NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!
Well, now I have to stand up for ufology here and say that your two agendas are pretty aligned.
I got the same impression until I read his diatribe. Terminology is critical as is image management and UAP research can embrace a lot more than alien chasing. But he doesn't think so.... Bottom line is that until we can define the various categories of UAP accurately and we can really see what is in the data, we can't speak with authority about aliens and incursions. He might find diplomacy, nuance and objectivity to be obstacles to what he thinks is important but he is assuming that he knows all about NARCAP, what we do and why and how we do it, the reasons for our needing to expand our research and administrative budget, etc... he sounds like a sour old man that knows what he doesn't like and focuses on sharing that with the world... He can do what he wants with his effort but smearing my team without even bothering to get the facts first doesn't bode well for his credibility or his organization.
No. I'm commenting using examples.
I suppose that depends on your definition of "mainstream UFO angle". If we think of the word "mainstream" as synonymous with "popular" then personally, I don't think popularity should be the concern. My concern is truth, as in what is the correspondence between the various claims and objective reality. If that turns out to coincide with whatever the mainstream angle is, then I'm fine with that.
I think I used the phrase "serious ufology". If you want to know what that is, then check out the USI page on ufology.
That's encouraging.
As anyone who has discussed the subject matter with me knows very well, I can manage the nuances just fine. NARCAP is nothing new to me and it might be helpful for you to know that the group I'm with ( USI ) adopted the term UAP as it was originally intended by Haines, which most simply put, differentiates the more vague cases from those which aren't. Most UFO reports that don't turn out to be something mundane, turn out to be UAP, but that's only because they lack sufficient information from which to draw a conclusion. However some cases are definitive enough to class the object as a UFO, and a UFO is not a UAP and it never will be. For a more "nuanced" look at the word history and the evidence for what the word UFO means, I suggest you check out the UFO article on the USI website.
That doesn't address the question. You're not building a ship or a skyscraper, so you rarely have a need to travel physically to a location in order to accomplish a task, especially if you already have contacts at that location. As I pointed out, complex projects that require the assembly of information have successfully used telecommunications to get the job done, and big businesses ( e.g. Telus ) have many employees doing their jobs from home ( telecommuting ). So perhaps you should call into question their experience rather than mine. What information exactly do you need to convey to someone in France that can't be done via the Internet in far less time and expense? I'm curious.
Please provide a specific example ( with an explanation ) that supports that assessment. Until that happens, it's just another unsubstantiated slam against ufology. I've given NARCAP the credit it deserves for helping pilots come forward with their experiences, but let's not ruin that by then saying that that what some of them saw was simply a UAP. I believe people have seen alien craft, and I'm not afraid to say that. I've seen one myself. It sounds like perhaps you have too. I don't have enough details about your experiences to go that far. But for your own sake, if you do, then don't go into denial. Accept the fact that alien visitation is a reality and start sticking up for the rest of us out here instead of sloughing us off along with the fringe cults.
Image management? As in NARCAP's strategy to distance itself from ufology in an effort to be taken more seriously? Again, my view is that propping up NARCAP's image at the expense of ufology is exactly the kind of two faced attitude I'm talking about, and what's more, it's being assisted from within the ufology community. Let's look at this quote from NARCAP's own recommendations that use Nick Pope's opinions as part of NARCAP's rationale to advocate the use of UAP rather than UFO:
You want allies like us then meet standards that demonstrate adherence to the rules of science, stay behind the data instead of in front of it, don't say things you can't prove and do the work to build mainstream constituency in your field. And learn the facts about the rest of us.
I meant mainstream as in common conception... because that's as far as most scientists are going to look at it.
Here's your direct quote:"Serious ufology has a legitimate history"
Agreed. But that doesn't change the fact that labeling ufology as pseudoscience is inaccurate, and if science insists on doing it anyway, then they are only betraying their personal bias rather than considering the truth of the circumstances.
No need to apologize. This is a good discussion, and thanks for the compliment, AND you are also correct. But as I've had to point out time and time again to the so-called "scientific skeptics", science has also had it's share of frauds and less than honorable players, so if we want to get into finger pointing, then it can go both ways and neither of us will be any further ahead for the effort.
Interesting, and a valid point; which is why I think it's important for groups that can make a real difference to the perception of ufology as something to be taken seriously to weigh in with what they have to offer instead of hoisting anchor and leaving the rest of us to cope with the fallout. It's divisive when we need to be united.
I'm not suggesting that you should tell individual witnesses what they should conclude or that you're obligated to meet my standards. Although, we can certainly discuss standards if you want.
I had to replay the key sections of the interview several times to get the exact quotes, and the quotes themselves are the evidence I did that. I've also been through the NARCAP material available online. That should be at least partially apparent by the quote from Nick Pope I found embedded in the PDFs. But, let's try to keep the discussion on the rails. I find NARCAP's material to be a cut above most of the work I run across, and NARCAP's work with the pilots cannot be commended enough; and it's precisely because of the great work and the potential for NARCAP to contribute positively to ufology, that it's so disappointing to see it distance itself from it.
I'm not saying you should abandon your image management or objectivity. I'm saying that NARCAP 's strategy of distancing itself from ufology, to the extent of reducing the idea of alien visitation to mere "entertainment", for the express purpose of advancing NARCAP's own agenda, while at the same time taking advantage of the work done by ufologists past and present, and promoting the organization before the ufology community without making most of them aware of how they are being used, isn't something I can endorse.
I'm looking at your paper now, and again the work being done isn't what I'm being critical of, although some of the cases ( like the photo of the jetliner in your article ), look remarkably similar to the effect I get here through my triple pane living room window, that cause the lights on approaching airliners to look like they are balls of light trailing the aircraft. I'm probably one of the most skeptical ufologists you'll ever encounter, but at the same time, I cannot deny the truth regarding alien visitation.
That's just my point. NARCAP is creating fallout with it's anti-ufology strategy by reducing the idea of alien visitation to "entertainment", injecting it's own jargon which confuses the issue even more, and flip-flopping between an interest in classic ufology and "aviation safety" as primary motivations.
The answer is straight forward and simple. Instead of continuing with your an anti-ufology strategy that reduces the idea of alien visitation to mere "entertainment", and not even supporting discussion about that possibility, NARCAP should start taking a definitive stand for serious ufology and in doing so become a part of the solution. Rather than taking a quasi aloof "we're better than the tin-foil hat wearing UFO believers" approach and ignoring the collateral damage to serious ufology by lumping it in with that crowd, take a stand to help preserve serious ufology and the legacy of those who have come before us.
Science and critical thinking aren't mutually exclusive. Critical thinking takes into account all the evidence, including scientific evidence, and the scientific method itself relies heavily on the basic principles of critical thinking. However when valid scientific evidence isn't available, critical thinking can still help advance the seeker toward the truth. It also recognizes its own limitations, and therefore, contrary to your claim, it cannot lead to a factually wrong conclusion unless the "logic stream" ( to use your expression ) is somehow flawed or the seeker makes some erroneous leap of faith. That is the very nature of logic, and it cannot be changed. These are the standards to which I strive to adhere, so I'm not simply talking off the top of my head.
Obviously you did not read the study or you would know that all the pics were taken out of doors, there is a series and most of the shots have to be zoomed in to even see the UAP.... and please read my imbedded comments...
What community? Greer? Webre? Salla? What are you talking about? Ufology is a wasteland with a couple of efforts of merit shining in the dirt. It cannibalizes its own, its all about ego and sensationalism... There is no "community", there is no one that we can partner with without lowering our standards....
