Researchers sceptical of the ETH

[Ian]

Can anyone provide a short list of respectable researchers who are not convinced of the ETH? I know of one or two, but there must be more.

Thanks.

Ian

 

[Ian]

Can anyone provide a short list of respectable researchers who are not convinced of the ETH? I know of one or two, but there must be more.

Thanks.

Ian

There are some aren't there apart from Jacque Vallee?

I'm trying to convince a sceptic that 'UFO' does not necessarily mean 'alien spaceship' - even if that's how it is framed by the media. And that some serious researchers really are considering other options.

Maybe Nick Redfern is another one sceptical of the ETH...?

Thanks.

Ian

 

[technomage]

There are some aren't there apart from Jacque Vallee?

I'm trying to convince a sceptic that 'UFO' does not necessarily mean 'alien spaceship' - even if that's how it is framed by the media. And that some serious researchers really are considering other options.

Maybe Nick Redfern is another one sceptical of the ETH...?

Thanks.

Ian

Walter Bosley - Many anomalous phenomena could be products of Breakaway Civilizations
Joseph Farrell - Same as above
Richard Dolan - ETH is a good hypothesis, but there is room for other explanations
John Alexander - ETH doesn't explain wide range of phenomena and a holistic approach to the phenomena is needed.
Chris O'Brien - It's the trickster; just kidding; similar to others who believe it's all likely aspects of one phenomena
Nick Redfern - Could be other things

 

[Ian]

Walter Bosley - Many anomalous phenomena could be products of Breakaway Civilizations
Joseph Farrell - Same as above
Richard Dolan - ETH is a good hypothesis, but there is room for other explanations
John Alexander - ETH doesn't explain wide range of phenomena and a holistic approach to the phenomena is needed.
Chris O'Brien - It's the trickster; just kidding; similar to others who believe it's all likely aspects of one phenomena
Nick Redfern - Could be other things

Thanks techno. That's just what I needed!

 

[Christopher O'Brien]

You could add under my listing: Other tenants in the building, i.e., ultra/cryptoterrestrials

 

[Gene Steinberg]

Same here.

 

[technomage]

Yeah, and several other quality researchers who have been on the Paracast escape me right now or I would've added them to the list.

 

[William Strathmann]

From my limited knowledge I will suggest a few more folks that seem to me to be skeptical of the ETH as the sole or main hypothesis for UFO/paranormal phenomena (my apologies if I have misunderstood these peoples' perspectives):

John Keel (didn't he coin "ultraterrestrial" ? )
Mac Tonnies?
Greg Bishop?
Eric Ouellet (suggests UFO experiences are parapsychological events)
Whitley Strieber (seems to leave the door open to various possibilities)

I'm not sure about Chris Aubeck who was a coauthor with Jacque Vallee. Nor about Martin Shough, who methodically debunks debunkers, but seems too professional to unequivocally state that the phenomena must result from the ETH. Aubeck and Shough recently coauthored Return to Magonia.

I realize that the qualifier "respectable researcher" may not strictly apply to certain people I've listed, but all are (or were) researchers to one degree or another.

[edit]

Chris Rutkowski (according to the NOUFORS page HERE)

As an astronomer, I share the majority view that intelligent life exists elsewhere in our galaxy (but not necessarily here on Earth!). I believe it possible that an advanced, technological civilization may have found ways of traversing interstellar distances without violating physical laws. However, after more than 25 years of research and investigation, I do not see any incontrovertible evidence of this.

My opinion is that if UFOs are not physical phenomena, they definitely are sociological or psychological phenomena. In either case, they are worth scientific study, because they have, at the very least, permeated the minds and imagination of the populace, if they are not physical phenomena.

 

[Jeff Davis]

Frankly, I am not aware of many, if any researchers at all, that are not at very least open to the possibility that the origin of the UFO phenomenon is not exclusively ET in nature. This is precisely why I oppose the notion of referring to UFOs as being representative of alien craft in a blanket sense. Clearly, recorded historical evidence points to a phenomenal relationship to and with humanity that parallels the current day UFO phenomenon in many ways. It would seem that our relative phenomenal history has by the very nature of appearances attempted to teach us a very important lesson that has thus far thoroughly eluded us. The question is: Does it intend on phenomenally deceiving us, in and of a volition separate from our own , or do we, possibly by virtue of the nature of our own phenomenal ignorance, deceive ourselves? Could it be both?

Ultimately, a diehard interest in the phenomena appeals the quandary via the strategic notion of "common ground". Call it the medium, call it the interface, or possibly like myself, simply call it consciousness. It is here where real relative process can be observed and studied. Why? Because ultimately, be it static or dynamic, this is where all experience takes place, phenomenal or otherwise. It makes logical sense that as humankind's comprehensive environment of consciousness progresses, the phenomenon evolves in relevant experientially apparent detail.

Actually, the ET thing does not fit the UFO phenomenon comfortably in the least. The thing is, neither does any former phenomenal interpretation. That's the nature of the lesson. There is simply a much greater potential aspect of ourselves that we do not yet understand. It is in this much greater "place" that the phenomenon interacts with us. Consciousness is the doorway to that place, and we know that much. However mysterious that threshold may be, it exists nonetheless.