November 26, 2017 — Susan Demeter-Sr. Clair with J. Randall Murphy

[Christopher O'Brien]

If MUFON could pull their heads out of their arses for five minutes, they'd 1.) fund both of your projects quickly and generously, and connect you with first-rate scientists and technicians to optimize/maximize your system capabilities, and 2.) promote the crap out of those projects to inspire new memberships, and secure donations and widespread publicity for years to come. Because they claim to exist for the purpose of advancing scientific investigation into ufos, but you're the only person on the planet actually doing it.

Don't forget, MUFON did throw in $360 and funneled $4000 from a wealthy contributor thru their 501C, so I am grateful they have some participation in the project. We have them to thank indirectly for the detect motion/record-on-motion software development process. And we now have a workable final product as a result...

 

[Thomas R Morrison]

Don't forget, MUFON did throw in $360 and funneled $4000 from a wealthy contributor thru their 501C, so I am grateful they have some participation in the project. We have them to thank indirectly for the detect motion/record-on-motion software development process. And we now have a workable final product as a result...

I wasn't aware of that $4K contribution - that's certainly a step in the right direction.

But I still think they're missing a rare and unique opportunity to fully embrace your projects and do everything that they can to help you out. Imagine the credibility and the press exposure they'd enjoy by assigning a task force and an operating budget to help you get the data flowing, and to make sure that the best scientists could analyze it. With genuine scientific data to work with, the results could be published in peer-reviewed academic journals, and suddenly ufo research would be a valid direction for scientific research. And with the high level of controversy inherent with this subject, buttressed by the hard empirical data, work in this area could spread like wildfire as competing groups of researchers fought for the prize of a full phenomenological explanation of the data. But even on a more mundane note, surely they can see that a television special about your work and the data that you collect, with MUFON right there by your side, would be a massive media spectacle that millions of people around the world would love to see. If I saw MUFON fully sponsoring and promoting real scientific research like this, I'd be eager to join, and I bet tons of people would feel the same way. They're fools if they can't see this.

 

[Christopher O'Brien]

I couldn't agree more!

 

[Burnt State]

I’m deeply conflicted about this episode actually: on one hand, Susan is a compelling and engaging conversationalist, but on the other hand, I found the logical foundation for many of her positions to be fraught with errors, which I described in detail in this thread: Reframing the Debate: A Path Forward or Backward?

Perhaps the most frustrating part of this interview was this: she’s had three quite close multiple-witness sightings of solid structured craft, but somehow she’s changed her mind about it, and now she questions if they were solid tangible craft after all. And her reasons for this change in perspective made no sense to me.

And as I pointed out in the new thread about the “Reframing the Debate” perspective, I think that her assertion that the “physical craft interpretation” is merely a hypothesis that can’t be verified without studying one of these things in the lab, is not defensible – we’ve explained all kinds of atmospheric and celestial observations (black holes, for example) without studying one in the lab. And we have radar returns and physical trace evidence - both of which comprise valid scientific evidence (I daresay "proof") in favor of the solid physical craft interpretation.

The truth is, it doesn’t matter how far away an object is – on the lab bench, or 5 billion light-years away. What matters is having the right technical apparatus to collect precision observational data about the object of study. Which is why projects like Chris’ portable ufo observatory are so crucial – that’s the only way to advance our understanding of this phenomenon (or phenomena, as the case may be). “New ideas” are fun and interesting to discuss, but they don’t resolve observational mysteries – only scientific data and analysis can do that. Which is one of the primary reasons that I object to the entire premise of “reframing the debate” – it’s not about asking the right and/or different questions; it’s about making precise and varied scientific observations of an event at the time it’s happening… and until we do that, our wheels will be spinning in the mud forever, no matter how many alternative ideas/explanations/hypotheses we come up with.

How on Earth do you make scientific observations of nonreproducible events? Even the original sighting gets doubted. Even radar gets re-examined to determine what else could the the cause. Isn't the logical thing to do is ask more questions, ask different questions, use other available resources etc. to see what else can be learned?

 

[Thomas R Morrison]

How on Earth do you make scientific observations of nonreproducible events?

As I’ve just been discussing with Chris in the previous posts in this thread: his two projects are the ideal methodology for collecting data on sighting phenomena, barring access to advanced military hardware or some major national effort like a crowdfunded passive radar network spanning from coast to coast.

Scientists study non-reproducible phenomena all the time, and very effectively. The recent gravitational wave detections are an excellent contemporary example – we’re now collecting gravitational wave data from random black hole / neutron star collisions halfway across the observable universe; and by studying those wave signals we’ll gain insight into the physics of black hole dynamics happening inside of the event horizon. Previously, we’ve studied novas and supernovas, which also happen at random times and places all over the universe. And many phenomena that we now understand with surgical precision, are not reproducible – tornadoes, volcanoes, rainbows, coronal mass ejecta and solar flares, rogue waves, evolution, planetary formation, the Big Bang – the list goes on and on.

All that’s required for the study of an observed phenomenon is 1.) that it happens on occasion, and B.) when it does, we have the technology to collect data about it. That’s it. A phenomenon that happens fairly frequently and right here in the thin atmospheric envelope of the Earth would be fairly easy to study, if we dedicated the appropriate resources to it. I’ve already described the kinds of resources that we’d need – the raw data from the military radar surveillance network, or even better - a national passive radar system (which would be very inexpensive to create and deploy, relatively speaking), rapid-response jet interceptors armed with gun cameras and other types of scientific recording equipment, access to the satellite surveillance networks, and systems like the ones that Chris is about to deploy: hi-rez digital video cameras in hotspot areas and mobile observatories that can be taken to sighting areas. Time and time again, science has proven that we can understand anything that we focus our minds and our technology upon.

Even the original sighting gets doubted.

That will be irrelevant when we start collecting scientific data on sighting events. Data doesn’t change its mind and tell you “I saw a solid metallic object levitating in the sky and then depart faster than my eye could follow” one day, and then awhile later say “well I doubt that now; maybe it was some kind of paranormal event like seeing a ghost.” Scientific data is consistent and reliable, unlike witness testimony.

Even radar gets re-examined to determine what else could the the cause.

That’s a good thing – that’s part of the scientific process: looking for and quantifying any errors in the data. But so far, I’ve never heard of a single radar tower discovering an equipment failure that resulted in a ufo sighting confirmation. Why? Because air traffic control radar towers are supremely reliable systems – people’s lives depend on them every day; if they displayed phantom signals in the heavily trafficked airspace of the modern world, accidents would occur and people would die.

Isn't the logical thing to do is ask more questions, ask different questions, use other available resources etc. to see what else can be learned?

Shall we return to the days of the ancient Greeks and just sit around talking out the mysteries of the cosmos until we arrive at aesthetically and philosophically appealing explanations, you mean?

No – that’s not how we make progress. Asking the question is only the first step, for example, “what are these anomalous ufos that defy gravity and accelerate faster than a bullet?” You don’t then say “I don’t like that question anymore, let’s rephrase it a few million times until we really understand what’s going on.”

The next step is a scientific investigation – the empirical method, which birthed the Enlightenment and the entire scientific/technological era. A team of capable researchers is assembled, equipment is designed and built and then deployed to make the necessary high-precision recorded observations. That data is then analyzed until a phenomenological explanation arises that explains the events in question. But that process has never happened in 70 years of ufology, which is why we’re stuck in quicksand, still debating whether what we’re witnessing is exactly what it appears to be – highly advanced devices navigating our airspace and apparently sometimes even landing...or if we’re all having some kind of unprecedented mass hallucination induced by unseen mind-controlling entities that we can neither name nor explain in any comprehensible manner.

Questions are great – they’re a starting point. But they’re worthless without the next step: a dedicated scientific investigation employing our best minds and technology to record and analyze the phenomenon in question.

 

[Christopher O'Brien]

As I’ve just been discussing with Chris in the previous posts in this thread: his two projects are the ideal methodology for collecting data on sighting phenomena, barring access to advanced military hardware or some major national effort like a crowdfunded passive radar network spanning from coast to coast...The next step is a scientific investigation – the empirical method, which birthed the Enlightenment and the entire scientific/technological era. A team of capable researchers is assembled, equipment is designed and built and then deployed to make the necessary high-precision recorded observations. That data is then analyzed until a phenomenological explanation arises that explains the events in question. But that process has never happened in 70 years of ufology, which is why we’re stuck in quicksand, still debating whether what we’re witnessing is exactly what it appears to be – highly advanced devices navigating our airspace and apparently sometimes even landing...or if we’re all having some kind of unprecedented mass hallucination induced by unseen mind-controlling entities that we can neither name nor explain in any comprehensible manner.

Questions are great – they’re a starting point. But they’re worthless without the next step: a dedicated scientific investigation employing our best minds and technology to record and analyze the phenomenon in question.

I couldn't agree more! And, who says that there is no chance of capturing repeated sighting events? When the activity is buzzing around the SLV, there is a fairly good chance that we'd be able to catch similar, if not exact flight paths and duplicate like craft/orbs/lighted array sightings. W/ a combination or total data gathered from magnetic, gravitational, light spectra, radar returns & ULF/VLF audio, all it would take is several sighting events to blow the lid off any skeptical debunker challenge. We won't know anything more about these objects that is truly useful unless we set up the gear and capture the events!

 

[Burnt State]

No – that’s not how we make progress. Asking the question is only the first step, for example, “what are these anomalous ufos that defy gravity and accelerate faster than a bullet?” You don’t then say “I don’t like that question anymore, let’s rephrase it a few million times until we really understand what’s going on.”

I'm not saying to abandon science but science is not happening and hasn't happened. There are those like Chris who are looking to complete what is a logical and rational step in the right direction which is to try to capture information about an elusive non-reproducible phenomenon. He's looking to get good data about one aspect of the phenomenon but that's not going to answer questions about the bulk of CE cases that point to landings, humanoids, sample collections, abductions etc. This is another matter altogether. I'm surprised often at how the irregular and irrational features of these aspects are glossed over and easily lumped into the sightings of crafts in the air. Why would an elusive phenomenon repeatedly invade human consciousness in such bizarre and obscene manners when they are so evasive in the air? Some feel that it's easy to answer, just point at parsimony again, and not see the ridiculous disconnects between the technology displayed in the air and the combination of utterly low tech, retro medical procedures, and the absolutely ridiculous notion of aliens running around on our earth, breathing our air with baggies in hand for soil samples. That disconnect should raise alarm bells and make us ask a different set of questions altogether.

 

[Christopher O'Brien]

...I'm surprised often at how the irregular and irrational features of these aspects are glossed over and easily lumped into the sightings of crafts in the air. Why would an elusive phenomenon repeatedly invade human consciousness in such bizarre and obscene manners when they are so evasive in the air? Some feel that it's easy to answer, just point at parsimony again, and not see the ridiculous disconnects between the technology displayed in the air and the combination of utterly low tech, retro medical procedures, and the absolutely ridiculous notion of aliens running around on our earth, breathing our air with baggies in hand for soil samples. That disconnect should raise alarm bells and make us ask a different set of questions altogether.

Totally agree! I've been saying for years that we need to become intensely creative and begin looking at these inconsistencies, conundrums and all the (seldom acknowledged) inexplicable tricksterish details from a completely new and different perspective. I've always loved that revealing John Keel quote about UFOs, probably uttered in complete exasperation, "to hell w/ the answer, what's the question?" Having agreed to Burnt's post, I must continue to insist that we are obliged to also attempt to gain as much hard, scientific data as possible. Now that the necessary technology has become relatively affordable, the ufological field has no more excuses and if my hunch about this historic effort I've proposed for the SLV (and other sighting 'hot-spot' locales is correct, the multi-instrumental data gathered will be next to impossible to refute or ignore.

Based on history up to this point, the following may not be true, but I've always intuited that at some point, data will finally overwhelm the mystery.

 

[Thomas R Morrison]

W/ a combination or total data gathered from magnetic, gravitational, light spectra, radar returns & ULF/VLF audio, all it would take is several sighting events to blow the lid off any skeptical debunker challenge.

Are you saying that you’ve got an active radar system? And if so, did you need to get FAA approval for that? I would love to read up on the technical details of your projects – do you have a synopsis published online someplace so I can learn more?

We won't know anything more about these objects that is truly useful unless we set up the gear and capture the events!

Bingo. It’s kind of baffling that nobody has made the effort to do what you’re doing, in 70 years of ufology – but I’m very excited to see you doing it right now. To me, this is at least as exciting and historical as Galileo’s experiments with gravity.

I'm not saying to abandon science but science is not happening and hasn't happened. There are those like Chris who are looking to complete what is a logical and rational step in the right direction which is to try to capture information about an elusive non-reproducible phenomenon. He's looking to get good data about one aspect of the phenomenon but that's not going to answer questions about the bulk of CE cases that point to landings, humanoids, sample collections, abductions etc. This is another matter altogether. I'm surprised often at how the irregular and irrational features of these aspects are glossed over and easily lumped into the sightings of crafts in the air. Why would an elusive phenomenon repeatedly invade human consciousness in such bizarre and obscene manners when they are so evasive in the air? Some feel that it's easy to answer, just point at parsimony again, and not see the ridiculous disconnects between the technology displayed in the air and the combination of utterly low tech, retro medical procedures, and the absolutely ridiculous notion of aliens running around on our earth, breathing our air with baggies in hand for soil samples. That disconnect should raise alarm bells and make us ask a different set of questions altogether.

This is the heart of our disagreement, in my opinion. I’ve never said that the ETH explains all of it – I think the ultimate solution will turn out to be an “ETH+ scenario.” The ETH is an excellent candidate (and as far as I’ve seen, the only cogent contender) for explaining the exotic aerial devices in our skies. But as far as the abductions and dog men and cattle mutilations and a wide range of other “high strange” occurrences, I have no idea: some might be related, but other might not. In any case, gathering technical data on sightings events is the right place to start, and fortunately Chris is doing exactly that.

But I find your rhetorical arguments “ridiculous,” “bizarre,” “obscene,” etc, to be completely unpersuasive – those are subjective and emotional arguments. I see nothing “ridiculous” about intelligent beings conducting ground operations and gathering samples – that’s exactly what human astronauts would do if we sent manned missions to living worlds. You’re making assumptions and then rejecting the reported observations based on those assumptions, for example, “breathing our air” – we have no idea if any of these beings are breathing our air. They could get all of their metabolic chemicals from their food and or fluids. Or perhaps they’re synthetic organisms of some kind, or even some advanced form of hologram. We’d don’t know. So we can’t jump to conclusions, and then object on the basis of those ill-considered assumptions.

Totally agree! I've been saying for years that we need to become intensely creative and begin looking at these inconsistencies, conundrums and all the (seldom acknowledged) inexplicable tricksterish details from a completely new and different perspective. I've always loved that revealing John Keel quote about UFOs, probably uttered in complete exasperation, "to hell w/ the answer, what's the question?"

Like I mentioned above, I think we run into trouble when we try to put everything together under one tent. Sure, if we look for one explanation to cover ufos and the mothman and dog men and everything else, we’re going to find *any* explanation insufficient. So I think we need to look at these things that present themselves independently, as independent phenomena, and go about investigating them and collecting scientific data about them independently.

Only after we’ve had rigorous investigations into each one, can we then compare notes and see if we find connections. Doing so now would be premature, in my view.

Having agreed to Burnt's post, I must continue to insist that we are obliged to also attempt to gain as much hard, scientific data as possible. Now that the necessary technology has become relatively affordable, the ufological field has no more excuses and if my hunch about this historic effort I've proposed for the SLV (and other sighting 'hot-spot' locales is correct, the multi-instrumental data gathered will be next to impossible to refute or ignore.

Based on history up to this point, the following may not be true, but I've always intuited that at some point, data will finally overwhelm the mystery.

You’re betting on the scientific method, and that’s a good bet. I think that once you start bringing hard scientific data to the table, we’ll find that many scientists will be interested in taking at look at it, and we’ll finally see the rift between ufology and science begin to mend at last. And I expect that will be a game-changing development.

 

[Burnt State]

But I find your rhetorical arguments “ridiculous,” “bizarre,” “obscene,” etc, to be completely unpersuasive – those are subjective and emotional arguments. I see nothing “ridiculous” about intelligent beings conducting ground operations and gathering samples – that’s exactly what human astronauts would do if we sent manned missions to living worlds. You’re making assumptions and then rejecting the reported observations based on those assumptions, for example, “breathing our air” – we have no idea if any of these beings are breathing our air. They could get all of their metabolic chemicals from their food and or fluids. Or perhaps they’re synthetic organisms of some kind, or even some advanced form of hologram. We’d don’t know. So we can’t jump to conclusions, and then object on the basis of those ill-considered assumptions.

It's the same language Vallee and many others in the field, that have invested a lot more than I have, use all the time. What's reported on the ground is ridiculous,. CE reports are irrational, medical experiments are obscene.....there's nothing logical taking place in the close encounter world. Either you see that or you don't. You can't have advanced superluminal travel and incompetent medical torturers at the same time. How do you square that?

 

[Randall]

I'm not saying to abandon science but science is not happening and hasn't happened ...

I don't think that's quite accurate. But then again I'm a stickler for the details, and as I attempted to get across on the show, those details can add up to something more substantial over time. In this case, the issue is with science and ufology. On the USI site I say the following:

"Ufologists advocate the use of science when and where it can be properly applied, however this does not make ufology a science unto itself. Rather, when science is being done, it is not being done as ufology per se, but as astronomy, physics, biology or whatever science is being utilized to examine the evidence."
​

In other words when Hynek was doing astronomy to determine whether or not an astronomical phenomenon could reasonably explain a UFO report, he was doing real science. There's no question about it. Other kinds of science like statistical analysis has also been done ( The Battelle Memorial Institute study ). Psychology is the science of behavior and mind, and Mack applied his expertise there. And, certainly amateur scientific work like Chris' could also qualify as science in a casual sense. The SLV Camera Project represents an extremely positive attitude in ufology research whether anything comes of it or not.

The only types of scientific data we're lacking ( at least in the public realm ) are the types that can be applied to scientifically valid material evidence ( e.g. craft, entities, or some part thereof ). That kind of evidence might help scientists figure out the workings of the craft and the aliens, and perhaps from that a lot of other stuff might be extrapolated, but it's not going to add anything to baseline question of the existence of the craft. Anyone who thinks there's insufficient evidence to reasonably support a belief for the existence of alien craft is either still in ufology kindergarten or hasn't gotten that far yet.

 

[Thomas R Morrison]

It's the same language Vallee and many others in the field, that have invested a lot more than I have, use all the time.

If Jacques Vallée leapt from a bridge, would you follow? Because rhetorical arguments are worthless, no matter who’s using them. The only thing that matters is the *basis* of the conclusion, i.e. “why” you think that something is ridiculous, nonsensical, etc.

What's reported on the ground is ridiculous,. CE reports are irrational, medical experiments are obscene.....there's nothing logical taking place in the close encounter world.

I disagree, and I’ve actually provided the basis for my conclusion – namely: ground operations and collecting samples and running experiments are part and parcel of all of our own planetary explorations and a vast range of terrestrial scientific endeavors. We brought back rocks from the Moon to study them, for crying out loud. So it’s demonstrably false to conclude that collecting samples for study is “irrational, nonsensical, illogical.”

You can't have advanced superluminal travel and incompetent medical torturers at the same time. How do you square that?

Easy: if for the sake of argument we assume that these reports are actually happening, then clearly the beings/devices/whatever performing these operations on people are simply more interested in conducting their missions, than they’re concerned about our comfort. Which shouldn’t be surprising at all – we’ve done far worse things to every species on this planet, including each other.

Note your use of the word “imcompetent” – that’s another unfounded assumption, because you have no basis for stating that these events are failing to achieve what they're intended to achieve. Which is presumably the scientific study of our biology. Which, naturally, entails biopsies. But it's also quite possible that these medical procedures are actually psychological in nature - they may be studying how we respond to pain and duress, just as we've done to many species and even to each other throughout history.

And the level of technological advancement has little if anything to do with it. Humans didn’t become vegetarians or stop waging war upon one another when we landed on the Moon, or delivered our first probe to Mars. Technological advancement doesn’t make anyone a nicer/better/gentler person. And it will always be easier to stick a needle into an organ to collect a sample for a thorough analysis, than it will be find some exotic non-invasive way to gather the same information. With a sample in a petri dish, you can subject it to all kinds of chemical and mechanical tests that would be lethal to the subject – so one could reasonably argue that they’re demonstrating some level of compassion by shoving needles into our eyes instead of just killing us and dissecting our corpses.

 

[Christopher O'Brien]

Are you saying that you’ve got an active radar system? And if so, did you need to get FAA approval for that? I would love to read up on the technical details of your projects – do you have a synopsis published online someplace so I can learn more?

No, we don't have a radar unit yet, however because the SLV is radar invisible from 7,200' up to almost 18K' because of the high mountains that completely ring around the valley, if we are forced to go the permit/permission route, there's a good chance we can get approval. To my knowledge, there are currently no radar signals anywhere in the valley.

I came up w/ a design for a marine radar unit that would be shielded and dampen 350 degrees of the 360 degree sweep except for a window-like opening of about 10 degrees. The unit would be mounted on a pan/tilt moveable platform that would be fed event coordinate data (just like the cameras) which would automatically point the radar unit directly at the object/light/craft. The slaved platform would then follow the object keeping the window opening facing the target. This 10 degree opening should allow the beam to paint the object and get a return while also completely dampening the other 350 degrees of sweep. This would keep the radar activity targeted in a narrow band and make it extremely hard to detect, etc. The units i've checked out have an effective range of 30-40 miles and aren't that expensive, btw. Shoot me a pvt message w/ your email address and I'll send along our proposal, if you want... Thanks for your interest in the project.

 

[archivist13]

I really enjoyed this episode. Susan had a welcoming demeanor, without being a pushover. It was refreshing to hear a female voice in the field that has the potential to make an impact. Hopefully she will continue her quest to get people asking different questions. My only real critique would be that I didn't really hear her provide any of these new questions that she wants to see asked. I would love to hear her on a future show where she addresses some of her ideas for what these questions could be in more detail.

 

[Burnt State]

I really enjoyed this episode. Susan had a welcoming demeanor, without being a pushover. It was refreshing to hear a female voice in the field that has the potential to make an impact. Hopefully she will continue her quest to get people asking different questions. My only real critique would be that I didn't really hear her provide any of these new questions that she wants to see asked. I would love to hear her on a future show where she addresses some of her ideas for what these questions could be in more detail.

You can hear some of these other questions on the Radio Misterioso episode with her and I where we talk with Greg about categorizing cases, The Philip Experiment and the idea of Set and Setting as it relates to paranormality.

 

[Burnt State]

You can hear some of these other questions on the Radio Misterioso episode with her and I where we talk with Greg about categorizing cases, The Philip Experiment and the idea of Set and Setting as it relates to paranormality.

Though I warn you the audio was pretty bad recording in bars and outside in parks etc. Still some interesting ideas occur and we do talk about alternative questions. But if you're familiar with Greg's work then you may know already his ideas regarding witness questioning and other ways to engage the phenomena directly.