don't you do that? Oh and why don't you reveal your real name and your professional and educational background? I've asked multiple times but you keep ignoring it.

You're being lapped but you're just too ignorant to realize it.

 

[Randall]

... I can't accept Ufology as a "phenomenon" anymore than I could accept Amway selling as a phenomenon. Ufology is a confidence game, or low-level huckstering scheme, that viciously preys on society's feeble-minded and lesser-educated.

It's both unfair and inaccurate to characterize the entire field in such a captious manner. I don't know what happened to you to put into such a negative headspace, but I wish there was something I could do to help you snap out of it. The truth is that alien craft are seen and/or tracked in the sky by skilled and educated people. It is also completely accurate to describe these collective incidents as a phenomenon. There are also plenty of people who are interested in ufology who do not fall into the "lesser educated category", and not all of them "prey on the feeble minded". Last but not least, although I won't deny that there are examples of the kinds of problems you mention, ufology is certainly not unique in that regard. I've already pointed out hundreds examples of fraud in the hard sciences, particularly medicine. The financial sector certainly has nothing to brag about. Politics is far from perfect, and there's a reason why there are so many lawyer jokes. You can apply your cynicism to virtually every aspect of human endeavor. So why pick on ufology? What satisfaction do you get from that exercise? Your interest may be genuine, but your constructiveness is questionable. If you're going to be critical then also be prepared to do something positive about it.

 

[exo_doc]

However, I can't accept Ufology as a "phenomenon" anymore than I could accept Amway selling as a phenomenon. Ufology is a confidence game, or low-level huckstering scheme, that viciously preys on society's feeble-minded and lesser-educated.

Arrrggghhh! Arrrgghhh! Turning green...shirt ripping......pants miraculously stretching.....Hulk Smash!

Much as it irks me to say, you do have a valid point there.
SOME.....SOME ufology is like that.......actually really thinking about it, I guess more than 50% is or could be that way.
Michael Salla, Dan Burisch, Col Kal Korf, Jonathon Reed, Dr Stephen Greer, the Raliens, and other UFO cults..........yeah there is a lot of bull$&it in ufology.
But not all of it. I mean look at Stanton Friedman, Robert Hastings, Patrick Harpur, Christopher O´Brien, Clas Svahn, Richard Sarradet, Greg Bishop, Leslie Kean, Peter Robbins, George Knapp, Nick Redfern, Jaques Vallee, Kevin Randle, Don Ecker......and the list goes on and on of good and serious investigators.
Don't just blanket blast ufology, it's not all crap.

BTW....I totally stole all those names from other threads.

 

[Christopher O'Brien]

If you're that concerned about Richard Sauder, why don't you contact him directly and ask like a real investigator would? Or contact Dolan about the author he profiles on his website. You could call Dolan directly and ambush him live on his own podcast! Why don't you do that? Oh and why don't you reveal your real name and your professional and educational background? I've asked multiple times but you keep ignoring it. You're being lapped but you're just too ignorant to realize it.

That's the problem w/ these anonymous avatar-types. They are emboldened to relate to others in a way they would never relate if they were public. It's so easy to sit back, criticize others when you sit on your cute, anonymous backside and take pot-shots at subjects, people, entire field's of study from the safety of your armchair. There are many in this morass of a field called ufology that are sincerely attempting to do good, solid work. Too bad the trolls, detractors and naysayers are too lazy or afraid to go out and do the work for themselves. Its so much easier to just criticize.

 

[Wade]

I have to go along with exo on this one. yes the field does attract it's share of flakes and those of questionable reasoning but you can say the same thing about religion and alternative energy and any other field that attracts a passionate audience. but I'm not inclined to dismiss Gautama Buddah or Mohandus Gandhi as a gamer a charlatan or shut in because they were involved in an endeavor that has its fair share of them.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

That's the problem w/ these anonymous avatar-types. They are emboldened to relate to others in a way they would never relate if they were public. It's so easy to sit back, criticize others when you sit on your cute, anonymous backside and take pot-shots at subjects, people, entire field's of study from the safety of your armchair. There are many in this morass of a field called ufology that are sincerely attempting to do good, solid work. Too bad the trolls, detractors and naysayers are too lazy or afraid to go out and do the work for themselves. Its so much easier to just criticize.

Chris, you always fall back on that "too lazy or afraid to go out and do the work for themselves" rhetoric. Many of us that are interested in this have other things to take care of. Does this mean no one can comment on anything ever unless they are part of it as well? Sorry, but that just doesn't work.

 

[Randall]

@Christopher O'Brien
@Angel of loren

We're all free to comment, and both of your comments are perfectly valid. The question is which attitude deserves the most respect; the one that is simply critical, or the one that sees the problem and does something about it? In many cases participating requires the same amount of energy or less than simply being critical. It's fairly obvious that writing up a short bio would be equivalent to making a few posts here on the forum, so the issue of time isn't a relevant factor here. So now it's time for Atticus to either do something constructive or find himself deserving the kind of reputation Chris describes, it's just that simple.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

@Christopher O'Brien
@Angel of loren

We're all free to comment, and both of your comments are perfectly valid. The question is which attitude deserves the most respect; the one that is simply critical, or the one that sees the problem and does something about it? In many cases participating requires the same amount of energy or less than simply being critical. It's fairly obvious that writing up one short bio as I've suggested would be equivalent to making a few posts here on the forum, so the issue of time is no longer relevant in this particular case. Now it's time to either do something constructive or deserve the kind of reputation Chris describes, it's just that simple.

I understand your point Ufology, but those of us that have an interest in this topic are still allowed to comment, regardless of our investigative credentials. What's frustrating is how Chris belittles those of us that are not "ufologists." I'm critical of much of the claims of many people in this field, but I am also interested in what they have to day.
Chris just need to be less of a bully to people that are critical of his claims and those of Stanford. The way he reacted was rude and uncalled-for.

 

[Randall]

I understand your point Ufology, but those of us that have an interest in this topic are still allowed to comment, regardless of our investigative credentials. What's frustrating is how Chris belittles those of us that are not "ufologists." I'm critical of much of the claims of many people in this field, but I am also interested in what they have to day.
Chris just need to be less of a bully to people that are critical of his claims and those of Stanford. The way he reacted was rude and uncalled-for.

Chris and I haven't always had frictionless exchanges either, and I empathize. On the other hand, although Chris can be a bit reactive sometimes, calling him a bully isn't a fair characterization. In fact it's a serious accusation these days. I'm confident Chris feels the same frustration we all do about not being able to disclose Ray's evidence, and adding to that frustration by baiting him ( as he says ), whether intentionally or otherwise only adds to it, and over time the constant drip ... drip ... drip could lead almost anyone to express that frustration in a less than diplomatic manner. From Chris' perspective, that kind of pressure could be interpreted as it's own passive-aggressive psychological bullying. Personally, I wish that you two would both agree to go back and delete ( or amend ) those posts and try to engage with a fresh perspective.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

Chris and I haven't always had frictionless exchanges either, and I empathize. On the other hand, although Chris can be a bit reactive sometimes, calling him a bully isn't a fair characterization. In fact it's a serious accusation these days. I'm confident Chris feels the same frustration we all do about not be able to disclose Ray's evidence and adding to that frustration by baiting him ( as he says ), whether intentionally or otherwise only adds to it, and over time the constant drip ... drip ... drip could lead almost anyone to express that frustration in a less than diplomatic manner. From Chris' perspective, that kind of thing could be interpreted as it's own passive-aggressive psychological bullying. Personally, I wish that you would both go back and delete those posts and try to engage with a fresh perspective.

Thanks for your thoughts on this Ufology - I wanted to thank you via PM, but I can't start a conversation with you for some reason.

 

[Wade]

@Christopher O'Brien
@Angel of loren

We're all free to comment, and both of your comments are perfectly valid. The question is which attitude deserves the most respect; the one that is simply critical, or the one that sees the problem and does something about it? In many cases participating requires the same amount of energy or less than simply being critical. It's fairly obvious that writing up a short bio would be equivalent to making a few posts here on the forum, so the issue of time isn't a relevant factor here. So now it's time for Atticus to either do something constructive or find himself deserving the kind of reputation Chris describes, it's just that simple.

Nicely Put Randall.

 

[Wade]

You could say that I'm hiding behind an avatar and false name and I'm certainly more open to this phenomena and therefore more palatable to this forum but that certainly doesn't make me any more right than any nay-Sayers and I'm even less an investigator than Angelo. But I do try to avoid such absolutist statements that atticus11 made. that should be where we make our distinctions here, not whether we are armchair investigators or hiding behind a false identity.that gives the illusion of anonymity.

fwiw I've used my real name, shown my email address including correspondence AND my image in this forum so perhaps I am not so opaque after all