MUFON, a solution?

[Greers Meeting Planner]

Lots of shows recently touching on Mufon and their various shortcomings e.g. lack of progress over the years to identify the reality of UFOs and secret space program fantasies.

The lack of MUFON progress issue, for me, is intrinsically linked to the lack of progress of the whole field when it comes to identiftying the UFO reality, Gene frequently likes to remind us that the prevailing narratives now have not moved on significantly from Keyhoe in the 50's.

The problem: Anecdotes

If we want to advance the study of aerial phenomena as a physical phenomena, we need to treat it like any other physical phenomena in how it is studied. This requires instrumented data.

Example, when black holes were theorized by physicists they would not have been accepted as part of empirical reality without the data from instruments to back it up. We could have had 10 or 100 people say they have seen them and these people could have been hugely credentialed and qualified witnesses but if it was just sighting anecdotes and without data they would still be theoretical and rumoured to be true but not quite yet part of the textbooks.

Same goes for any other physical discoveries, imagine if quantum scientists said they had seen evidence of quarks but could not present the data from instruments to record the measurements, they would still be a theoretical partical.

And in the case of the military policeman or pilot who reported a UFO its no different, as credible as it is, it's almost useless in the realm of scientific study with the aim being a consensus understanding of a phenomenon and it's physical make up.

This is why UFOlogoy is not getting off the first base because the evidence base is by en large anecdotal. And anecdotal evidence will not pass for a scientific reality, forget the conspiracy, you need instrumented data to allow for pier review and critical analysis of theorem.

So the solution, a new ufo research group:

The aim of this theoretical group would be to advance the scientific study of aerial phenomena by collecting data from instruments.

R.A.P.I.D.

Research of Aerial Phenomena using Instrumented Data.

What would they do:

- Act as a global repository for any UFO data collected from scientific instruments

- Ban on consideration of any anecdotal data, unless to add context/commentary to data collected from instruments (whoopee we have just eliminated disinformation, hoaxes and charlatans from the field!)

- Seek council from academics and scientists on how to collect the data in a way which would in the future be considered viable for pier review, and disseminate these collection guidelines to members

- with the help of academics and scientists, build a database that could accept data from any instrumented research project submitted so it could be added to the wider research pool and used for macro data and trend/pattern analysis

- research cost effective and practical, instrumented data experiments that new members could seek to carry out in local groups and help to educate and train

- of course it would all be non profit, with global access on line

So, ok it may not be perfect but it has to be better than more collection of anecdotes.

Keep doing the same thing, expect different results etc.

Welcome your thoughts, builds, criticisms!

 

[Randall]

It sounds positive and constructive and that's good enough for me to encourage anyone to do it! Chris' SLV project would fit right in.

On another level, I think that the instrumented data approach doesn't have to be the only one. One could even argue that using instruments is as old as the Keyhoe era and it hasn't produced any definitive results either. At least not ones we know about. However what we do know is that firsthand experience has provided results that are definitive to the experiencer. Therefore there is already a sizeable cross-section of the population who already knows alien visitation is a reality. So do we really need video or FLIRs or RADARs or governments or skeptics to tell us?

In my mind the question of the reality of UFOs is long over and the real questions are things like: Are they biological or technological or some combination of both? Do they possess consciousness? Where are they from? How did they evolve? ( Where do they think they came from? ) How does their tech work? To advanced our real knowledge we need verifiable communication and/or scientifically valid material evidence. It's doubtful that instrumented data is going to provide answers to those questions, that is unless SETI or the Mars rover or some other space probe uncovers alien life or technology out there someplace.

 

[Greers Meeting Planner]

The instrumented data would serve to prove scientifically that there is a phenomena e.g. it has been observed and recorded, it has physical properties within a set of parameters and (roll time forward) that they have been recorded in sufficient numbers to be considered significant enough to be statistically compelling.

It could also add some big data benefits if part of a database that may tell us (presuming they exist) where and when they are likely to turn up further enhancing chance of study and understanding

 

[Randall]

The instrumented data would serve to prove scientifically that there is a phenomena e.g. it has been observed and recorded, it has physical properties within a set of parameters and (roll time forward) that they have been recorded in sufficient numbers to be considered significant enough to be statistically compelling.

That's already been done by the Battelle Memorial Institute study ( Briefly described here ) and that just resulted in a state of denial over its own findings. If you've ever engaged in a debate with skeptics over evidence gained by instrumented data, you'll understand how, unless it's the kind of exceptions mentioned earlier, it simply won't convince them, and even if it came from a source like a Mars rover or space probe, there would still be denial. There are people who don't believe we've been to the Moon.

So although IMO it's not a bad idea to try something constructive in the way of evidence gathering, I also think it's not necessary in order to answer the fundamental question of the reality of alien craft. It would be smarter to move past that question rather than waste more time and effort on it. The problem is: Then what?

It could also add some big data benefits if part of a database that may tell us (presuming they exist) ...

If you think you need more evidence than you've already got to prove to yourself that alien craft have been seen by people, and you're into going out and getting it, by all means do so. Just looking up at the sky more often can increase your chances. If you've got a camera too and you're lucky enough to get some video that's cool too.

BTW: Here's a UFO sightings map: Map of UFO Sightings - Metrocosm

... where and when they are likely to turn up further enhancing chance of study and understanding.

Perhaps as you suggest, if someone like Chris' SLV project were to capture something on video that indicates a craft landed someplace off in the hills, then investigators might be able to go there and have a closer look and maybe even find some physical evidence to work with. So don't get me wrong, it's all very positive.

I've just gotten to the point where ( for me personally ) chasing UFOs and trying to convince the skeptics is a waste of time and effort. If whatever is behind the operation of the craft wanted us to have the kind of proof scientists and skeptics need, then we'd have it by now. We don't, so the aliens are playing another game, and personally I think we need another approach, like stop chasing them, stop wasting time trying to convince non-believers, and stop taking their bait and behaving like rats in a maze. We need to somehow think our way through it instead.

That doesn't mean I have the answers on exactly how to do that. I'm just another rat in the maze along with everybody else in the rat race. The only advantage I've deluded myself into thinking I have, is that I've been in here long enough to know I'm in one ( take that aliens ) !

 

[Jeff Crowell]

I don't mean to poo all over this discussion, but having looked into both the UFO and paranormal phenomena I've heard all of this before. "Let's do a new group...start fresh and do things 'right'." Six months later no one's heard of the group. They typically fold for lack of funding (any paranormal or UFO group is a money pit), or politics. I'd say normally it's politics.

The fact of the matter is I've heard all the rhetoric in this posting before. Several times. In fact I'd say that the UFO groups of the 50's and 60's were straight up in line with the instrumental gathering of facts and data, and providing something along the lines of a definitive evidence string along with genuine proof of the UFO phenomenon. It didn't work so well for those groups back then and I believe it's a pipe dream now, but hey, who am I to stop someone from trying. It rarely harms the field to have another UFO group out there, especially one who's edicts fall in line with 'scientific' thinking and premise. It could be also argued that with today's technology such an aligned UFO group would be more effective with more advanced tools and software to bang up against the phenomenon. Of course it could also be argued that with today's technology it is overwhelmingly more easy to fake such phenomenon, too.

I think it would take massive funding to do. You need a budget like Mr. Skinwalker Ranch, and good luck getting that kind of start-up revenue. Still, God-speed to anybody willing to take up the mantel of creating a "more serious, more scientific" UFO group. Sometimes naiveté' breeds invention on a scale no one else has thought of before. Besides, as I'm about to post separately, MUFON may be suffering some unrecoverable organizational turmoil, so there may be a vacuum opening in the realm of UFO research that can be filled here, soon.

Peace.

J.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

I don't mean to poo all over this discussion, but having looked into both the UFO and paranormal phenomena I've heard all of this before. "Let's do a new group...start fresh and do things 'right'."

Which is, by the way, how MUFON began. It's still here for better or worse.

 

[Jeff Crowell]

Which is, by the way, how MUFON began. It's still here for better or worse.

True.....but please read my latest post, sent just a few moments ago. Will it be here much longer?

 

[Gene Steinberg]

Depends on the size of membership rolls and whether income is increasing. If the business plan is working, it may not matter what we think or whether or not a few higher-ups are bailing.

 

[Greers Meeting Planner]

Some good points, I just want to add a few builds

- groups have failed in the past with a data driven angle, doesn't mean it can't succeed in the future

- it may be different trying again in 2017+ due to the internet allowing for a space to combine efforts across the globe, technology of scientific instruments becoming more accessible and computing power becoming more for less $

- perhaps if this group got up and running it could put some resources into case studying why these efforts have failed in the past and trying to avoid the same fate

I know for some we have enough evidence to accept a UFO reality, but for the scientific community we don't. So this is not about confirming to people who already have enough, it's about how can we advance the scientific study of this thing and learn what we can along the journey in a way that would hold its weight in the scientific community

 

[Jeff Crowell]

Some good points, I just want to add a few builds

- groups have failed in the past with a data driven angle, doesn't mean it can't succeed in the future

- it may be different trying again in 2017+ due to the internet allowing for a space to combine efforts across the globe, technology of scientific instruments becoming more accessible and computing power becoming more for less $

- perhaps if this group got up and running it could put some resources into case studying why these efforts have failed in the past and trying to avoid the same fate

I know for some we have enough evidence to accept a UFO reality, but for the scientific community we don't. So this is not about confirming to people who already have enough, it's about how can we advance the scientific study of this thing and learn what we can along the journey in a way that would hold its weight in the scientific community

All great points.

I'm sure a sufficiently funded initiative with the right people at the helm will go far.

Peace.

J.

 

[Greers Meeting Planner]

I don't mean to poo all over this discussion, but having looked into both the UFO and paranormal phenomena I've heard all of this before. "Let's do a new group...start fresh and do things 'right'." Six months later no one's heard of the group. They typically fold for lack of funding (any paranormal or UFO group is a money pit), or politics. I'd say normally it's politics.

The fact of the matter is I've heard all the rhetoric in this posting before. Several times. In fact I'd say that the UFO groups of the 50's and 60's were straight up in line with the instrumental gathering of facts and data, and providing something along the lines of a definitive evidence string along with genuine proof of the UFO phenomenon. It didn't work so well for those groups back then and I believe it's a pipe dream now, but hey, who am I to stop someone from trying. It rarely harms the field to have another UFO group out there, especially one who's edicts fall in line with 'scientific' thinking and premise. It could be also argued that with today's technology such an aligned UFO group would be more effective with more advanced tools and software to bang up against the phenomenon. Of course it could also be argued that with today's technology it is overwhelmingly more easy to fake such phenomenon, too.

I think it would take massive funding to do. You need a budget like Mr. Skinwalker Ranch, and good luck getting that kind of start-up revenue. Still, God-speed to anybody willing to take up the mantel of creating a "more serious, more scientific" UFO group. Sometimes naiveté' breeds invention on a scale no one else has thought of before. Besides, as I'm about to post separately, MUFON may be suffering some unrecoverable organizational turmoil, so there may be a vacuum opening in the realm of UFO research that can be filled here, soon.

Peace.

J.

If some of the UFO public 'heavyweights' got behind this as a kick starter imagine a Dolan, Friedman, Valez backed initiative.

There is enough money and public interest and spend in the field if it was focussed in the right way

 

[Jeff Crowell]

Depends on the size of membership rolls and whether income is increasing. If the business plan is working, it may not matter what we think or whether or not a few higher-ups are bailing.

True, and my 'source' confirmed that this year's symposium was one of their biggest and more income driven, yet. An organization with fewer people but greater funding can continue for a long time. Look at Scientology, after all. The woo woo and conspiracy-theory speakers and topics cause the most interest and draw the most dollars. After all, who wants to be bored with data and facts when you can be told you live in a world where you're a special 'light being' with the power to fend off the dark reptoids through meditation and calling out Jesus' name?

Sometimes I envy conspiracy theorists. They live in great and exciting worlds.

 

[Jeff Crowell]

If some of the UFO public 'heavyweights' got behind this as a kick starter imagine a Dolan, Friedman, Valez backed initiative.

There is enough money and public interest and spend in the field if it was focussed in the right way

Indeed! You may be on to something here.

 

[Randall]

I don't mean to poo all over this discussion ...

 

[Jeff Crowell]

 

[Randall]

Some good points, I just want to add a few builds

- groups have failed in the past with a data driven angle, doesn't mean it can't succeed in the future

- it may be different trying again in 2017+ due to the internet allowing for a space to combine efforts across the globe, technology of scientific instruments becoming more accessible and computing power becoming more for less $

- perhaps if this group got up and running it could put some resources into case studying why these efforts have failed in the past and trying to avoid the same fate

I know for some we have enough evidence to accept a UFO reality, but for the scientific community we don't. So this is not about confirming to people who already have enough, it's about how can we advance the scientific study of this thing and learn what we can along the journey in a way that would hold its weight in the scientific community

Basically I just think that anyone with a genuine and constructive interest who is doing something is better than doing nothing at all or causing problems. The whole idea behind USI was to unite enough like minded people who could contribute in some small way to a common cause. This would not be expensive on an individual basis at all. It just requires that people do something.

It's not like we don't have a few members out there who are doing something, but if getting anything done requires some sort of huge budget because people aren't motivated enough by their own personal interest, then I see little point in pouring resources into an essentially hollow organization. But even if we could, I'm still very skeptical about the likelihood that it would make much difference.

Whatever the situation with the aliens is, I don't think that throwing bags of cash at it can solve the problem. It's a bigger and more complex problem than that. The exception might be if someone on the inside could be paid-off to smuggle out some verifiable evidence from the inside, but even then what's it going to tell us beyond what we already know that we could actually apply?

Even if the intel says the aliens are from a parallel universe, so what? How are we going to get there? We're not all suddenly going to get a Sliders portal in our garage to play with. And I don't buy the whole repressed technology/secret space program a la aliens fairy tale.

What I think would get the aliens attention is if there was some sort of massively united effort by all those who believe, like if we all decided to build our own city. I don't think they could help but be interested in that. I mean going back to the ant analogy, what if the ants suddenly built an ant pile shaped like a human head. There would be scientists all over it trying to figure out just how that works.

 

[Azz7092]

I really do think that MUFON has hit a brick wall regarding this subject for me anyway, i have had people report sightings to MUFON and they just get sidelined and don't seem that bothered or enthusiastic about any reports at all, I know what most will say that they have probably had enough reports that turn out to be bogus and they cannot be bothered with searching through the Crap but still if you are running a big company you need still have Professionalism and a Approachable attitude i really can see this as what happened before people in small local groups just doing there own investigations and just keeping MUFON in the Loop (Occasionally).

I mean it probably don't help things with that awful show "Hanger One" and then running "Courses" to become an "Investigator" for a stupid price just all seems like a SHAM.

 

[pigfarmer]

I don't mean to poo all over this discussion, but having looked into both the UFO and paranormal phenomena I've heard all of this before. "Let's do a new group...start fresh and do things 'right'." Six months later no one's heard of the group. They typically fold for lack of funding (any paranormal or UFO group is a money pit), or politics. I'd say normally it's politics.
J.

Brand new here and this is literally the first two cents I am throwing in – my contribution the to kickstarter. I couldn’t agree more.

It seems as though Robert Bigelow has already done something very much like this and become a pariah for other groups + researchers and has become a gift to conspiracy theorists. Honestly, if I had that kind of money and set up a research organization on my own I might do the same thing.I think in his book John Alexander referred to the field in general as 'cannibalistic' and in general he has the right of it.

One of the reasons I joined this forum is because I really wanted to say that the vast majority of ‘ufology’ is entertainment and social discourse, not research. I belong to other forums on topics that are very concrete and technical and their subjects are literally real and readily available, yet in a group of more than a handful fellow enthusiasts there are always disagreements - and can turn unpleasant. Let too many dogs into a room and there's bound to be a fight. I usually just say ‘Gay ga zinta hate’ but there are those who simply have to try and proselytize.

No idea what a solution to this is – but again, I’m new here and really wanted to say that.

 

[Randall]

Brand new here and this is literally the first two cents I am throwing in – my contribution the to kickstarter. I couldn’t agree more.

It seems as though Robert Bigelow has already done something very much like this and become a pariah for other groups + researchers and has become a gift to conspiracy theorists. Honestly, if I had that kind of money and set up a research organization on my own I might do the same thing.I think in his book John Alexander referred to the field in general as 'cannibalistic' and in general he has the right of it.

One of the reasons I joined this forum is because I really wanted to say that the vast majority of ‘ufology’ is entertainment and social discourse, not research. I belong to other forums on topics that are very concrete and technical and their subjects are literally real and readily available, yet in a group of more than a handful fellow enthusiasts there are always disagreements - and can turn unpleasant. Let too many dogs into a room and there's bound to be a fight. I usually just say ‘Gay ga zinta hate’ but there are those who simply have to try and proselytize.

No idea what a solution to this is – but again, I’m new here and really wanted to say that.

Welcome to the forum! Are you a part of the other tech forums because you have some technical expertise in some area?

 

[SheaOlmsford]

I support any serious investigation of the phenomenon. I look forward to being shown examples of this approach. To me, it seems that most of the information on UFOs is anecdotal. You can't reproduce the phenomenon at will, or study it as you would a celestial body like a quark. It won't stand still long enough! So do we go back to testing soil samples or indents in the ground? Hasn't that been done for decades? Do we check for radioactivity? Do we rent a planetary system of spy satellites to track movement of objects in ways that conventional aircraft cannot do? I am curious what a 21st century approach would be that differs from Keyhoe's time and early MUFON. We already have examples of spots where nothing will grow for decades after 1 landing of a UFO. For that matter, we have proof that some crop circles contain very odd cellular changes to the wheat. Such data does exist, but no one in the mainstream wants to acknowledge it. Even with a marble library full of scientific results, how do you get the mainstream to care when it intentionally seeks to not care? Even if you were to publish in the most prestigious scientific journals, I would expect the result to be a big thud. A few scientists may become excited, but I just suspect that the majority would mumble something about contaminated results (with a joking comparison to Intelligent Design science). When is Science not Science? When no one wants to believe the results.

And as an aside, as long as ufology pivots in the direction of Corey Goode, Secret Space Program "whistleblowers" and the New Age antics of Exopolitics, then the mainstream will feel justified to just throw the entire subject into the toilet.