Ufology's focus all wrong?

[Sean Elifritz]

Why is so much made of lobbying congress for hearings, disclosure (Whatever that even means), and/or convincing the government to get back into the official investigating game? Why are we always pestering the scientific community to get involved, to take this subject seriously, or to share our interpretation of things? Are there not scientists that take UFOs seriously already? Don't Vallee, Haines, Friedman, Sturrok, and Swords count for something? There are plenty of others, many we haven't heard of because they are low profile. Despite all the hoopla there is scientific interest in UFOs, that was achieved a long time ago. What Ufology doesn't have is funding. I think that's where the frustration really stems from. Other scientists have funding, ours don't. But somehow this reality gets muddled and people spend their time lobbying scientific organizations and the government. If those with the energy to lobby really want to make an impact on the state of UFO research they shouldn't be targeting government and the body politic of science, they should instead be going full bore at the Fortune 500. Attract the interest and dollars of these people and you will see Ufology transformed, guaranteed. Currently the term "Ufology" means to scientists "No money to do any work" as much as it it does anything else. That's the real problem.

 

[Paul Kimball]

Why is so much made of lobbying congress for hearings, disclosure (Whatever that even means), and/or convincing the government to get back into the official investigating game? Why are we always pestering the scientific community to get involved, to take this subject seriously, or to share our interpretation of things? Are there not scientists that take UFOs seriously already? Don't Vallee, Haines, Friedman, Sturrok, and Swords count for something? There are plenty of others, many we haven't heard of because they are low profile. Despite all the hoopla there is scientific interest in UFOs, that was achieved a long time ago. What Ufology doesn't have is funding. I think that's where the frustration really stems from. Other scientists have funding, ours don't. But somehow this reality gets muddled and people spend their time lobbying scientific organizations and the government. If those with the energy to lobby really want to make an impact on the state of UFO research they shouldn't be targeting government and the body politic of science, they should instead be going full bore at the Fortune 500. Attract the interest and dollars of these people and you will see Ufology transformed, guaranteed. Currently the term "Ufology" means to scientists "No money to do any work" as much as it it does anything else. That's the real problem.

No money?

The reasons are simple:

1. Other scientists don't show up at conferences and share a stage / platform with known liars, frauds, loons, and wackos (and, admittedly, from time to time a rational person), and;

2. At the end of the day, the UFO phenomenon is an interesting mystery to some people, but compared with all of the world's problems, it's the smallest of potatoes.

 

[Sean Elifritz]

No money?

The reasons are simple:

1. Other scientists don't show up at conferences and share a stage / platform with known liars, frauds, loons, and wackos (and, admittedly, from time to time a rational person), and;

2. At the end of the day, the UFO phenomenon is an interesting mystery to some people, but compared with all of the world's problems, it's the smallest of potatoes.

Yeah, wasn't commenting about why there is no money, just pointing out that is the biggest problem.

 

[Paul Kimball]

Yeah, wasn't commenting about why there is no money, just pointing out that is the biggest problem.

Always has been, and always will be.

 

[Sean Elifritz]

Always has been, and always will be.

Just seems strange to me it isn't addressed more. Mostly what I hear about is science not taking UFOs seriously or a government cover-up.

 

[Kandinsky]

Just seems strange to me it isn't addressed more. Mostly what I hear about is science not taking UFOs seriously or a government cover-up.

Apart from agreeing with Paul's comments, I'd add that 'ufology' doesn't really exist in a way that's meaningful. The term implies a common objective, shared definitions, agreed rules and some kind of generic image.

What we have is a cacophony of voices and agendas. I read the blogs and the conflict is what stands out the most to me. For example, check out the comments in any Kevin Randle post and there are the guys from 'ufolofy' disagreeing in general or for the hell of it. Look at CSETI and ECETI. Terrible.

In science, there's also disagreements and political in-fighting...there's competition and bitching. One thing that's largely absent are the thieves, frauds and liars that are ten a a penny in the UFO field. Importantly, it's possible to be discredited and cast out from science...never to work again. Has that ever happened in ufology?

There's a video about herding cats and I'd guess that trying to focus ufology would come close in comedy mayhem and noise.

 

[Ted Roe]

I think that Paul and Kandinsky have it right....

 

[Sean Elifritz]

Apart from agreeing with Paul's comments, I'd add that 'ufology' doesn't really exist in a way that's meaningful. The term implies a common objective, shared definitions, agreed rules and some kind of generic image.

What we have is a cacophony of voices and agendas. I read the blogs and the conflict is what stands out the most to me. For example, check out the comments in any Kevin Randle post and there are the guys from 'ufolofy' disagreeing in general or for the hell of it. Look at CSETI and ECETI. Terrible.

In science, there's also disagreements and political in-fighting...there's competition and bitching. One thing that's largely absent are the thieves, frauds and liars that are ten a a penny in the UFO field. Importantly, it's possible to be discredited and cast out from science...never to work again. Has that ever happened in ufology?

There's a video about herding cats and I'd guess that trying to focus ufology would come close in comedy mayhem and noise.

Yeah, everyone seems to be interpreting this thread different than what I intended. It wasn't a commentary about why UFO researchers get no research grants. What I was talking about is that virtually every time I hear a ufologist complain about something it's that's science doesn't take him seriously or that the government is hiding information from him. It seems to me that complaining about a lack of funding would make more sense since that is the chief problem.

 

[Frank Stalter]

What we have is a cacophony of voices and agendas. I read the blogs and the conflict is what stands out the most to me. For example, check out the comments in any Kevin Randle post and there are the guys from 'ufolofy' disagreeing in general or for the hell of it. Look at CSETI and ECETI. Terrible.

Look at the entire internet. That sort of thing doesn't happen exclusively in the UFO subject. Sports, politics, and everything in between. No big deal.

 

[Sean Elifritz]

Look at the entire internet. That sort of thing doesn't happen exclusively in the UFO subject. Sports, politics, and everything in between. No big deal.

Yeah, people are always complaining about the infighting involved with this subject but I think that's a red herring. Show me a topic that more than 3 people are interested in where people aren't arguing with each other and I'll show you something that doesn't exist.

---------- Post added at 10:22 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:12 AM ----------

In a nutshell what I was trying to get at here is that I wish people would stop complaining so much that more scientists aren't interested in UFOs and instead worry more about trying to get research dollars into the hands of those scientists that are interested.

 

[Kandinsky]

Yeah, everyone seems to be interpreting this thread different than what I intended. It wasn't a commentary about why UFO researchers get no research grants. What I was talking about is that virtually every time I hear a ufologist complain about something it's that's science doesn't take him seriously or that the government is hiding information from him. It seems to me that complaining about a lack of funding would make more sense since that is the chief problem.

Maybe we're at crossed wires, I'm not sure. It's happened to me a lot of times and it's like two languages are being spoken
The reasons for the lack of funding and the reasons science doesn't take a ufologist seriously is because of the things already mentioned. They relate directly. Credibility seems to be the fulcrum.

Bigelow used his cash to ship in some diverse scientists and ex-forces guys. He consulted Vallee. He found evidence of something definitely strange, but if he's any further along the path to knowledge than some of us, he isn't talking about it. If any other wealthy person had a similar idea, they'd likely think twice...based on outlay versus results.

 

[Sean Elifritz]

Maybe we're at crossed wires, I'm not sure. It's happened to me a lot of times and it's like two languages are being spoken
The reasons for the lack of funding and the reasons science doesn't take a ufologist seriously is because of the things already mentioned. They relate directly. Credibility seems to be the fulcrum.

Bigelow used his cash to ship in some diverse scientists and ex-forces guys. He consulted Vallee. He found evidence of something definitely strange, but if he's any further along the path to knowledge than some of us, he isn't talking about it. If any other wealthy person had a similar idea, they'd likely think twice...based on outlay versus results.

I think that the huge coffers of the Scientology cult goes to show that something doesn't even have to make sense to take in a lot of money. There just needs to be a lot of effort put into it.

Over and over again I've heard of these meetings where you have scientists interested in UFOs presenting material to other scientists to try and convince them it's worthy of study. What I'm driving at is that we ultimately don't even need these other scientists we're trying to persuade. What is needed is research dollars for those scientists already interested. Why don't we have more meetings or organizations dedicated to that? Instead of wasting time putting together presentations for scientists like Rockefeller did why not put together presentations for panels of rich guys instead? Suppose you manage to get the interest of every scientist in the world but you still don't have research money. So what? Nothing would happen.

 

[Kandinsky]

What is needed is research dollars for those scientists already interested. Why don't we have more meetings or organizations dedicated to that? Instead of wasting time putting together presentations for scientists like Rockefeller did why not put together presentations for panels of rich guys instead? Suppose you manage to get the interest of every scientist in the world but you still don't have research money. So what? Nothing would happen.

I agree with that and it sounds similar to what Leslie Kean was saying in the interview. I don't want to be chasing my ass in circles here, but it still spins around the credibility. Not everyone in the UFO field is trustworthy. Greer is out there screwing people over for free energy devices and he's got a superficially credible CV (ie qualifications, MD). Otis T Carr was doing the same thing back when too.

What I'm getting at, is a rich person would need to be pretty well-informed on the subject and characters before entertaining the idea of a research panel. They get rich for a reason, they stay rich by being smart. I don't want to come over as negative. It's just the realities as I see them. A rich guy can get fame, posterity and a great tax-break by donating to a charity or setting up a scholarship fund. If he or she wanders into the UFO field, they could be conned, ridiculed or accused of being a damn 'agent!' If they avoided those pitfalls, they'd be unlikely to 'crack the case' or even get a tax-break.

If I had excessive wealth, I'd sponsor certain researchers without a doubt. I can still understand why nobody else wants to.

 

[Ted Roe]

"deleted due to duplication"

 

[Xylo]

C'mon you think any congressman will even look twice at funding for UFO study when there's baseball players out there on alledgedly on steroids? Priorities are priorities.

 

[Sean Elifritz]

C'mon you think any congressman will even look twice at funding for UFO study when there's baseball players out there on alledgedly on steroids? Priorities are priorities.

Huh? Who said anything about getting money from congressman?

---------- Post added at 11:27 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:24 AM ----------

I agree with that and it sounds similar to what Leslie Kean was saying in the interview. I don't want to be chasing my ass in circles here, but it still spins around the credibility. Not everyone in the UFO field is trustworthy. Greer is out there screwing people over for free energy devices and he's got a superficially credible CV (ie qualifications, MD). Otis T Carr was doing the same thing back when too.

What I'm getting at, is a rich person would need to be pretty well-informed on the subject and characters before entertaining the idea of a research panel. They get rich for a reason, they stay rich by being smart. I don't want to come over as negative. It's just the realities as I see them. A rich guy can get fame, posterity and a great tax-break by donating to a charity or setting up a scholarship fund. If he or she wanders into the UFO field, they could be conned, ridiculed or accused of being a damn 'agent!' If they avoided those pitfalls, they'd be unlikely to 'crack the case' or even get a tax-break.

If I had excessive wealth, I'd sponsor certain researchers without a doubt. I can still understand why nobody else wants to.

Everything you're saying makes sense but I can point to plenty of things that make no sense at all but take in plenty of donations. Supposedly somewhere in the neighborhood of 50% of people think there is something to UFOs. With numbers like that it just seems weird that raising money is so difficult. Leads me to suspect people just aren't trying hard enough.

 

[Ted Roe]

I think that there is little need for big dollars when the research is so preliminary. We have run NARCAP for ten years out of our own pockets, no funders, no contributions. I have a couple of projects that could use some funding but we don't need a huge amount of money to do that. Since we are getting more involved with the official UAP research efforts it would be good to have a travel budget to get around. I do have a site where UAP manifest that it would be nice to bring a few bucks to bear on but, again, a lot of foundational research can be done there for not too much so the need for lots of money is pretty low.

Bob Bigelow is throwing money at UFO research but I think he is wasting his dollars given how little there is to study. I decided long ago that we didn't want to be beholden to any funder, BB included. If we accept funding it will be based on our work and trust in our discretion.

MUFON has about 100k a year in funding and probably 8cents out of every dime goes to maintaining membershiip which is a big waste of time and effort, IMHO. That is why we decided not to go that route with NARCAP. We aren't even a nonprofit org because we didn't want to deal with a board or foundation and infighting and problems focusing our efforts. We can still accept gifts but haven't really pushed for any...

 

[Sean Elifritz]

I think that there is little need for big dollars when the research is so preliminary. We have run NARCAP for ten years out of our own pockets, no funders, no contributions. I have a couple of projects that could use some funding but we don't need a huge amount of money to do that. Since we are getting more involved with the official UAP research efforts it would be good to have a travel budget to get around. I do have a site where UAP manifest that it would be nice to bring a few bucks to bear on but, again, a lot of foundational research can be done there for not too much so the need for lots of money is pretty low.

Bob Bigelow is throwing money at UFO research but I think he is wasting his dollars given how little there is to study. I decided long ago that we didn't want to be beholden to any funder, BB included. If we accept funding it will be based on our work and trust in our discretion.

MUFON has about 100k a year in funding and probably 8cents out of every dime goes to maintaining membershiip which is a big waste of time and effort, IMHO. That is why we decided not to go that route with NARCAP. We aren't even a nonprofit org because we didn't want to deal with a board or foundation and infighting and problems focusing our efforts. We can still accept gifts but haven't really pushed for any...

But there are things that require large contributions that I think could be done and would be useful. I like Davenport's proposition for a passive radar system. But he has had 0 takers.

 

[Ted Roe]

Sure, there are some ideas that might be interesting. I think, in Peter's case, he really hasn't pushed for funding to begin with. He talks a lot about how much work he has to do and how little resources he has but he takes zero steps to change that situation. He hasn't written a single paper based on his management of NUFORC and is out there publicly pontificating on his opinions about the source of UFOs... He would be better served developing the documentation and rationale for his passive radar idea and then writing up a proposal and shlepping it around...
Bigelow isn't getting anything out of his panel of experts to speak of. His emphasis on receiving aviation cases through the FAA brought him zero cases and whatever cases he might get are simply documentation after the fact. So there is no real science to be developed other than through the types of analysis that we are doing at NARCAP.
We have Vallee and others on our advisory committee and our work is probably as good as anyone's but the rationale for asking somebody for a lot of money isn't there. With a funding proposal comes a background explanation of what is known and what is hoped to be learned. That would be a very short conversation in this field and probably not enough to move someone enough to drop some real money.
We could use some money to digitize Dr. Haines AIRCAT, that would be helpful to do some quantitative studies. Our work with CEFAA and others could use a boost. I have a site where UAP manifest, Strand and Teodorani have been there, and ten grand would go a long way towards getting some better data. At some point I will probably go after these things but it takes a credible body of work to justify a legitimate funding pitch.
On the other hand, Greer and Gilliland and others probably waste more money in a year than we have spent throughout NARCAP's history. Exopolitics is another example. Lots of devoted followers but zero crediblity. They live off the gullible and naive. If we wanted to we could appeal to the New Agers but I don't think that is the right way to be - its a matter of ethics. Otherwise we could fish in that pond... I just won't do it.

 

[spacebrother]

The focus is wrong because the larger society's focus is not on UFOs. You can't make people care about something that they generally ignore. Serious people will not look at the question for the reasons that Paul listed.

The other, larger problem is that the subject and its reported characteristics are not amenable to examination by the traditional tools of science and rules of proof which we currently use. Until those evolve, nothing about the popularity of the subject and some of the dorks that it attracts will change either. If that does happen, no one will care about UFO researchers anymore.