The Future of Ufology by Nick Redfern

[exo_doc]

To tell the truth that doesn't really seem to be working out all that well. Nothing more is known now about the subject than was known 20, 30, or even 50 years ago. Something has to be brought down and captured that will reveal the secrets of their origin and purpose. This may or may not have already been done, however it seems certain that if has there are no plans to make it common knowledge.

I believe the sobering reality of the situation is that to actually get a handle on genuine UFOs it would require more connections, influence, and direct need to know than I think either you or I will ever be able to muster. I am also pretty sure that if either of us were "read in" we would not be discussing it an Internet forum.

I have been puzzling over this for years. How would you get UFO evidence?
You never know when or where they are going to appear.
We really, honestly, can't just try to shoot one down (without provacation). What if they/them/it were here on some goodwill mission? Or just in the wrong place at the wrong time?
Apparently ground marks, burn marks, radiation counts, photo's, movies/vids, animal and human mutilations, soil property transformations, personal accounts, physiological marks/burns/etc, radar recordings, etc , etc,..isn't really counted as evidence.

So I guess you'd really HAVE to have an actual craft with actual aliens or whatever they are.
That's depressing.

 

[trainedobserver]

Apparently ground marks, burn marks, radiation counts, photo's, movies/vids, animal and human mutilations, soil property transformations, personal accounts, physiological marks/burns/etc, radar recordings, etc , etc,..isn't really counted as evidence.

Isn't that it can't be "counted as evidence" as much as it is evidence that does not generate any actionable information. What has been done with all of that? Where has it gotten us? Nowhere.

The NSA and NRO already have systems in place that can track and analyze everything flying in the skies and near other orbit and it operates 24/7/365. That is what is required. Guys with cameras and telescopes pointed up at the sky in their backyards isn't going to get it. Chris O'Brien's project is one of the most exciting and promising things to come along in a while, but it too is hamstrung by budget, available technology, and coverage area.

What has to happen is something has to be captured outright or followed back to its point of origin. Finding where these thing originate from is the goal, not the objects themselves. If they can come here, we can go there.

 

[Randall]

You probably would've joined the Air Force then ...

That was my initial thought, but I'm lousy at taking orders from people in power who make stupid decisions, and it seemed like there would be too much of that for it to work for me.

 

[Randall]

I have been puzzling over this for years. How would you get UFO evidence? You never know when or where they are going to appear. We really, honestly, can't just try to shoot one down (without provacation). What if they/them/it were here on some goodwill mission? Or just in the wrong place at the wrong time?

Apparently ground marks, burn marks, radiation counts, photo's, movies/vids, animal and human mutilations, soil property transformations, personal accounts, physiological marks/burns/etc, radar recordings, etc , etc,..isn't really counted as evidence. So I guess you'd really HAVE to have an actual craft with actual aliens or whatever they are.
That's depressing.

My vision back in 1989 when I started USI was that there are so many people around the world who are interested in UFOs that if we could unite our efforts, then collectively we'd have sufficient resources for ground based investigations. In other words, if a UFO were to land, a certain number of our group could converge on the location almost anyplace in the world, probably as fast or faster than any military contingent, resulting in the very least, a multiple witness sighting, and possibly contact. The problem has been that although interested in the topic, everyone seems to be waiting for someone else to do the work. Don't get me wrong, it's great to have the moral support from people who sign up for their free membership, but it would also be nice to see some self-motivated action as well.

 

[SRL+]

Ufology is hamstrung by the great many assumptions that absolutely have to be made to even allow a discussion about the subject to take place. However, the absence of adequate evidence and actionable information makes running too far down the rabbit holes of Extraterrestrials, Crytoterrestrials, Ultraterrestrials, Demons, or any other theories about UFOs completely pointless. There just isn't enough information to form a conclusion about the origin and true nature of these things. They are other than. They are something else. They are unknown. Until they are identified they remain unknown. Many claims about UFO and paranormal phenomena can explained and discounted. Those that aren't remain unknown. No one has ever identified anything as coming from another planet (other than meteors), dimension, or reality to my knowledge. People see things that don't fit into their frame of reference and it is "alien" to them, but nothing is actually known about it beyond its "otherness."

Detecting some possible irony here, has anyone ever considered that the phenomenon is doing exactly what it was meant to do, as we may possibly be the tools? As it seems to derive its power from the wondering of what it is, where it comes from, and why it is here.

 

[exo_doc]

Detecting some possible irony here, has anyone ever considered that the phenomenon is doing exactly was it was meant to do, and as we may possibly be the tools? As it seems to derive its power from the wondering of what it is, where it comes from, and why it is here.

Possibly.
However, IF that were true and the power derived from our wonder, awe, and curiosity.......I would be seeing them all the time because I would be worth a string of nuclear reactors in power source!

 

[exo_doc]

Isn't that it can't be "counted as evidence" as much as it is evidence that does not generate any actionable information. What has been done with all of that? Where has it gotten us? Nowhere.

The NSA and NRO already have systems in place that can track and analyze everything flying in the skies and near other orbit and it operates 24/7/365. That is what is required. Guys with cameras and telescopes pointed up at the sky in their backyards isn't going to get it. Chris O'Brien's project is one of the most exciting and promising things to come along in a while, but it too is hamstrung by budget, available technology, and coverage area.

What has to happen is something has to be captured outright or followed back to its point of origin. Finding where these thing originate from is the goal, not the objects themselves. If they can come here, we can go there.

Maybe nothing "test-tube" or "without-a-doubt" worthy kind of information, but in my mind, it's more than enough to show that SOMETHING is going on worthy OF investigation........Despite all the protestations and guffaws of debunkers.
I would settle for just being able to prove to someone that SOMETHING is going on......and at least get the ball rolling on serious scientific research by institutes and foundations that have boo-coo money and resources.

 

[trainedobserver]

Maybe nothing "test-tube" or "without-a-doubt" worthy kind of information, but in my mind, it's more than enough to show that SOMETHING is going on worthy OF investigation........Despite all the protestations and guffaws of debunkers.
I would settle for just being able to prove to someone that SOMETHING is going on......and at least get the ball rolling on serious scientific research by institutes and foundations that have boo-coo money and resources.

Well my point is, what do you do with what you have? What do we have that would constitute a reasonable return on investment for anyone with money to risk? A drive system? A power source? Is there enough known to justify it?

Some would argue serious money and resources have been poured into researching the subject since the 50s with compartmentalization and "need to know" driving it deeper and deeper in a state of permanent inaccessibly to the general public.

 

[exo_doc]

Well my point is, what do you do with what you have? What do we have that would constitute a reasonable return on investment for anyone with money to risk? A drive system? A power source? Is there enough known to justify it?

Some would argue serious money and resources have been poured into researching the subject since the 50s with compartmentalization and "need to know" driving it deeper and deeper in a state of permanent inaccessibly to the general public.

I can't answer those questions. All I can say is there is research into all kinds of things, especially in astronomy, that have no immediate benefits, and (some of them anyway) they are fairly well funded.
I would argue to study UFO's if nothing else just to learn something new.

 

[Randall]

Detecting some possible irony here, has anyone ever considered that the phenomenon is doing exactly what it was meant to do, as we may possibly be the tools? As it seems to derive its power from the wondering of what it is, where it comes from, and why it is here.

Please elaborate.

 

[trainedobserver]

I can't answer those questions. All I can say is there is research into all kinds of things, especially in astronomy, that have no immediate benefits, and (some of them anyway) they are fairly well funded.
I would argue to study UFO's if nothing else just to learn something new.

It is all about funding. Scientists have to convince people with money to give it to them.

Apparently no one is able to mount an argument for UFO research that has convinced those with the money to dole it out. It is just that simple of a situation. While you or I might find it worthy of spending someone else's millions on, we might have an uphill battle prying that money out their hands based on what we know about UFOs at the moment. It isn't unlike a teenager running up to a parent and saying, "I need $150 for a pair of sneakers!" "Oh really?", the parent might say. "What is so special about those sneakers?" "They are cool!", might be truth but not the most convincing argument.

 

[trainedobserver]

You know, that might be an interesting exercise exo_doc. How difficult do you think it might be to write a project or business proposal for pure UFO research? Think about what you would need to "shop around" to various boards of directors and funding committees. The thought makes my head spin.

 

[exo_doc]

You know, that might be an interesting exercise exo_doc. How difficult do you think it might be to write a project or business proposal for pure UFO research? Think about what you would need to "shop around" to various boards of directors and funding committees. The thought makes my head spin.

I have very little experience in writing proposals, but how hard could it be?
I'd need a list of foundations, institutes, and private persons who might be interested, and tailor each proposal specifically for them.
I'd say just off the top of my head, 99% would toss the proposal in the trash at the first sight of the acronym "UFO".

 

[nameless]

ufology imo is at an enpasse.

things arent clearly defined, peoples interpretations are screwy biased or just incorrect. its a mess. takes this thread everyones saying the same thing bout different stuff or saying different things about the same stuff. i dont mean philosophy, i mean trying to communicate an experience or understand something we dont know about is like trying to explain painting through dance.
the only thing good coming from this is knowing what our own limitations are and the place unexplained phenomena has in initiatory proceedings as a cultural or personal mirror.

Seeing as the current employment of critical and scientific methodology has lead us to no new information since day one we are left with zilch other than wild speculation based on our own, prejudices, imagination, cultural interpretation and sceintific up-to-date-ness(which in most cases hasnt progressed since 1950s sci-fi). which is the experience of Art by the way.

some people cant or wont view or interpret challenging Art, wether it be a painting, film, music or graffiti. well my friend your fact based non-fiction wired brain needs an ID puzzle release mechanism to help with your emotional and inteligence evolution and maturation all of which can be conjured up for you for your personal persual if you so wish.

we cant keep holding out for the next bit of kit or the best most uptodate ultimate way in capturing UFO evidence or holding out for the one apocalyptic event eschatonic mother of all cum shots. its not going to happen ever, maybe when you die and the DMT which occurs naturaly in your brain is released but until then its going to be an unfortunate non-scientificy personal religious revelation revealed in the sky or a little grey lump on your calf black coptor blades medical funtasy.

so what are we left with?

paypal me $42.00 at namelesswon@hotmail and I will tell you the secrets to this and more .

 

[Randall]

Thanks Gene for asking my question. I never actually expected that question to get asked, but it did and was good natured about it and recognized that it was intended primarily as humor. But in every bit of humor ( at least good humor ) there is an element of truth, and in this case the question was meant as a comeback to his "joke" that was aimed squarely at ( and at the expense of the ufology community ). All in all it was an enjoyable episode. Does that mean I agreed with everything he said? No. But at the same time I suppose it doesn't hurt to shake the tree once in while and see what falls out. Not long ago I picked up Redfern's Keep Out and added to others of his in my collection. It's an interesting read with some urban legends about places that are off limits to everyday citizens.

 

[Goggs Mackay]

so what's this about? surely not just about whether someone is pro-ETH or not?

 

[Randall]

so what's this about? surely not just about whether someone is pro-ETH or not?

I'm still reeling from it ... I just posted a comic in the Official Funny Stuff thread to help me cope. Basically, there was recently an exodus by a few people here who went and started what was was supposedly a "research" forum with a focus on UFOs and I was invited to participate. Someone posted up an experience they had where they had seen what the poster thought was an exotic aircraft, but the father in law had thought it was an alien craft. A brief analysis indicated that the object in the report would not be deemed a UFO under the definition of UFO, and quoted the relevant part of the USAF definition in AFR 200-2 ( Feb 05, 1958 ), and explained that the object in the report would have been classified as an unknown aircraft. I also explained very briefly ( I don't recall the exact wording ) that the word UFO coveys the idea of an alien craft, and that unless one is sure that what they saw can be described that way, it wouldn't be called a UFO. That precipitated a debate on what the term UFO actually means and how it should be defined. You've probably run across a similar debate here. I wasn't able to conclude that debate before being banned from the site. Apparently their "research" is whatever they want it to mean rather than what the objective evidence and logic suggests.

 

[Goggs Mackay]

I understand the stricter definition of 'UFO' but even craft that absolutely do not look man-made, well I'm not sure how we can define them as 'alien' or not, unless one lands and out pops a novel life-form.
I probably come down more on the ETH than any other explanation but over the last year or so, other explanations have become more plausible (to me).

My opinion is if we take all the sightings that might be genuine, there is still an awful lot of differing craft, lights, behaviour and occupants. I think if the ETH is the best explanation, then there has to be multiple ET races involved. Which of course presents a whole new lot of problems.

But NONE of us know for sure either way, that's the only constant in Ufology!

 

[Randall]

I understand the stricter definition of 'UFO' but even craft that absolutely do not look man-made, well I'm not sure how we can define them as 'alien' or not, unless one lands and out pops a novel life-form.
I probably come down more on the ETH than any other explanation but over the last year or so, other explanations have become more plausible (to me).

My opinion is if we take all the sightings that might be genuine, there is still an awful lot of differing craft, lights, behaviour and occupants. I think if the ETH is the best explanation, then there has to be multiple ET races involved. Which of course presents a whole new lot of problems.

But NONE of us know for sure either way, that's the only constant in Ufology!

Fair comments, but to fully understand the rationale, it's probably best to read the article here. Without recounting everything, the word "alien" does not necessitate ET, and therefore saying that UFO = alien craft as a part of the definition isn't an explicit endorsement of the ETH. Technically, the word alien has several meanings, but in the context of ufology, it is used rather generically to mean alien to human civilization. Where exactly it comes from, what it's made out of, how it was built, and it's mode of propulsion are all separate issues.

 

[Randall]

One might think that Ufology would perhaps be more introspective and wonder why folks all over the place come to same negative conclusion about him (for exactly the same reasons). Unfortunately, like most UFO zealots, that just isn't part of his worldview. Does your one-sided, self-serving recounting of this latest denouement make you feel better Ufology?

Such piffle.

Lance

Lance, being the skeptic you are, here's a tip you seem to have forgotten: Avoid using absolutes. You'll have a hard time finding sufficient evidence that folks "all over the place" have come to the "same negative conclusion" about me. For example there may be more than one negative conclusion that different people hold ( and for different reasons ), not a single one of which I'm ashamed of. Also, I'd be willing to bet a real silver dollar that I can find at least one or two positive conclusions someplace. So if you've got one ( a real silver dollar ) how about putting up. I'll be glad to take it off you.

On your use of the word "piffle" ... it's so colorful, I just love it. Originating in the mid 1800s it has such a nostalgic ring to it. It's as though I were in the presence of a neoclassical aristocrat, who upon exhaling the smoke from his pipe with a foggy scowl, makes his declaration as though it were as certain as "Man will never fly" ( and if he does, he will never come from Dayton ).

J. Randall Murphy