objectivity

[alextr]

Why is it that ghost researchers seem to be more objective about paranormal situations than UFO researchers. Ghost researchers are most of the time willing to work with each other and share ideas with each other. At the same time they will speculate on possibilities; whereas in the UFO field, the majority of researchers don't want to share their findings and they are very narrow minded about the views and possibilities of the origin for these phenomenon. Perhaps the ghost researchers should cross over to UFO research and maybe we will get somewhere.

 

[jritzmann]

Because the UFO field is based on a structure of distrust, and paranoia. And, in defense of the UFO field, I've done photo analysis work for the ghost folks on occasion...they're as distrustful and finger pointing as the UFO crowd. Mostly for them it's based on who's a fraud and who isn't, who's faking and who isn't, and who's just a nut.

Sound familiar?

Mostly in the UFO field people don't always share unless they're sure of who their sharing with. If you worked a year on a UFO case (which ain't unusual) would you hand it off to some nutty new ager? Would you expose a witness who trusts you to a Dale Gribble type?

Information I'll share. But I can't say I'd hand off a case to just anyone.

 

[Aaron LeClair]

I haven't noticed a difference. I see a lot of "orbs" being tauted as ghosts, when they can be explained in mundane ways.

 

[CapnG]

"It's demonic"

Yep... the very heart of objectivity those ghost hunters...

 

[Seth]

...they're as distrustful and finger pointing as the UFO crowd.

And many have their pet theories about “what” things are. Take Ed and Lorraine Warren for example: many times their explanations are religiously based and are “demons”.

I think many people in paranormal fields want to standout as having the “true” nature of the occurrence that they negligently narrow their scope to meet their own expectations. If the view they see is not what they expect they subsequently narrow their worldview. This creates a lot of strife between the subject’s players because, obviously, no two people can have different perspectives while sharing an identical narrow worldview.

People often wonder way the paranormal field is so wrought with distrust and deceit. Well, NO ONE is holding all the cards, some are not playing with a full deck, and some are pretending to hold any at all.

 

[UBERDOINK]

I edited to fix quote. Aaron.

I think many people in paranormal fields want to standout as having the “true” nature of the occurrence that they negligently narrow their scope to meet their own expectations. If the view they see is not what they expect they subsequently narrow their worldview. This creates a lot of strife between the subject’s players because, obviously, no two people can have different perspectives while sharing an identical narrow worldview.

How is that any different than the UFO guys, they already "know" it's ships, piloted by aliens from another planet, so they are just looking for data that proves their theory.

I think they are even MORE narrow minded, as any UFO occurrences that don't match the "aliens in machines" theory are discounted.

Where as even the weirdest paranormal happening is at least discussed.

 

[Graphimancer]

I think Ghost hunters and ufologists are barely in the same field, because their approaches are so different. Take the show with John Zaffis: It seemed at some points Gene and Dave were not getting through to John, and visa versa. There's a paradigm difference between the two groups.

I feel it myself. I know ghosts and ghost hunters, and it's taken a lot of educating myself to get a grip on ufology.

Some people do get both sides, and are conversant with both groups. Stieger comes to mind, maybe Marrs too. But that rare. Some go so far out that they become essentially to far gone, like LMH.

Sometimes, I wonder if the hoaxers, fabulists, con-artists, and fast-talking story tellers are the ones are closest to the truth. The trickster needs high priests, after all.

 

[UBERDOINK]

Take the show with John Zaffis: It seemed at some points Gene and Dave were not getting through to John, and visa versa. There's a paradigm difference between the two groups.

It's because they don't realize it's all the SAME phenomenon, people are just CREATING labels that create confusion.

 

[CapnG]

It's because they don't realize it's all the SAME phenomenon, people are just CREATING labels that create confusion.

So says you, I (and others) disagree. Just because various phenomena exist outside our normal, everyday experience there's no reason to assume they share the same source. Besides, that's what the umbrella term "paranormal" is for.

 

[UBERDOINK]

UFO's and Ghosts for example have some of the same behavior patterns.
Un-biased review of raw data shows incredible similarities in poltergeist activity and UFO's etc.

There is more evidence for UFO's being paranormal-linked than aliens from other planets. It seems to all be branches of the same tree. To the unbiased observer that is.

 

[Graphimancer]

I don't worry about it too much anymore. If you don't give speaches, or if you don't write a book and go on a blog-cast radio tour, people honestly don't give a rat's ass what you think. You become one wanker with a "pet theory" that you are trying to foist on uninterested pseudo intellectuals.

(Yikes--I sound negative tonight! Enough of that.)

I don't think there is any evidence that all paranormal events come from a single source. If you look at things in terms of high strangeness and similarities with how the paranormal interacts with us, then you can certainly draw some parallels. It seems reasonable that there is a high strangeness tie between cryptids and ufos, and maybe even poultergeist activity. Magick seems separate, more akin to psychic abilities, for example.

Some ufos seem triggered by tectonic activity, or thunder storms. Others might actually be alien space craft. Some, interdiminsional craft. Same subject (aerial phenomina), different sources.

 

[BrandonD]

I don't worry about it too much anymore. If you don't give speaches, or if you don't write a book and go on a blog-cast radio tour, people honestly don't give a rat's ass what you think. You become one wanker with a "pet theory" that you are trying to foist on uninterested pseudo intellectuals.

That's unfortunately true, though ideally it shouldn't be.

 

[CapnG]

UFO's and Ghosts for example have some of the same behavior patterns.
Un-biased review of raw data shows incredible similarities in poltergeist activity and UFO's etc.

Bats and birds are both able to fly but one is a mammal and the other is not.

These "behaviours" you mention give no indication at all as to the origins of either ghosts, ufos or "aliens". Simply because they appear to manifest similar properties in no way points to a similar origin. You're making an assumption based on preference which is, by definition alone, a bias.

 

[Graphimancer]

Yeah, it is. Bright people with agile minds get interested, and they subsequently encounter a class of people who greet the newcomers with arrogant indifferance. These people have patience with others that extends only so far as collecting cash from them, or that can be parlayed into additional public exposure or air time.

So, your choice as an interested party is to: A) Buy these guys' books, and support their arrogant elitist rants, B) Become a writer or movie maker, and compete with the pseudo intellectuals at their own game, or C) find something more suitable to be interested in.

But, lest I pick on the paranormal entrepaneurs too much, let me note that many of the people interested in the subject are there for: A) Entertainment value only, aka paranormal voyeurs and tourists; B) They have psychological issues, perhaps well advanced, usually schizophrenia of some form; C) They are part of this new legion of bad-science 'investigators,' or D) they are the rare interested but undecided enthusiasts. That's what makes this whole community 'fringe.' Well, that and the subject matter, which draws fringe people.

But, really, everyone already suspected this, right? I may have put it into words that are less politically balanced than my normal approach, but there is some reality to what I mention. I think on my years of on the fringe of a fringe field, and I've learned more about human nature than the paranormal overall.

All this relates to objectivity. People are in ufology because they have a mission, they want to believe, they want to make money, they want to lead a cult, they have lost touch with any conventional reality, they want religion, or, very rarely, they want the truth, or at least a truth they can wrap their minds around. Not much hope of objectivity.

What other fields do experiencers often become researchers? These are the last people who should research anything. Yes, some very fine people on here that I like will disagree with me, perhaps vehimitely. If I'm wrong, then tell me so; I'm often wrong, and you may convince me I'm wrong this time. But, I don't think I am.

Note: I don't say any of this in an attempt to be trollish, or push people into believing things just because I say them. These are challenging statements, but made with the understanding that certain thinkers on this forum can certainly stand up and I'm sure debate these ideas point per point. Unlike some paranormal forums, I don't think this one is populated by intellectual wimps.

 

[UBERDOINK]

Bats and birds are both able to fly but one is a mammal and the other is not.

They are each classified as avian, no one studies them as completely separate in origin, only two different ways for the organism to adapt to flying.

Like ghosts and UFO's, the same thing, but different.

 

[CapnG]

They are each classified as avian, no one studies them as completely separate in origin, only two different ways for the organism to adapt to flying.

I sincerely doubt that ornithologists spend much time studying bats nor chiroptologists birds. The two creatures have similar behaviours but there the similarity ends. With UFOs and ghosts it is the same; superficially similar but there is no reason to believe there is any underlying connection beyond that. Intellectual honesty demands that when you do not know something (and cannot test it) you cannot make ANY assumptions be they of motive, origin or purpose.

UFOs and ghosts MAY have a similar origin but we do not KNOW and therefore it cannot be stated as fact, only as opinion which is merely a preference and therefore (as I have already stated) a bias. So much for "unbiased" observation.

 

[Graphimancer]

I guess my statements were too obvious. No one has any defense for the current state of the community?

 

[CapnG]

What other fields do experiencers often become researchers? These are the last people who should research anything.

What other fields are comparable? Surely a physicist "experiences" physics but it's hardly the same thing.

And flipping the coin for a second, think for a moment of the "proffesional skeptics". You know who I'm talking about. They're just as guilty of the same sins you've applied to those invested in the paranormal, achieving the same result but to the oppostite effect.

 

[Ally]

Scott,
I think you have many good points. You have also meantioned in earlier threads that you can see ghosts but have not encountred any UFO phenomena.

Imagine that instead of seeing and experiencing ghosts you have the UFOexperiencer experience. After so many years of wanting to understand what is happening to you would you go to a shrink, conference, friend , expereinced UFO researcher?

What if the "experienced UFO researcher" was either a disinformation person, connected with black OPs, nuts, had no scientific background, liar, cult leader, con artinst ....

I don't think the ghost community has the same amount of problems finding out about their experiences.

 

[Graphimancer]

Hi, Ally:

In 1993, I did see unidentified lights in the nighttime sky, three lights that slowly moved about in an odd dance. I've been able to rule out helicopters, searchlights, and certainly any sort of blimp. Anyway, on the 1-10 dramatic scale, this give me a chill, but it was certainly a 3. Considering what others who visit these boards have witnessed, it was quite insignificant. While I have no idea what I saw, I don't presume it was alien spacecraft--it could well have been what are often called earth lights. Frankly, I don't know. It stuck with me though.

I've been on the lookout for daytime phenomina every since, but have seen nothing that can't be readily explianed away. Living in Central Indiana, I don't think ufo's are much interested in flybys here. Not that I've seen, anyway.

In regards to the ghost hunting comunity and the ufo community, I see them both as similar, but their characters are much different. The ghost hunters I know seem very unscientific and view technology as cool but secondary. (I am not saying every ghost hunter is like this, just the ones I know. I know some are very EVP centered, for example.) I don't have any close friends or reasonably good acquaintances that are ufologists, so perhaps my statements are unfounded. At best, I can offer an outsider's observation, so take it for what it is I guess.

Here is my take on experiencer investigators: Most may or may not be good, but I can't imagine them going into cases without a bias. It's as simple as that, I guess. From my perspective that seems like a pretty reasonable argument, but of course I'm happy to hear reasonable refutations.

Ah, who knows--maybe my frustration with not being able to get the answers has finally soured me. It all seems so tantalizingly close, sometimes, but I've discovered (as have so many before me) that objective truth is a big tease.