"Ufology, There’s a Hole in Your Bucket"

[James Carrion]

I've said this often lately, I'm a newbie to the field. And it has become very important for me to know where people stand. Not so much on each case but overall. The more you've talked the more I like you. All along it's been important to know that the people I take the time to read up on, read their book, etc, must be sincere in not ruling out all aspects until they've either come up with the final on a case or keep it unknown. Maybe your current subject is easier for me versus others, it never seemed like alien when I read the stories. But I do appreciate your perseverance and keeping it honest. I'll look forward to the podcast!

Why thank you Heidi.

 

[James Carrion]

And in the meantime, what you write about the ETH and ufo research in general seems to me to be needlessly confrontational, inviting equally strong responses . I think there’s no question that research into the history of the alphabet agencies, the US military, and the military industrial complex relating to ufo research is necessary in studying the history of ufo phenomena and public perceptions about these phenomena. But I think these varieties of manipulation and disinformation are a far cry from demonstrating that the entire modern ufo phenomenon can be accounted for as a massive, planet-wide ‘psy op’ that undermines the ETH as, in the words of the COMETA scientists and researchers, “the best available hypothesis” for those cases providing evidence that some ufos have been physically real (substantial), intelligently operated, and “not ours.” [That evidence consists of radar data, demonstrable electromagnetic interference in encounters in the air, and physical trace evidence on the ground in soils and plants, on bent railroad ties, etc. That evidence is sufficient to support educated civilian as well as scientific hypotheses concerning the physical nature and possible origin -- i.e., 'not us' -- of some ufos in a number of events and cases.]

I never said the entire UFO phenomenon can be accounted for as one big psy-op nor do I see how it undermines ETH. I am doing my part to eliminate some of the Psyops cases but don't expect me to hold a "mission accomplished" press conference declaring the UFO mystery solved. Believing the ETH to be the best available hypothesis may pass muster in the UFO community but the rest of science takes exception to that.

I think it is also essentially unreasonable to declare that MUFON’s continuing data-gathering and analyses do more harm than good since its participating researchers are in general unable to perform fully ‘scientific’ analyses of cases. Let us grant then that MUFON is not COMETA and does not approach the level of scientific investigation of ufos recommended by the scientific panel assembled by Sturrock in the 90s and still called for by many ufo researchers today. As I see it, MUFON still serves the interests of ufo inquiry in gathering data into the present, despite the unwillingness of scientists to participate in its work.

I never said it did more harm than good. But when all you do is collect data and cannot even state what you have learned from that data after 40 plus years of collection other than to say it might be ET, no one is served by that.

Given the failure of public science to investigate and report to the public concerning ufo phenomena , and given the continuous manipulation of public perceptions concerning ufos effected by the security agencies of the US government, we in the ‘ufo community’ are still being kept like mushrooms in the dark and fed bullshit by our own official agencies. Add to that the increasing doubt engineered in our popular culture concerning the reliability of our species’ general capacities for perceiving and thinking rationally about what we see, and we have a situation in which numerous increasingly fanciful theories thrive, also recommending that ufo research and hypotheses of the past be shuttled.

UFO research of the past = ETH and I really don't see any other theory replacing that today, so I am really not sure what you are saying here.

To the extent to which your attacks on MUFON and the ufo research of the last six decades undermine the will of people interested in ufos to pursue physical explanations for those ufos that call for it, I think you are doing a disservice to the field. If you continue to seek confrontation with the complement of ufo researchers of the past and present, you will continue to receive confrontational responses. Why not lose the provocative attitude and make your contributions to this enormous and much-vexed subject on their own merits, as partial and useful insights into the complexity of the various phenomena we are dealing with? And kindly drop the contemptuous references to ufo ‘true believers’. None of us civilians know enough at this point to reach an informed conviction that we can account for the nature and origin of all or even some ufos and related phenomena. We are a long way from reaching that point, and your particular approach to the subject can make, does make, a partial contribution to our understanding. Why not be satisfied with that?

I guess you haven't seen season one of Hangar 1. I am too embarrassed to have my 11 year old son watch it and then have to explain to him how Daddy was once the Director of that organization. Is it a public service to promote UFO mythology? If MUFON can't be trusted to take the subject seriously, who or what in the field can be trusted? Sorry if my criticism of MUFON is demoralizing some in the community - grow a thicker skin.

 

[Constance]

If MUFON can't be trusted to take the subject seriously, who or what in the field can be trusted?

You seem to be saying that neither MUFON nor anyone else in the field can be trusted . . . except, perhaps, you? If that's not what you meant to say, who are the ufo researchers you do trust, past and/or present?

 

[James Carrion]

You seem to be saying that neither MUFON nor anyone else in the field can be trusted . . . except, perhaps, you? If that's not what you meant to say, who are the ufo researchers you do trust, past and/or present?

Actually you should not trust me, but question everything I say, research and publish, but not by summary dismissal, but showing through documented evidence what I got wrong.

 

[SheaOlmsford]

Perhaps I am merely jaded and tired, after studying "the UFO" for 40 years as an unknown amateur. Jame's original article asks at one point what we should do now. I tend to think the ball is in the UFO's court, however we may wish to define that "court". I just finished Ray Fowler's autobiography UFO TESTAMENT. The most fascinating part for me was the many detailed sightings and encounters that Ray documented since the mid 60's onward. Being a kid at the time, I was caught up in the mystery and read the latest books such as John Fuller's INCIDENT AT EXETER.

While we like to perceive progress in our observation of UFO's, I just don't think we've done more than simply gather information, as James states in his article. Ray Fowler, for example, meticulously recorded the sightings and investigated them for validity. Even with decades of such reports, did any pattern emerge that would help us explain the reports? Not to my knowledge.

Of course, the human mind finds this abominable, so we project ourselves outward and have reached a point of absurdity with the increasing take-over of Ufology by the Exo-Politics movement. This movement declares that it has the alien mind thoroughly scanned and understood. What they have found is a Star Trek universe full of alien species who are basically just like us. They are setting up protocols to humanesque meetings with such aliens. In fact, many people in the Exo-Politics movement believe THEY are in active contact with these humanesque (!) aliens, who offer the same New Age pablum either directly or via channeling as they did in the Contactee days.

So what is my point?

I personally just do not think we have really learned much in the 60 years of my life about this phenomena. Some claim that we have noticed that the shapes of supposedly craft have changed from the Jungian Disk to the cigar to the triangle. I assume that to the proper folklorist, anthropologist or psychologist, some sense might be made of this, again from a human perspective. Others, like Derrel Sims, believes that the aliens themselves are like car models that have changed over time. OK, the craft and the supposed drivers have changed over time. So what? Does that bring us any closer to a sense of purpose, origin and future direction? No (unless you want to just hook up with either a David Jacobs "We are Doomed" meme or the Mary Caldwell's "Space Brothers are here to save us, like Mighty Mouse!" meme).

Frankly, like James, I am often ready to just be done with it. I have most of my UFO books for sale on eBay, with no takers so far. UFO and Alien Abduction books are so 80's according to a friend of mine in the book publishing field. That is why so many new books are self-published. They also depreciate the moment you take them out of the book store or package. Selling them on eBay is like trying to give away dead goldfish.

That is why, at least for me, the next stop belongs to the UFOs themselves.

If they continue to repeat the same patterns of the last 60 years, I am ready to close up shop and focus my attention on saving the social safety net in the USA from the Koch Brothers and the Republicans.

Others can record data and sell this data to billionaires (a bottomless pit).

I agree with everything James has written. I do not find his approach angry, as Constance does. I think it reflects a cold rational stony disappointment in the field and perhaps even a smidgen of my own angst. As a hobby, I focused on this field for 40 years, and at the end I didn't even get a free tee-shirt or a coffee mug.

P.S. I am currently reading the deeply engrossing TRICKSTER AND THE PARANORMAL by George Hansen. I seem to be leveraging the UFO phenomena to help myself learn more about The Trickster, cross-culture memes and the paranormal (which does include the UFO except to those who have NOT experienced it personally). Maybe this will give me a much better sense of closure than ufology itself.

 

[Open-Minded-Earthling]

Perhaps I am merely jaded and tired, after studying "the UFO" for 40 years as an unknown amateur.

Great post. Thanks. Have you ever come across a UFO book that attempts to examine the psychology and thinking processes of the witnesses themselves?

That seems to be the biggest missing component about the ET UFO sightings. The elephant in the room that no researcher ever focuses on except maybe Dr. Mack, but I haven't read what analysis he did about that aspect of the witness's background. Did you read read much from Dr. Mack or some similar psychology expert?

Also, did you ever encounter any book that covered the many other unusual experiences many ET UFO witnesses have encountered too? Especially multiple sightings or encounters. There's still a lot to be uncovered 'there', imo.

 

[Wade]

Great post. Thanks. Have you ever come across a UFO book that attempts to examine the psychology and thinking processes of the witnesses themselves? .

Although not strictly ufo in nature, Daemonic Reality by Patrick Harper touches on this.

 

[SheaOlmsford]

Great post. Thanks. Have you ever come across a UFO book that attempts to examine the psychology and thinking processes of the witnesses themselves?

That seems to be the biggest missing component about the ET UFO sightings. The elephant in the room that no researcher ever focuses on except maybe Dr. Mack, but I haven't read what analysis he did about that aspect of the witness's background. Did you read read much from Dr. Mack or some similar psychology expert?

Also, did you ever encounter any book that covered the many other unusual experiences many ET UFO witnesses have encountered too? Especially multiple sightings or encounters. There's still a lot to be uncovered 'there', imo.

Actually, one book that just springs to mind is THE OMEGA PROJECT by Kenneth Ring. He compared the psychology and other factors of individuals who claim to have had NDEs versus UFO encounters to see if he could find commonality. This was published in 1992. I do not recall the details right now. I would need to do a reread for this century. LOL

Frankly, Much of the discussion of the paranormal after-effects that surround UFO experiences is on podcasts. Others here may be able to recommend books. But the entire nature of the UFO phenomena, including the paranormal aspects, was a topic of discussion on the PARATOPIA podcasts. These can be purchased from one of the hosts, The Clueless One by googling with his name and Paratopia. Whitley Strieber also has included the paranormal element in some of his materials. You may want to just browse his journal entries on the DREAMLAND website. I just purchased THE MYTH AND MYSTERY OF UFOS by Thomas E. Bullard. This is an older book, but quite scholarly in tone. I will report back if it delves into the paranormal. Since Nick Redfern pumps out a new book every few months (like Brad Steiger once did), perhaps either author may have addressed the paranormal aspects of UFO encounters. I agree with a previous post about Patrick Harpur's books. Although never directly focused on UFOs, there is much value in all his books on the nature of the paranormal.

I wish I could direct to a specific "bookshelf" of books that detail the paranormal and UFO's. One very obvious author you truly should read is Jacques Vallee. He has never accepted that UFOs merely represent craft from another planet - the simple sci-fi scenario. He sees them as part of a large deceptive Trickster type control system. You are in luck because 2 of his classic books, long out of print and costing hundreds of dollars to procure, have now been reprinted in paperback. PASSPORT TO MAGONIA and THE SECRET COLLEGE are the names. I would also recommend his trilogy in the 90's,