SgtRock
Skilled Investigator
I put together a list of things that continue to bother me about the state of Ufology today. These are just my observations. Feel free to add to it or tear it apart. In short, I believe that the field has been hijacked by those seeking attention, and each is trying to outdo the other in outrageousness just to get that attention. The more outrageous the claim, the further we get away from scientific analysis of physical evidence. I applaud people like Gene and Dave that have exposed a lot of these frauds on their show. Still, there fails to be what is really needed, a fundamental re-boot of the field of Ufology. Otherwise it will remain the dominion of the foil-hat crowd.
1 -- Physical evidence: In the 1940s and 1950s, the focus of Ufology (if it could be called that) was on sightings (interesting how it coincided with the world’s entry into flight technology). By the 1960s and 1970s, the focus became physical evidence – people seeing scorch marks, footprints, measurable levels of physical residue, increased radiation levels, etc. Then, by the 1980s, abductions started being widely discussed and reported. By the 1990s and through today, it’s back to sightings – Phoenix lights, O’Hare Incident – etc. With the current state of video editing technology, I really think there needs to be a greater focus on physical evidence. Photos and video are mostly useless today (not completely as trained imagery scientists can find fakes). But the field would be far better off if it focused on things that can be scientifically proven.>>
2 -- Eye Witnesses: People that state that trained observers like pilots and policemen are no better witnesses than the average Joe are idiots. Still, since humans still know very little about the brain and how it works (can people have mass hallucinations like at Fatima?), I think more study needs to be conducted on the human brain to determine whether it can “create” (some would say “perceive”) an alternative reality, and whether this situation can be “networked” across multiple brains (abductees), or concurrent perceptions (mass sightings). Along with number 1 above, if much of what is being “seen” actually is what the brain may be perceiving instead, these might be instances that cannot be photographed anyway – like abductions.
3 -- Why would they take 60 years to study soil”?: One common error on many in the field continues to be assigning human understanding and motivations to potential non-human actions. It can’t be done, so stop doing it.
4 -- It’s ETH or nothing: People that are not willing to consider alternative explanations no longer are researchers, they are advocates. Advocates are not concerned with finding truths, but only in proving they are not wrong. Discard them.
5 -- Finger Pointers and Cry Babies: When people are unable to engage in thoughtful scientific consideration, can’t find the answers, or otherwise have given up the scientific approach, they often engage in finger pointing – “it’s the government’s fault,” “they know the answer, if only they would tell us”, “this is too hard of a problem for me to solve, let someone else give me an answer”, etc. This intellectual laziness is killing the field. Look, serious researchers need to assume that no one out there has the answer yet – including the government. Stop looking for scapegoats as to why you don’t have the answers you want and look for them using established scientific principles.
6 -- Intelligence “Insiders”: Listen, everyone exposed to classified information signed a “non-disclosure agreement” (NDF not/not and NDA) stating that they swear and affirm to never disclose the information they are being exposed to, to ANYONE. Period. If a person then discloses that information, they are not only committing a “felony” offense, but they are by definition a “liar” – they have lied to the people they have taken an oath to protect. If a person is willing to “lie” once, they probably will be willing to lie again. There is a caveat to this, and that is “whistleblowers”. But the “whistleblower” statutes are very narrow and much defined -- a person has to follow a specific procedure. Anyone just coming out and releasing what they call is “classified” is either committing a felony, or making it up (unless they fall under the whistleblower statutes which require certain procedures – talking to the press or to Ufologists does not qualify). I am just saying that people willing to violate an NDF where they swore to protect their nation’s secrets need to be looked at skeptically.
7 -- Above “Top Secret”. What a popular phrase. But seriously, there are no classifications levels “above” Top Secret. There are three levels, confidential, secret, and top secret. Period. There also is special compartmented information, called SCI. This information usually falls within Top Secret, but may also be Secret. The point is, that the information in SCI compartments falls within one of the existing three levels. ALL compartments do this. When people say that they have clearances “above top secret” they should be looked at skeptically.
8 -- CIA/NSA “Agents”. The CIA and NSA don’t have “agents”. They have “analysts” or “operatives”. The FBI has “agents”. The DEA has “agents”, the TSA has “agents” (see a pattern?). Usually “law-enforcement” agencies have “agents”. Intel agencies have operatives, or analysts. As an aside, if someone were to ever be “accused” of being an “NSA Agent” they should not take this as an insult, but wear it as a badge of honor – because those people keep Americans safe every damn day.
9 -- Domestic intelligence Collection: Ever since “The Hughes-Ryan Act of 1974,” it has been illegal for US Intelligence Agencies to collect information on US citizens. This was a result of the Watergate era. This Act was amended in 1980 making it even stricter. Some of the provisions were clarified in the Patriot Act, so that terrorists overseas communicating inside the US could be collected upon. Any collection involving a US citizen requires a US court action. Almost all is conducted by the FBI and requires a court order. People that claim that they are being monitored by the CIA or NSA should be looked at skeptically if they claim it has taken place SINCE 1974.
10 -- Cattle Mutilations: There is a whole genre of Ufology that almost always has some type of physical evidence. Why are these not being more closely studied? So far, Human mutilations have been confined to fiction writings. But on a previous Paracast Don Ecker mentioned something like this when he was a detective. Why isn’t there more research being done in this area
Conclusion: I guess if I had to sum up everything that I have mentioned here, it would be the following: I believe there is too much attention being focused on peripheral issues (photos, videos, disclosure movements, secret agents, government conspiracies, the Queen of England is a reptile, etc) when there should be more attention paid to physical evidentiary issues – landings, residuals, mutilations, human brain function, etc. Ufology has been hijacked by the foil hat crowd. Even places like the paracast forums are more dominated by 9-11 conspiracy talk than scientific research or theories – a mere reflection of what the entire field has become. Gene and Dave keep stating and restating that they are trying to separate the “signal from the noise” and I believe they almost always succeed in their show – certainly better than anyone else in the field (except for when David goes off into politics). But in order for this endeavor to truly take off, I believe Ufology needs a reboot, and needs to go back to the roots etablished by J. Allen Hynek and Vallee. Ufology needs to go back to the study of physical evidence.>>
1 -- Physical evidence: In the 1940s and 1950s, the focus of Ufology (if it could be called that) was on sightings (interesting how it coincided with the world’s entry into flight technology). By the 1960s and 1970s, the focus became physical evidence – people seeing scorch marks, footprints, measurable levels of physical residue, increased radiation levels, etc. Then, by the 1980s, abductions started being widely discussed and reported. By the 1990s and through today, it’s back to sightings – Phoenix lights, O’Hare Incident – etc. With the current state of video editing technology, I really think there needs to be a greater focus on physical evidence. Photos and video are mostly useless today (not completely as trained imagery scientists can find fakes). But the field would be far better off if it focused on things that can be scientifically proven.>>
2 -- Eye Witnesses: People that state that trained observers like pilots and policemen are no better witnesses than the average Joe are idiots. Still, since humans still know very little about the brain and how it works (can people have mass hallucinations like at Fatima?), I think more study needs to be conducted on the human brain to determine whether it can “create” (some would say “perceive”) an alternative reality, and whether this situation can be “networked” across multiple brains (abductees), or concurrent perceptions (mass sightings). Along with number 1 above, if much of what is being “seen” actually is what the brain may be perceiving instead, these might be instances that cannot be photographed anyway – like abductions.
3 -- Why would they take 60 years to study soil”?: One common error on many in the field continues to be assigning human understanding and motivations to potential non-human actions. It can’t be done, so stop doing it.
4 -- It’s ETH or nothing: People that are not willing to consider alternative explanations no longer are researchers, they are advocates. Advocates are not concerned with finding truths, but only in proving they are not wrong. Discard them.
5 -- Finger Pointers and Cry Babies: When people are unable to engage in thoughtful scientific consideration, can’t find the answers, or otherwise have given up the scientific approach, they often engage in finger pointing – “it’s the government’s fault,” “they know the answer, if only they would tell us”, “this is too hard of a problem for me to solve, let someone else give me an answer”, etc. This intellectual laziness is killing the field. Look, serious researchers need to assume that no one out there has the answer yet – including the government. Stop looking for scapegoats as to why you don’t have the answers you want and look for them using established scientific principles.
6 -- Intelligence “Insiders”: Listen, everyone exposed to classified information signed a “non-disclosure agreement” (NDF not/not and NDA) stating that they swear and affirm to never disclose the information they are being exposed to, to ANYONE. Period. If a person then discloses that information, they are not only committing a “felony” offense, but they are by definition a “liar” – they have lied to the people they have taken an oath to protect. If a person is willing to “lie” once, they probably will be willing to lie again. There is a caveat to this, and that is “whistleblowers”. But the “whistleblower” statutes are very narrow and much defined -- a person has to follow a specific procedure. Anyone just coming out and releasing what they call is “classified” is either committing a felony, or making it up (unless they fall under the whistleblower statutes which require certain procedures – talking to the press or to Ufologists does not qualify). I am just saying that people willing to violate an NDF where they swore to protect their nation’s secrets need to be looked at skeptically.
7 -- Above “Top Secret”. What a popular phrase. But seriously, there are no classifications levels “above” Top Secret. There are three levels, confidential, secret, and top secret. Period. There also is special compartmented information, called SCI. This information usually falls within Top Secret, but may also be Secret. The point is, that the information in SCI compartments falls within one of the existing three levels. ALL compartments do this. When people say that they have clearances “above top secret” they should be looked at skeptically.
8 -- CIA/NSA “Agents”. The CIA and NSA don’t have “agents”. They have “analysts” or “operatives”. The FBI has “agents”. The DEA has “agents”, the TSA has “agents” (see a pattern?). Usually “law-enforcement” agencies have “agents”. Intel agencies have operatives, or analysts. As an aside, if someone were to ever be “accused” of being an “NSA Agent” they should not take this as an insult, but wear it as a badge of honor – because those people keep Americans safe every damn day.
9 -- Domestic intelligence Collection: Ever since “The Hughes-Ryan Act of 1974,” it has been illegal for US Intelligence Agencies to collect information on US citizens. This was a result of the Watergate era. This Act was amended in 1980 making it even stricter. Some of the provisions were clarified in the Patriot Act, so that terrorists overseas communicating inside the US could be collected upon. Any collection involving a US citizen requires a US court action. Almost all is conducted by the FBI and requires a court order. People that claim that they are being monitored by the CIA or NSA should be looked at skeptically if they claim it has taken place SINCE 1974.
10 -- Cattle Mutilations: There is a whole genre of Ufology that almost always has some type of physical evidence. Why are these not being more closely studied? So far, Human mutilations have been confined to fiction writings. But on a previous Paracast Don Ecker mentioned something like this when he was a detective. Why isn’t there more research being done in this area
Conclusion: I guess if I had to sum up everything that I have mentioned here, it would be the following: I believe there is too much attention being focused on peripheral issues (photos, videos, disclosure movements, secret agents, government conspiracies, the Queen of England is a reptile, etc) when there should be more attention paid to physical evidentiary issues – landings, residuals, mutilations, human brain function, etc. Ufology has been hijacked by the foil hat crowd. Even places like the paracast forums are more dominated by 9-11 conspiracy talk than scientific research or theories – a mere reflection of what the entire field has become. Gene and Dave keep stating and restating that they are trying to separate the “signal from the noise” and I believe they almost always succeed in their show – certainly better than anyone else in the field (except for when David goes off into politics). But in order for this endeavor to truly take off, I believe Ufology needs a reboot, and needs to go back to the roots etablished by J. Allen Hynek and Vallee. Ufology needs to go back to the study of physical evidence.>>
