The Future of Ufology by Nick Redfern

[Christopher O'Brien]

[I agree completely w/ Nick's pointed observations in the following editorial. It feels good to know there are at least others besides myself pointing at the Emperors marching down the UFO parade route pretending that they solved the puzzle of where these visitors are actually from. Of course, when asked to present a single shred of unequivocal evidence all the so-called "experts" provide is a blank-eyed stare and further shunning from the church of true-belief and wishful thinking. All the kool-aid drinking and jello slurping is getting old. Go get 'em Nick and then tell us how you REALLY feel! --chris .
Complete Editorial HERE:


A few days ago, I wrote a Top 10-themed post at my World of Whatever blog on what I personally see as some of the biggest faults of Ufology. It was a post with which many agreed, others found amusing, and some hated (the latter, probably, because they recognized dubious character traits and flaws that were too close to home, and, as a result, got all moody and defensive. Whatever.). But, regardless of what people thought of the article, it prompted one emailer to ask me: “What do you think of the future for Ufology?” Well, that’s a very good question. Here’s my thoughts…
First and foremost, I don’t fear, worry or care about Ufology not existing in – let’s say, hypothetically – 100 years from now. Or even 200 years. In some format, I think that as a movement, it will still exist. I guess my biggest concern is that nothing will have changed by then, aside from the field having become even more dinosaur-like and stuck in its ways than it is today, still filled with influential souls who loudly demand we adhere to the Extra-Terrestrial Hypothesis and nothing else, still droning on about Roswell, still obsessed with what might be going on at Area 51, still debating on what Kenneth Arnold saw, and still pondering on what really happened at Rendlesham.
Ufology’s biggest problem also happens to be what made the Ramones the greatest band that ever existed: never-changing. For the latter, it worked perfectly. If, like me, you liked the mop-topped, super-fast punks in the beginning, then you still like them when they disbanded in 1996. Throughout their career, they looked the same, sounded the same, and were the same. For them, it worked very well. For Ufology, not so well. Not at all.

​

The reality is that 65 years after our Holy Lord and Master (Sir Kenneth of Arnoldshire) saw whatever it was that he saw on that fateful June 24, 1947 day, Ufology has been static and unchanging. It has endorsed and firmly embraced the ETH not as the belief-system which it actually is, but as a likely fact. And Ufology insists on doing so in stubborn, mule-like fashion. In that sense, Ufology has become a religion. And organized religion is all about upholding unproved old belief-systems and presenting them as hard fact, despite deep, ongoing changes in society, trends and culture. Just like Ufology.
If Ufology is to play a meaningful role in the future, then it needs to focus far less on personal beliefs and wanting UFOs to be extraterrestrial, and far more on admitting that the ETH is just one theory of many – and, while not discarding the ETH, at least moving onwards, upwards and outwards. Can you imagine if the major UFO conference of the year in the United States had a group of speakers where the presentations were on alien-abductions and DMT; the Aleister Crowley-Lam controversy; Ufological synchronicities; and the UFO-occult connection? And Roswell, Area 51, and Flying Triangles weren’t even in sight at all?
Well, imagine is just about all you’ll be able to do, as it ain’t gonna happen anytime soon!

​

While such matters do, of course, occasionally get mentioned on the UFO-themed lecture circuit today, the fact is that mainstream Ufology (and specifically mainstream ufological organizations, where more time is spent on deciding what utterly ridiculous title everyone will have than on doing investigations) will largely not touch such matters, or even consider them ripe for debate at their conferences. Why? Simple: they want everything to be as it was in the “Good Old Days” of the past. Well, tough: the past is gone, and no-one has succeeded in proving the ETH. So, give the highly alternative theories – and theorists – a chance for a change.
Rest of Editorial HERE:

 

[Goggs Mackay]

I kinda thought what Nick said is plainly obvious. Are we not continually saying in this very forum that anyone who claims to have the sole truth is someone to avoid?

Probably like Nick, I think there are aspects to the UFO field that maybe indicate ETH but there are even more that indicate if not some one thing more weird, then that the answer may be as complex as 'what kind of life lives in the sea?'

For every solid object witnessed there are even more 'balls of light' and other phenomena I'd wager.

I think I agree with Nick also in that it would indeed be a most displeasing thought; that ufology will be the same in the distant future and no further to any actual truth. And perhaps it will always be the case that we can never know the truth, the same as we cannot know alive what will happen, if anything, when we are dead. If there is some weird spiritual or dimensional aspect to it all, it may actually be physically impossible for us, living humans, to ever find out whilst we inhabit this world in this way?

 

[Randall]

I agree completely w/ Nick's pointed observations in the following editorial ...

I enjoy listening to Nick Redfern and normally I think he's thought things through pretty well, but in this case I think he's editorializing without adequate reflection. I've said it before and I'll say it again; just because we're bored of hearing the same evaluations over and over again isn't sufficient reason to discard them.The reasons that veteran ufologists believe that the ETH is reasonable has nothing to do with religious faith. It has to do with years of studying reports from countless sources and synthesizing a most likely scenario based on logic, reason and scientific knowledge. I can relate to Nick's frustration regarding the absence of material evidence, but in no way does the absence of that kind of evidence mean that "UFOLOGY HAS FAILED". That is nothing more than a sensationalist remark that disrespects the work done by others and is of no constructive value. Furthermore it's handing ammunition to those skeptics who fail to recognize the value of human experience and base their entire denial about the reality of UFOs on a purely materialist viewpoint.

Unlike Redfern, I do care if ufology exists in the future and for that to happen its history needs to be studied and passed along from generation to generation to those who will be able to both preserve it and hopefully add to it in a meaningful way. For all we know, the whole UFO phenomenon is transitory and if it only represents a brief period of history when we were visited by extraterrestrials, it is one of the most significant aspects in all our history. Should that be discarded or allowed to fade into utter obscurity simply because the story is only so long? I think not. The people who have witnessed these craft for themselves know they exist and their experiences deserve to be preserved for the record. For now they are our only evidence, and personally, short of firsthand experience, it will always be the kind evidence that I find the most interesting. Pieces of metal, photos, videos, scientific analysis, even an intact ship would all be fine, but how many times could you look at that stuff without getting bored? In my opinion people would get bored even faster without the rich collection of firsthand accounts that give meaning to those objects.


BTW Chris: Thanks for asking JC my question on the show. His enthusiasm about the mystery airships highlights yet another facet of the rich history of ufology.

 

[Goggs Mackay]

I can't speak for Nick but I know I personally think the ETH is the most likely answer for apparently manufactured, structured craft, such as disks and triangles.

But the sheer variety of phenomena and physical behaviour that falls under 'ufology' makes me think that the ETH does not and probably can not explain all the non-human and non-natural phenomena.

So I am definitely backing the ETH as my horse but the odds on there being other sources for UFOs seem to get shorter and shorter all the time.

 

[Wade]

speaking of airships, as ufology did, there is a free epub/mobi publication of phantom airships available at Downloads main page A little history of the Scareship Age by brett holman

 

[Wade]

thanks for the heads up on that post chris, looking at the comments section apparently mr. dolan is now starting to see the light emphesis mine when it comes to the ufo phenomena and as a bonus nice to see mike clelland and red pill junkie weigh in to0.

i myself have always whole heartedly embraced the IDH as the go-to explanation...if i were forced into a corner... mostly based upon the weird impact that contact with the phenomena brings to people. I wouldn't discount the eth but if i had to find a place for them in the ufo/uap frap i would think that maybe our extraterrestrial friends are indeed influencing (or trying to) our behavior. that maybe they would be like kirk and trying to accomplish something indirectly (so as not to disobey the prime directive). that they are not just here for observational purposes otherwise i have to question the number of instances in ufo sightings and contacts where their is a distortion of one's senses. If this distortion was brought on by interdimensional contact then i could see where our five senses would be warped because we are dealing with something that is beyond our understanding or our frame of reference, so therefore there is bound to be some distortion of reality, some sort of blowback or consequence, not of our doing but of being in the wrong place at the wrong time. BUT if this distortion was brought on by et contact i would think there would be a purpose behind it. hope that made sense, it kind of sounds like it doesn't'

p.s. and if so happens that's it neither the extrterrestrials nor interdimensionals But middle-earth living (crypto)terrestrials well i apologize if i gave you short shift. I guess if one believes' (as fort did) that we are but cattle, then maybe it's these bastards that are the cause behind it, because of the three hypothosis these guys would have the most to lose or gain by mainipulating us into their control system.

Richard Dolan•18 hours ago

• −
• • Flag as inappropriate

Nick. Really great piece, and I applaud what you are trying to do. I do feel personally that the ETH is still quite relevant. But of course, I consider it a hypothesis, certainly not a religion. For what it's worth, my own thoughts have been moving in a direction very similar to yours. For this reason, I just finished a draft of a book entitled "UFOs for the 21st Century Mind." Like you, I feel that the field is in need of fresh formulations, and definitely needs something better than MUFON as it's most prominent organization. The occult connections to ufology, the symbology, the "strange" connections are things that I too have been noticing. The longer one studies this, the more challenging it becomes. I believe that ufology will indeed go through major intellectual change. But I also think an appreciation of the technological aspects, the documentation, and yes to follow up on Mike Clelland, the abductions -- all of this remains very important. Sometime the things that are most obvious become overlooked because they become too familiar. I think that would be a mistake. But yes, we need to move forward with a fresh approach.

 

[Randall]

I agree completely w/ Nick's pointed observations in the following editorial ...

Oh and one more thing: Nicks comment, "Bulging filing cabinets, and endless data-saturated thumb-drives, do not mean we have proved our case." reminded me ( if I remember correctly ) that you have been keeping the old APRO files on your radar ... any progress there? Or have you now changed your mind and think we should just forget about them because Nick says, "We need proof and undeniable evidence, not more reports."? Personally I'd think it's bad enough those files aren't in the hands of an organization that would respect and preserve them ( like CUFOS ) and that it would be trajic if those files were all lost or destroyed out of neglect.

Previous post here.

 

[Wade]

Oh and one more thing: Nicks comment, "Bulging filing cabinets, and endless data-saturated thumb-drives, do not mean we have proved our case." reminded me ( if I remember correctly ) that you have been keeping the old APRO files on your radar ... any progress there? Or have you now changed your mind and think we should just forget about them because Nick says, "We need proof and undeniable evidence, not more reports."? Personally I'd think it's bad enough those files aren't in the hands of an organization that would respect and preserve them ( like CUFOS ) and that it would be trajic if those files were all lost or destroyed out of neglect.

Previous post here.

i know there are some released files available at openminds.tv but isn't there still some of squabbling going on within the remnents of that organization (apro) over who owes what and who has the right to release them?

as far as any evidence, i would think that there will never be anything very tangible.
if the ufo phenomena is a byproduct of interdimensional contact, i would think that evidence couldn't really exist in this dimension at least in the sense that we know it, i once tried to watch a presentation on how something that was four dimensional...excluding time but that is another matter... would exist in our 3d world, it was hard for me to grasp but i could see the point.

If it was et or sub-surface beings , and they were trying to manipulate our thought process, as i believe they are, they would probably be verrrrrrrrrrrrrry careful to pick up after themselves

 

[Randall]

i know there are some released files available at openminds.tv but isn't there still some of squabbling going on within the remnents of that organization (apro) over who owes what and who has the right to release them?

Now there's something about ufology that I have no problem saying should be left in the past, all the political in-fighting and squabbling. If ufology has failed to do anything its form a united and effective research community. Any ideas on how we can improve on that?

 

[Wade]

also because there is evidence that strong emf fields and negative magnetic anomalies of a TERRESTRIAL origin seem to produce their share of ufo related phenomena and these fields seem to have an influence on the human brain as well, then one should consider a connection between the two, from hallucinaions to a dmt/3rd eye opening type of experience. That one is witnessing something that always was or is there but is normally closed off to our limited human perceptions.

...i'll shut up for now...

 

[Muadib]

I like Nick and I agree with a lot of what he has to say here, especially the parts about leaving the old cases alone barring new information. However, I feel compelled to point out what I feel is a big problem with certain alternative explanations, and that's using the unexplained to explain the unexplained. Take the interdimensional hypothesis as an example, while I think it may be very likely that some of these events may have an interdimensional aspect, hell even the ETH can't escape some form of interdimensionalism simply because of the distances involved in interstellar travel, we still don't know what other dimensions are. Modern physics has yet to prove that other dimensions exist, and if they do exist, they are fully physical, never mind the fact that if you talk to a physicist and ask him whether travel between dimensions is a possibility, they'll likely tell you not a chance. Most modern physicists think it would take all the energy that has ever been created since the big bang in order to cross dimensional boundaries at will, if not more. Some have speculated that wormholes may exist that bridge the gaps between certain areas of space and time but this is also just a theory, wormholes are completely and utterly theoretical, no one has proven that they exist yet. So just saying "hey I think some of this phenomenon may be interdimensional in nature" is a great starting point but simply putting a name to something doesn't explain it. You're still trying to use the unexplained to explain the unexplained.

I'm not a big fan of the ETH by any means, but I do think it requires far less speculation and logical leaps to say that beings similar to us evolved on a planet similar to ours (we have proven such planets exist) figured out a way to cross the vastness of space (the biggest problem with the ETH is how they are doing it, but it can certainly be done even with our current technology it would just take longer than most feel is feasible) and are now visiting this planet. The ETH makes a lot more sense than saying that beings exist in other dimensions (which haven't been proven to exist) and are somehow generating enough energy to cross the boundaries between dimensions (which may very well be impossible) or they're using wormholes (which are completely theoretical) See what I mean? I agree that all angles need to pursued in our quest for answers and speculation in this field is rampant and just fine, but we still need to concentrate on which of our theories make the fewest leaps in logic to arrive at a satisfactory answer. I think, at least for now, that the ETH is the theory that does just that. That doesn't mean for a second that I believe that's what's happening, we need a lot more evidence and information to be sure, but when I look at the various theories I think it's the one with the smallest amount of problems and leaps in logic.

 

[Trajanus]

I can't speak for Nick but I know I personally think the ETH is the most likely answer for apparently manufactured, structured craft, such as disks and triangles.

Sure. Btw Redfern is wrong to say UFOlogists cling to the ETH like a religion. That's absurd--look at the late J.A. Hynek, Vallee among others. Every board I've seen has people who question the ETH.

But the sheer variety of phenomena and physical behaviour that falls under 'ufology' makes me think that the ETH does not and probably can not explain all the non-human and non-natural phenomena.

I think it can, given what advanced technology can do, if it's occasionally used to deceive us with weird apparitions.

I am definitely backing the ETH as my horse but the odds on there being other sources for UFOs seem to get shorter and shorter all the time.

I don't think so. For quite some time, people have doubted the ETH based on "high strangeness"--behavior which doesn't seem proper for space visitors. Some UFO entities have reportedly said dumb things or acted in an incomprehensible manner. But the phenomenon is undoubtedly intelligent and capable. You don't get to be advanced by being a wacko. They must be deceiving us occasionally. Also, "high strangeness" is a problem for any hypothesis. Why would advanced interdimensional travelers behave stupidly? But it's only used as an argument against the ETH.

 

[Muadib]

Remember what has been referred to as Clarke's Law: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." High strangeness may simply be the result of our interaction with said technology, or may be the result of a concerted effort on the part of the entities, or EBE's or visitors or whatever you want to call them, to throw us off the trail and keep us guessing, like Trajanus said.

 

[Frank Stalter]

I'll take a look at these types of articles, but my response is pretty much always the same. I quote people smarter than me.

“We must become the change we want to see.” - Mahatma Gandhi

This one's a little newer to me but I like it too.

“You never change things by fighting the existing reality.
To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.” -Buckminster Fuller

 

[Trajanus]

Remember what has been referred to as Clarke's Law: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." High strangeness may simply be the result of our interaction with said technology, or may be the result of a concerted effort on the part of the entities, or EBE's or visitors or whatever you want to call them, to throw us off the trail and keep us guessing, like Trajanus said.

Redfern himself has researched contactee cases, and it's obvious that most of the reported messages and experiences ("we're from Venus", cities on the moon) are hogwash. I don't think there's any doubt the phenomenon wants to deceive, so weird sightings and behavior as well as messages, should be expected. In my view, the weirder aspects are best interpreted as deceit on the part of aliens, to prevent us from reaching definite conclusions about them, and acting on the basis of such conclusions. As long as we're unsure what we're dealing with, we can't formulate policy to do anything, which is probably how our visitors planned it (i.e. why there is so much nonET looking weirdness).

 

[Randall]

Redfern himself has researched contactee cases, and it's obvious that most of the reported messages and experiences ("we're from Venus", cities on the moon) are hogwash. I don't think there's any doubt the phenomenon wants to deceive, so weird sightings and behavior as well as messages, should be expected. In my view, the weirder aspects are best interpreted as deceit on the part of aliens, to prevent us from reaching definite conclusions about them, and acting on the basis of such conclusions. As long as we're unsure what we're dealing with, we can't formulate policy to do anything, which is probably how our visitors planned it (i.e. why there is so much nonET looking weirdness).

I think your point is excellent. All to often I hear abduction experiences written off as hoaxes or nonsense because the information they relay is either useless or just plain wrong. Too few take the time to consider that abduction victims may have been deceived on purpose. Perhaps the abductors want their victims to seem less credible because they don't want anyone to take them seriously. If so, what evidence are they trying to hide?

 

[Trajanus]

I think your point is excellent. All to often I hear abduction experiences written off as hoaxes or nonsense because the information they relay is either useless or just plain wrong.

Right, any hoaxer would know better than to say what some of the entities reportedly said. There was a case in France in 1954 when some UFO being told a witness some gobblydegook including the word "constipation." It is true that some of the 1950s contactee info may not have seemed erroneous yet. "We're from Venus" tales predated discovery of the hellish nature of Venus (sixties). But Adamski reported tours of lunar cities. No hoaxer with a modicum of knowledge would've shot his credibility with that.

Too few take the time to consider that abduction victims may have been deceived on purpose. Perhaps the abductors want their victims to seem less credible because they don't want anyone to take them seriously.

Sure, by imparting obvious nonsense, they must want the whole phenomenon to be dismissed.

If so, what evidence are they trying to hide?

Or what agenda here?

 

[Goggs Mackay]

I think your point is excellent. All to often I hear abduction experiences written off as hoaxes or nonsense because the information they relay is either useless or just plain wrong. Too few take the time to consider that abduction victims may have been deceived on purpose. Perhaps the abductors want their victims to seem less credible because they don't want anyone to take them seriously. If so, what evidence are they trying to hide?

So do you have any thoughts on the MILAB phenomenon? (if it exists?)

 

[Wade]

I suppose even that can't really be dismissed goggs, but if that is an aspect, then in order to achieve what "they" were doing i would think there would be have to be remnents of some type of drug in the systems of the abductees, do you know of this has ever been addressed or looked into ?

 

[Goggs Mackay]

No, I don't. Although it's a topic I've heard brought up several times over the years, it's something I have zero decent facts about. If facts are even possible to obtain.

One thing for me does follow; if ufos are from ET, and if they are here, it makes sense to me that they might indeed perform abductions.
If the military does have any guilty knowledge of ufos then they will probably know about abductions. They may well want to get in on this, perhaps only as a way of understanding what the ET's are doing?

A lot of if's for sure. Of course, I've also heard MILAB as a debunking explanation for alien abduction. The head doth spin.