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.
I'll play Devils Advocate hear and state that the problem isn't necessarily "Ufology" itself, as I think you've sort of defined it, "The Field" as you put it. The problem is more how "Science" has chosen to ignore the phenomenon. Most "ologies" are well defined within the scope of science and as such, these "ologies" are fairly ordered and there is a particular criteria assigned in order to be considered an "ologist" i.e -Sociology/Sociologist, Biology/Biologist, Geology/Geologist...you get the idea. The fact that there is no scientifically accepted "ology" know as "Ufology" makes it therefore, unordered. It's messy. And there is no criteria in order to call oneself a "Ufologist". In my mind, the field as we know it today is rather small...and getting smaller. In order to become considered a ufologist. In my mind, one must be involved in field work. That means getting off your ass and getting outside, talking to witnesses, measuring physical trace evidence, and performing the types of research that would pass some sort of peer reviewed process, if there is such a thing in such an unordered, messy "ology". Oh yes, I forgot. All this must be done on your own dime and without guarantee of compensation. So with that said...
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.>>
I'm not sure "the Field"
does focus on videos and or pictures to any great extent. Unless the analysis is done by someone like Haines or Maccabbe. And I think the mantra of many that can truely consider "Ufologist" has always been the same. Science-Science-Science. I'm thinking guys like Dick Hall, Richard Haines, Maccabbee etc. But I know what you mean. However, just because someone creates a website and then collects photos from news clippings (the web) or embeds YouTube videos, does not make them "Ufologist" nor do these methods have anything to do with "Ufology". If you think they do, maybe that's your mistake and not a really a "problem".
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.
Not really a problem per se...a good suggestion but not a problem. There will always be those who will deny the value of the reports of trained observers. Hell, there will always be those who deny everything (Klass, Shermer, McGaha etc). However, you will not find this a problem with "Ufologist". Ask Robert Hastings...
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.
The "Einstein" problem, really found more amongst Skeptics rather than Ufologist. Again, not really a problem. I think the true Ufologist, while valuing the application of science, tends to be the sort that keeps a more open mind than most. Think S. Friedmans infamous "Grey Basket" (no pun intended, unless intended by Friedman).
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.
The ETH, if one applies "science" is nothing more than the most logical hypothesis and the one most true Ufologist cling to do to the fact that as science marches forward, it is the one most likely to be proven or dis proven. You can't really have it both ways. The alternatives are what? Hyper dimensional entities. Demons or Angels. A product of Jungs Human Consciousness Collective? One can't blame true Ufologist in their desire to cling closely to science. And I don't see it as a problem. I susect that most when confronted with compelling evidence to the contrary, would certainly consider the alternatives.
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.
Most would consider government knowledge of the phenomena a part and parcel of the larger picture and the most likely place to get smoking gun, scientific type physical evidence, if such exist. Why do you think Hastings specializes in the Nuke/UFO relationship? Those interested in the Governments involvement don't necessarily, AFAIK, believe they know the answer or that they are hiding some kind of extensive big picture type knowledge. At least not the true Ufologist that I respect. But I know what you mean to some extent.
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.
And most are - by
true Ufologist. There will always be those who, through fault of ego or desperation, will succumb to such temptations. However, who will find this type of problem in most of the sciences and it is not those sole sin of Ufologist.
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.
Agreed. And again, not really an overarching problem in the field.
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.
Agents/Operatives/Analysts.. not really a true Ufological proble. But point taken.
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.
Point taken. If it's a "problem", it's a minor one at best.
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.
Cattle mutes are simply a very small part of a very large Ufological picture. They haven't added or detracted much from that picture IMO.
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.
Depends on your defintions. And then, by your defintion, only if you let it. I think it also depends to some extent on why you're interested in it in the first place. If your seeking 'disclosure' or some kind of worldwide accptance of the reality of the phenomenon, then I think you'll be waiting a very long time. The "foil hat" crowd will always exist. And that can't be helped. Nor do I see them as a "problem". Rather, they are simply a natural byproduct of human nature and the high strangeness inherent in the subject. And, IMO, a naturalness that I have a hard time equating as a true problem. A nuisance maybe, but not a problem. Nor are they representative of "Ufology" as properly defined.
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.
I've always had the feeling that, by it's nature ( and possibly by the insistence of the perpetrators, whoever
they may be), that UFOLOGY isn't meant to take off. At least not yet in the way most here would prefer. If and when
they decide it's time, trust me when I tell you, it will.
I get the point of your post Sgt. The preceding has only been a flow of consciousness exercise directed at no one in particular. To sum up, I feel Ufology is rather healthy if you separate, on your own, signal to noise. And define it properly.
...the "Paracast" could certainly be used to promote such an idea. Just throwing possible solutions out there that I'm sure have been discussed many times before.