Credible vs. Clown list needed

[frazmacaz]

Hi all,

I'm a long time listener but have only just joined the forum, so apologies in advance if my question has already been asked/addressed elsewhere on the forum or the Paracast site.

Forgive my failing memory, but in a show about maybe two months ago, a debate erupted about the importance of verifiable backgrounds when it comes to people that class themselves as affiliated with the field of UFO research. In that show, your guest suggested that you (Gene Steinberg and David Biedny) publish a list of people that you consider to be credible.

I think this is an excellent idea and I imagine there are plenty of other listeners who would find such a resource useful. It would of course entail quite a substantial amount of work, but I think it would be a great way of gleaning something very tangible from the excellent debates that have featured on the show over the course of the last year (which is how long I have been a listener).

Even a suggested non-fiction reading list would be a step in the right direction.

Keep up the sterling work with the show!

 

[jimbo83478]

Not to shirk one's own reconnaissance, but I agree.

http://www.ufowatchdog.com does a good job, as far as I can tell/been told, but the more minds the better...

 

[thefoundryman]

This would be entirely complementary to the show's mission and imperative.
My humble suggestion would be a separate category on the main forum index devoted to this, (signal and noise). It would serve me greatly to defer people I know who are interested in the subject, to that particular resource alone.

 

[Stillborn]

This would be entirely complementary to the show's mission and imperative.
My humble suggestion would be a separate category on the main forum index devoted to this, (signal and noise). It would serve me greatly to defer people I know who are interested in the subject, to that particular resource alone.

I've kinda wanted a fraud or hoax forum too, but the rub is not everyone agrees on who's a fraud or not. Not everyone agrees on certain ufo cases too and there's a ufo forum though. Paratopia site has a tar and feathered forum. I haven't really explored it though. From the description Jeff and Jeremy will be using it to expose frauds. Not sure if other members can post there or not.

As for a list of good/bad people. As Jim posted, Ufowatchdog.com. It isn't being updated anymore. Royce has been on a hiatus.

Aspie's Psychic Watch True or False site (I think it's called) is good too, but doesn't mainly deal with ufology. Horn and Meier are dealt with there, but most other people are alleged psychics.

Maybe check out Saucer Smear.

 

[Paul Kimball]

Any credible list for me, i.e. reasonably smart people who are honest and who are seeking the truth, would include:

Greg Bishop
Nick Redfern
Mac Tonnies
Jacques Vallee
Stanton Friedman
Kevin Randle
Richard Hall
Jerome Clark
Rob Swiatek
Royce Myers III
Nick Pope
Greg Taylor
Tim Binnall
David Biedny
Gene Steinberg
Jim Moseley
Chris Styles
Don Ledger
Brad Sparks
Chris Rutkowski
Peter Robbins
Bruce Maccabee
Martin Jasek
Don Ecker
Joel Carpenter
Dr. David Clarke
Jenny Randles
Dr. Michael Swords
Dr. Mark Rodegheir
the late Carl Sagan
the late Karl Pflock
Dr. Peter Sturrock

Hynek and MacDonald, of course... and Keyhoe and Michel too. Also Paul Hill, and plenty of others from the early years, as well as folks I'm sure I'm forgetting from the current era.

This by no means implies that I agree with these people about everything, or even most things... simply that I find them credible by the definition I noted above.

As for the not credible list, a good (or bad) start would be:

Billy Meier
Michael Horn
Kal K. Korff
Steven Bassett
Paul Hellyer
Steven Greer
William Moore
David Sereda
Linda Moulton Howe
Jim Marrs
Bob Lazar
Alfred Webre
Paola Harris
Philip Corso
William Birnes
Michael Salla
the late William Cooper
the late Phil Klass
Dr. Edward Condon
Glenn Dennis
Art Bell
And from the old days...
Frank Scully
Silas Newton
Leo Gebauer
Wilbert Smith
George Adamski and almost all of the contactees...

Sadly, I think the "not credible" list is a lot longer than the "credible" list.

 

[Gareth]

Interesting you put Marrs in the non-credible list.

Im still not sure where to put that guy. He occasionally seems really smart and grounded, and other times he will come across nutty.

So who knows.

Also, Art Bell too. I thought he was considered to be actually a decent player? (compared to Noory anyway).

 

[frazmacaz]

Thanks for that list paulkimball, it's a great start!

As for your comment, Stillborn, that there could be disagreements about who qualifies as credible, it's a very valid point. Perhaps, in the spirit of the show, we should set about trying to outline some of the criteria that distinguish methodologically sound researchers from the tin foil hat wearing crowd.

I'll kick things off.

1. The researcher must have a verifiable background (i.e. no puppy selling fraudsters).
2. The researcher's general tone should be one that seeks to establish the most pertinent questions, as opposed to one that attempts to offer definitive answers.
3. It is the researchers prerogative to make a living, but they should not be for sale. By that I mean, they should not be ripping people off.

Anyone else care to add?

 

[Ralph]

Interesting you put Marrs in the non-credible list.

Im still not sure where to put that guy. He occasionally seems really smart and grounded, and other times he will come across nutty.

So who knows.

Also, Art Bell too. I thought he was considered to be actually a decent player? (compared to Noory anyway).

So perhaps there should be a grey list (forgive the unintended double entendre)...

 

[frazmacaz]

That's a good idea too!

Also - back to the idea of a reading list, is that something that deserves its own list, separate from the credible/clown list?

Googeling every name on the credible list and picking out their best work could be quite a task in itself. Not to mention the fact that there are some texts that while credible, won't make much sense if the reader hasn't read some earlier, more fundamental texts.

Sorry for my obvious noobness in this subject. I've always had an interest and I really want to start researching it more seriously, just for my own enjoyment. The problem is that the UFO field is so intimidatingly large and filled with pitt falls, that I need to try and separate the 'signal from noise' as best I can, lest I waste time with books and authors that have already been discredited.

Sorry for going slightly off topic on my own topic, but are there any noted writers that have taken a strictly sociological view of the UFO phenomenon? By that I mean a writer that has explored the UFO phenomenon, not in terms of evidence, but in terms of the way it affects societal paradigms and how we perceive it at a societal level?

 

[Gareth]

This ones sure to generate some debate:

Paul (and others), where would you place one Timothy Good?

I know some wont agree with this, but I place him in the credible list. After weighing it all up I think he deserves a place in that list.

 

[skunkape]

So perhaps there should be a grey list (forgive the unintended double entendre)...

I think I'm ultimately too distrustful of anyone in this field to let anyone out of the grey basket, including myself. Even the most honest and reputable investigator can be steered by unseen influences.
The shit-can is full. I would put Bill Knell and Stephen Greer through a meat-grinder and feed them to cats in the alley if I thought I could get away with it.
<input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden">

 

[Stillborn]

That's a good idea too!

Also - back to the idea of a reading list, is that something that deserves it's own list, seperate from the credible/clown list?

Googeling every name on the credible list and picking out their best work could be quite a task in itself. Not to mention the fact that there are some texts that while credible, won't make much sense if the reader hasn't read some earlier, more fundamental texts.

Sorry for my obvious noobness in this subject. I've always had an interest and I really want to start researching it more seriously, just for my own enjoyment. The problem is that the UFO field is so intimidatingly large and filled with pittfalls, that I need to try and separate the 'signal from noise' as best I can, lest I waste time with books and authors that have already been discredited.

Sorry for going slightly off topic on my own topic, but are there any noted writers that have taken a strictly sociological view of the UFO phenomenon? By that I mean a writer that has explored the UFO phenomenon, not in terms of evidence, but in terms of the way it affects societal paradigms and how we percieve it at a societal level?

Glen Campbell who's been retired had a huge sociological interest in ufos.

Then again, maybe he's kinda back? http://www.glenn-campbell.com/

 

[Stillborn]

This ones sure to generate some debate:

Paul (and others), where would you place one Timothy Good?

I know some wont agree with this, but I place him in the credible list. After weighing it all up I think he deserves a place in that list.

I don't know Tim to be a liar. I've heard some kooky things about him though. Bit too much of a believer perhaps.

 

[Gareth]

I don't know Tim to be a liar. I've heard some kooky things about him though. Bit too much of a believer perhaps.

Your post pretty much sums up perfectly why I think it will be interesting to see where different people place on the credibility continuum.

He maybe relies to heavily on unnamed highly places sources for some peoples liking?

 

[Paul Kimball]

I don't know Tim to be a liar. I've heard some kooky things about him though. Bit too much of a believer perhaps.

I put Good in my grey basket, along with Richard Dolan. I don't think they're liars by any means -indeed, quite the opposite, I think they're perfectly honest. I'm just not sure about their critical filters, which is why I hesitate to put them on the credible list.

Yes, everyone makes mistakes and has blind spots - Stan with MJ-12, for example. But guys like Stan, whatever disagreements I may have with them, counterbalance it by being skeptical about a lot of other things (exopolitics, for example, or Bob Lazar, or Philip Corso), whereas I just don't see that skeptical filter with either Rich or Good.

 

[tyder001]

Paul I really enjoy your work and I respect your opinions. But I think Art Bell gets a bum rap. first he's not a researcher and never claimed to be one. He built a show and even if you don't like him he plowed new ground that both the good and the bad prosper from. I have often heard him challenge things with the tone of his voice or a "I'm not buying it doctor" comment. Sure he let em talk but that is what he is there for. for instance I'm a left of center person politically. Meaning to the left of rush limbaugh and the right of Ted Kennedy. But I admit that if you are a political talk person you would owe a great debt to Limbaugh regardless of (and I can't stand him)feeling about him. I also have mixed feelings on Marrs. But I am extremely glad for people like you and Greg Bishop and the rest. Good healthy debate and an honest search for truth. 8)

 

[Gareth]

I put Good in my grey basket, along with Richard Dolan. I don't think they're liars by any means -indeed, quite the opposite, I think they're perfectly honest. I'm just not sure about their critical filters, which is why I hesitate to put them on the credible list.

Yes, everyone makes mistakes and has blind spots - Stan with MJ-12, for example. But guys like Stan, whatever disagreements I may have with them, counterbalance it by being skeptical about a lot of other things (exopolitics, for example, or Bob Lazar, or Philip Corso), whereas I just don't see that skeptical filter with either Rich or Good.

Actually Rich is quite skeptical of exo-politics. I listen to his monthly appearance with Peter Robbins on his K Dolans show, and he has has expressed his opinion on exo-politics a number of times.

I think the problem is Rich doesnt want to say anything bad publicly about anyone.

 

[Paul Kimball]

I think the problem is Rich doesnt want to say anything bad publicly about anyone.

Then he belongs in my not credible basket, because sometimes, when you see something that is clearly wrong, you need to speak up, no matter who you offend. To do otherwise calls your own credibility into question.

 

[spacebrother]

I would agree with Paul's list, with an asterisk next to Moore, since I know about almost everything he has researched, and he called them as he saw them (at least to me.) Of course, he threw his public credibility out the window in the eyes of many.

If I personally knew some of the others on the "not credible" list, that might change my opinion too. There are many whom I am sure would never change my mind no matter the amount of personal interaction I had with them (Sereda, Klass, Greer and Bill Cooper for example.)

The earlier Sagan would to me would be on the "not credible" list, or at least not as helpful. In his last book, I believe he wrote that more research was needed into reports of reincarnation, rather than dismissing it out of hand. Maybe it was the pot finally getting through.

To the "credible" list I would also add the Lorenzens and Charles Bowen for their research and dedication, and Keith Thompson, John Keel, Jim Brandon, Martin Kottmeyer, Rick Strassman and Greg Little for their contributions to theory.

I have to thank Paul for listing me first, although it was probably because we had just been communicating a bit when he wrote the list. Of course, he should be on the list too, but probably fought an incredible battle with his ego.

 

[frazmacaz]

This is excellent guys, loads of really useful info - a great spring board for me to launch into some informed reading on the UFO topic. I'll be sure to give some feedback on the authors I enjoyed reading most.