Travis Walton - September 21, 2014

[marduk]

"His anonymous phone calls and MIB fantasies being a prime example of him creating constellations out of invisible black holes."
You mentioned Gray Barker.
He later admitted to making such calls himself.
He and Jim Moseley playfully framed them as "pranks", but they seem a lot like what we call hoaxes today.
How do you suggest I proceed with data from a ufologist who's also a confirmed hoaxer?

Simple. You don't.

 

[Jeremiah Dugger]

Simple. You don't.

I agree, but we're now considering ignoring not only Gray (which is doable) but Jim too? That's tough for me.

 

[marduk]

I agree, but we're now considering ignoring not only Gray (which is doable) but Jim too? That's tough for me.

I propose ignoring everything that happened before the year 2010 and start fresh.

In short, put 2009 - 5000BC into the "grey basket" only to be re-interpreted when we use fresh data to come to some actual conclusions. Because everything before then is so coloured by nostalgia, keel-isms, he said/she said, dead/dying witnesses, and personality conflicts that it will never be sorted out.

That, and I'm really exhausted having another rehash about some thing someone reported in the 50's vs some thing somebody else said happened about it, and how they were both jerks about the whole thing.

The field has a massive boat anchor attached to it, and that's it's sense of nostalgia and navel gazing about the distant past.

Oh, and that keeps the young'ns out of it, too, I'm sure.

 

[Jeremiah Dugger]

I propose ignoring everything that happened before the year 2010 and start fresh.

In short, put 2009 - 5000BC into the "grey basket" only to be re-interpreted when we use fresh data to come to some actual conclusions. Because everything before then is so coloured by nostalgia, keel-isms, he said/she said, dead/dying witnesses, and personality conflicts that it will never be sorted out.

That, and I'm really exhausted having another rehash about some thing someone reported in the 50's vs some thing somebody else said happened about it, and how they were both jerks about the whole thing.

I'm with you in spirit, but in practice, what sort of student of History would I be if I could look at the twisted knots in it and say, "screw it."?
I'm of a mind that many such inconsistencies can yet be traced to the source of the initial error and smoothed out, to prevent repeated echo chambers of the same error.

 

[marduk]

I'm with you in spirit, but in practice, what sort of student of History would I be if I could look at the twisted knots in it and say, "screw it."?
I'm of a mind that many such inconsistencies can yet be traced to the source of the initial error and smoothed out, to prevent repeated echo chambers of the same error.

People do it all the time.

Take current data, theorize about it, come to conclusions and then re-look at the past to come up with better ideas about what happened.

Historical revisionism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Besides, think about the tremendous intellectual freedom that this brings to look at things with fresh (and young) eyes.

 

[Jeremiah Dugger]

People do it all the time.

Take current data, theorize about it, come to conclusions and then re-look at the past to come up with better ideas about what happened.

Historical revisionism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Besides, think about the tremendous intellectual freedom that this brings to look at things with fresh (and young) eyes.

Sometimes history needs reviewing with fresh data.
Take for instance, UFO reports in a certain region before, and then after, the public acknowledgement of B-2s and F-117s. Night and day, once you have better/ more complete data.

 

[Constance]

I propose ignoring everything that happened before the year 2010 and start fresh.

In short, put 2009 - 5000BC into the "grey basket" only to be re-interpreted when we use fresh data to come to some actual conclusions. Because everything before then is so coloured by nostalgia, keel-isms, he said/she said, dead/dying witnesses, and personality conflicts that it will never be sorted out.

That, and I'm really exhausted having another rehash about some thing someone reported in the 50's vs some thing somebody else said happened about it, and how they were both jerks about the whole thing.

The field has a massive boat anchor attached to it, and that's it's sense of nostalgia and navel gazing about the distant past.

Oh, and that keeps the young'ns out of it, too, I'm sure.

A bold proposal. I too get tired of re-hashes of old cases for which we do not have sufficient evidence either way to justify accepting or rejecting the case as 'real'. But I can't support forgetting everything that has happened in this field before 2010, or in forgetting the past in general. Who was it who famously said that those who forget history are condemned to repeat it? I think that's a valid statement.

As for younger people coming into the field of ufo research, they more than anyone need to read and understand the history in my opinion.

 

[Jimi H.]

I know Gene would agree with me that Keel is regarded as a guiding light in ufology precisely because he did work so hard to actually gather Facts, get out there and interview so many people, and not just because he thought outside the box.
The amount of first person accounts...

What is factual about a personal eyewitness account about weird experiences? In religious studies such are called personal revelations, and they are not to be treated as facts.

I notice a fair bit of occult/demonological ideas here on the Paracast. (Not posting for popularity prizes as you can see, just telling it how I see it/hear it.)

T..
I'm actually not even of the opinion that Mothman is a straightforward account, ...

Once we know it's not a straightforward account, it is to be treated as fiction. Those who treat it as more than fiction are grasping to find confirmation for their beliefs imo. (Or they are simply enjoying the trill of telling a hairraising story.)

 

[Burnt State]

I agree with disposing of much prior to 2000 or so. The net has twisted it all into an endless chase like that damn Cicada cryptanalysis annual puzzle. The digressions and building upon false data leaves the entire field in a shambles. And Marduk's right in terms of there being little by way of scholarship and serious scientific inquiry. The names are few and most is supposition.

Serious data collection like Rutkowski's Canadian team and Aubek/Vallee's approach to cataloging has great value. Look at Sentry's painstaking approach to Cash Landrum. Truth in this field comes in dribs and drabs. It's history is filled with jesters, hoaxers and confabulists. And it is Keel who calls himself a Demonologist. Moseley as wry trickster and dismisser is what the history has been built upon. Any real investigation is totally buried and all inner circle by invitation only, as it should be in some ways.

Rarely, like in Walton's case, has there been a clear, scientific chain of investigation. It's all surreptitious and behind one's back. Walton admits his own lacks - no repeating of certain tests radioactive and otherwise, the clothes were set aside but tampered with, fake names in hospitals etc. and yet he is probably the world's best known face for popular ufology and will continue to dominate as a modern myth, or unearthly truth, depending on your perspective.

Yes, Jeremiah, I hope you stick around for the long haul in light of many recent and notable departures and cases of chronic lurking. Yes, there's a deep history here. Still not fully caught up myself, but it's all still pretty dynamic.

 

[Sentry]

I agree, but we're now considering ignoring not only Gray (which is doable) but Jim too? That's tough for me.

There's more show business in ufology than anyone wants to admit. Gray Barker was in it for that, Keel was a professional writer, and Moseley wanted an audience. They were all to some extent entertainers, all had some genuinely interesting things to say, but they weren't doing science or court reporting.

They were a bit more like the early sea explorers trying to navigate the world, who came back with true stories of faraway lands with some monsters mixed in.

 

[Jeremiah Dugger]

What is factual about a personal eyewitness account about weird experiences? In religious studies such are called personal revelations, and they are not to be treated as facts.

I notice a fair bit of occult/demonological ideas here on the Paracast. (Not posting for popularity prizes as you can see, just telling it how I see it/hear it.)


Once we know it's not a straightforward account, it is to be treated as fiction. Those who treat it as more than fiction are grasping to find confirmation for their beliefs imo. (Or they are simply enjoying the trill of telling a hairraising story.)

I'm sorry but I don't work in extremes as you seem to. A story may be fiction and based on real reports.
And to say that he was working with real reports is not necessarily saying those reports were 100% complete or accurate.
Also, I'm not a Keel apologist. I just thought the record needed to be pulled closer to the center, if not fully set straight.
"Demonologist" "Ufologist" "Cryptozoologist" All names for people trying to study what mainstream science can't or won't risk it's reputation over.
Sorry this erupted into a hair-splitting contest.

 

[marduk]

A bold proposal. I too get tired of re-hashes of old cases for which we do not have sufficient evidence either way to justify accepting or rejecting the case as 'real'. But I can't support forgetting everything that has happened in this field before 2010, or in forgetting the past in general. Who was it who famously said that those who forget history are condemned to repeat it? I think that's a valid statement.

As for younger people coming into the field of ufo research, they more than anyone need to read and understand the history in my opinion.

To quote Ghost in the Shell:
"All things change in a dynamic environment. Your effort to remain what you are is what limits you."

I assert it is at least partly this field's sense of history and personality and nostalgia is what is limiting it. We've had 60 years of looking backward.

Time to look forward.

I'm not recommending forgetting the past, I'm recommending setting it aside temporarily. Look for new, fresh, relevant data from today. That can be gathered with new methodologies and new perspectives. With up to date primary witnesses from now, not second or third hand. Utilize current technology like Chris is trying to do. Geospacial processing is completely different. Ethnology considerations are completely different. Even tactical considerations -- Keel didn't have access to Google Earth or Stochastic modelling tools (Stochastic - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia).

We even look at words like "truth" differently than we did in 1950. Our concept of government, education, nation states, and the military is different. Why is UFOlogy not different? Why do we continually look to the "golden era?" Well, because of some of the fabulous cases, sure. But also because we all remember picking up a Keel or Keyhoe or whoever's book, and thinking "what if?"

We're coloured by nostalgia and fascination with the past, and sidetracked with continual explorations of Roswell, etc.

And for better or for worse, without the "entertainment" perspective that has perhaps coloured the past and been brought by some into the present.

Then, and only then, can we reflect on past cases with new perspectives and in new ways.

Like those that are x-raying renaissance paintings and discovering new, hidden masterpieces, or using new economic models to look at the fall of the Inca.

 

[Jimi H.]

I'm sorry but I don't work in extremes as you seem to. A story may be fiction and based on real reports.

What do you mean by extremes?

If an author decides to include fiction, the work is by definition not useable as an objective source, unless the author notes the exact passages that are fictionalized.

Furthermore, if he got his ideas from eyewitness accounts (perhaps storytellers in their own right), there wouldn't be anything factual to begin with, so that's probably why it didn't matter to him one way or the other.

"Demonologist" "Ufologist" "Cryptozoologist" All names for people trying to study what mainstream science can't or won't risk it's reputation
...

Science can and will deal with anything that can be studied objectively. For instance, you can treat the WOW-signal objectively, and scientists do treat it objectively and with interest. You can't treat a John Keel story objectively.

 

[Jeremiah Dugger]

What do you mean by extremes?

If an author decides to include fiction, the work is by definition not useable as an objective source, unless the author notes the exact passages that are fictionalized.

Furthermore, if he got his ideas from eyewitness accounts (perhaps storytellers in their own right), there wouldn't be anything factual to begin with, so that's probably why it didn't matter to him one way or the other.


Science can and will deal with anything that can be studied objectively. For instance, you can treat the WOW-signal objectively, and scientists do treat it objectively and with interest. You can't treat a John Keel story objectively.

Extremes?
It's not my job to point out literature which gets used as sources all the time, like the Gulag Archipelago or Ralph Ellison's Invisible Man.
Sure, Science can and will; that's why there are so many physicists throwing themselves at the subject and why nobody has ever referred to the pursuit as "career suicide".
I give up, you win.

 

[Jimi H.]

Extremes?
It's not my job to point out literature which gets used as sources all the time, like the Gulag Archipelago or Ralph Ellison's Invisible Man.

That's not the same. We know that the Gulag camps were not fictional. The Mothman is most likely fictional (myth).

Fwiw., though I'm positive that wasn't the intention, some might feel that comparing survivors of concentration camps or slavery to tellers of Mothman stories is a tad offensive.

 

[Heidi Lemmer]

To quote Ghost in the Shell:
"All things change in a dynamic environment. Your effort to remain what you are is what limits you."

I assert it is at least partly this field's sense of history and personality and nostalgia is what is limiting it. We've had 60 years of looking backward.

Time to look forward.

I'm not recommending forgetting the past, I'm recommending setting it aside temporarily. Look for new, fresh, relevant data from today. That can be gathered with new methodologies and new perspectives. With up to date primary witnesses from now, not second or third hand. Utilize current technology like Chris is trying to do. Geospacial processing is completely different. Ethnology considerations are completely different. Even tactical considerations -- Keel didn't have access to Google Earth or Stochastic modelling tools (Stochastic - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia).

We even look at words like "truth" differently than we did in 1950. Our concept of government, education, nation states, and the military is different. Why is UFOlogy not different? Why do we continually look to the "golden era?" Well, because of some of the fabulous cases, sure. But also because we all remember picking up a Keel or Keyhoe or whoever's book, and thinking "what if?"

We're coloured by nostalgia and fascination with the past, and sidetracked with continual explorations of Roswell, etc.

And for better or for worse, without the "entertainment" perspective that has perhaps coloured the past and been brought by some into the present.

Then, and only then, can we reflect on past cases with new perspectives and in new ways.

Like those that are x-raying renaissance paintings and discovering new, hidden masterpieces, or using new economic models to look at the fall of the Inca.

I'm going to do both. I see it as inevitable that I'm looking back simply because the current model deeply references the past, a past I'm still learning. It's possible we're all at different stages of this road. For someone like Gene and Don Eckerr, they've lived the story, the drama, the hoax and the impossible. Maybe they are genuinely tired of repeating old stories and crave new content. When I first came to this sight I didn't sign up and comment for at least a year and even then rarely ,simply because some people here knew their content, referenced often to authors and research of the past, etc. I'm finding I sorta need it to be a part of the conversation. But that's not to say I'm also not into the current. I enjoyed Dantonnio last night. He gave my brain a mental workout and covered aspects I'm not really into. But his enthusiasm was awesome. He's totally into new technology, projects that would move us forward and he peppered the conversation with ideas that scientists across the spectrum are working on.

 

[Constance]

Sure, Science can and will; that's why there are so many physicists throwing themselves at the subject and why nobody has ever referred to the pursuit as "career suicide".

Too pertinent a statement not to repeat it.

 

[Jimi H.]

Too pertinent a statement not to repeat it.

If you'll point out a case with hard data that can treated meaningfully by a scientist, that would help?

Mind you, individual witness accounts won't do (career suicide, naturally), and cases that require need-to-know info are obviously also impossible to deal with for a civil scientist.

What I'm talking about is something where things can be tested and observed, or where a sizeable amount of recorded data from a known source can be analyzed. For instance, something like the Hessdalen phenomenon. Or radio-astronomy. Or the analysis of chemical components in the atmosphere of other planets. As you may have noticed, these 'positions' are already filled, and scientists are happily at work.

Even a hard copy of a radar image may be impossible to deal with in a scientific way, because it's impossible to repeat and test whether the image was generated by one thing or another.

 

[Stagger Lee]

"crypto. vs ufolo."
It's why I respect Stan Gordon. He doesn't choose sides. Reports of sasquatch climbing out of a saucer, are treated and logged like any report.

 

[manxman]

There's more shysters blagging huge grants and securing a good living in the scientific community than are 'showmen' earning peanut's in pseudoscience jimmy lad.

Step forward Gorrbal Warming what a blag.

Climategate, gravytrain derail.

Rebrand Climate Change, choo choo all aboard for another decade.