In the Game

[Ron Collins]

Instead of being a 3rd string Arm-Chair QB I think I would like to get in and help do research. But, Im stuck. I do not really know where to start. Im looking for help in getting started. Im not at all comfortable in just diving in alone. I would like a way to be mentored by someone or a group of someones that are reputable. Any Suggestions?

 

[schticknz]

Instead of being a 3rd string Arm-Chair QB I think I would like to get in and help do research. But, Im stuck. I do not really know where to start. Im looking for help in getting started. Im not at all comfortable in just diving in alone. I would like a way to be mentored by someone or a group of someones that are reputable. Any Suggestions?

Oh boy ... so would I ... but I'm afraid that the kind of research I'd like to do: taking vast amounts of data, say in a "haunted house" over an extended period of time would be a bit too boring for most people, and probably expensive. But still with the number of electronics buffs out there, there may be a way of simplifying the data acquistion side of things ... maybe automate things more.

schtick ... who wants to actually spend more than one bloomin night in a "haunted house" and actually collect something resembling data of some kind (and nope i don't mean blurry photos of strange floaty orb things )

 

[Verum]

RonCollins wrote..

Any Suggestions?

I do have a suggestion, although it's targeted more towards what paranormal research needs than how a well-meaning individual can become yet another self-anointed researcher.

There are loads of plumbers and cab drivers who are "paranormal researchers". Usually their training consists of trial-by-error, some equipment with lights and bells that measure things that may or may not be relevant or some quick-and-dirty session sponsored by MUFON or some other self-designated training organization. (Let's face it, MUFON desperately needs spectacular UFO cases and dues paying "researcher-members" to thrive and survive.) However, if the objective is to truly engage in a scientific inquiry, my suggestion would be to pursue formal, mainstream training in one of the analytical sciences.

At this point I'm not sure there's ANY PhD-level scientist--since Vallee concluded UFOs were more likely a "border phenomenon" than alien craft and left "ufology"--committed to serious, non-grant investigation of UFOs or any other paranormal issue. Friedman holds a masters degree and only had, I think, 13 years of experience before opting to carve out a "career" as the scientist in the field of "ufological research". I mean, come on! I can find dozens of PhD's studying everything from anthills to asteroids...but not ONE in ufology?!?!? What the fields really need are people formally trained in critical thinking and the scientific method, people not predisposed to conclusions by livelihood or belief. Hobbyists and amateurs don't enhance the credibility of fields already struggling to be taken seriously. Being an amateur "researcher" may be better than bowling during off-time, but it won't advance the inquiry. These are the only areas of scientific research in which completely non-credentialed individuals can dub themselves "researchers" and be agitated that neither the scientific community nor the public takes them seriously.

 

[Frootloop]

I think the issue that puts most scientists off the idea of ufology is that it is almost like comitting career suicide. I watched a documentary RE the lock ness "monster" the other day and there was a scientist who talked about loosing his tenure, grants and all support from the university at which he worked as a result of pursuing what is in reality seen as a "paranormal phenomenon". Although I believe that times have changed and CryptoZooology is more widely recognised.

 

[Verum]

Frootloop wrote..

I think the issue that puts most scientists off the idea of ufology is that it is almost like comitting career suicide.

No "almost" about it. Ufology is, at best, a pseudo-science. There is absolutely nothing about it that elevates it above the level of an interesting hobby engaged in, for the most part, by untrained or poorly trained "researchers", at best, and outright charlatans, at worst. It's nearly on a par with studying pixies, angels and levitation. And the cause of that can be laid directly at the feet of "ufologists", who conduct conventions more like Star Trek festivals than serious scientific symposia, write books full of creative evidence and unsupportable conclusions and magically find witnesses whose memories somehow run counter to human experience and actually get better and clearer with age. And this mess has gone on for better than 6 decades without any advancement whatsoever.

There is no reason any respectable scientist should throw herself/himself into that quagmire. Many adherents of ufology are less concerned with truth than with either advancing some near-cultish savior myth or a simple fairy tale about god-like sky beings. Ufology has certainly cast itself a very large tent of believers; unfortunately, it's a circus tent full of too many floppy-footed clowns. Serious scientists and serious seekers of truth need to walk in that tent carefully or run the risk of stepping in a mighty pile of elephant shit.

 

[Poi]

Yep, which is why reading Knapp's and Kelleher's "Hunt for the Skinwalker" should be every researcher's first introduction to various phenomena before bothering. If one wants to experience, that's one thing, but if one expects repeatable results to study, poop.

If I remember correctly, other than Colm Kelleher, the other scientists on board all those years, kept their names out of the public eye. They knew the consequences to their careers. Kelleher seems to have come out of top, but I suspect he's still employed by Bigelow in one fashion or another.

 

[Frootloop]

There is absolutely nothing about it that elevates it above the level of an interesting hobby engaged in, for the most part, by untrained or poorly trained "researchers", at best, and outright charlatans, at worst.

Well, what qualifications or training would you expect to see on a UFOlogist's Resume? How many universities contain UFOlogy in their prospectus, not many I would guess. Until the subject is fully understood (dont hold your breath haha) there will be no regulatory body vetting canditites for positions within the field (are there even any real positions available?). The best we can hope for at this stage is to decide what we believe in by listening to different viewpoints from researchers and the many who experience such phenomenon and make our own (somewhat) informed opinions on the subject.

We are fortunate to have shows such as "The Paracast" that shows us a cross-section of the people within the field, what their beliefs and experiences are and whether they are nuts or not. For others, their reputation precedes them and its up to the individual whether to believe their story or not.

It's nearly on a par with studying pixies, angels and levitation. And the cause of that can be laid directly at the feet of "ufologists", who conduct conventions more like Star Trek festivals than serious scientific symposia, write books full of creative evidence and unsupportable conclusions and magically find witnesses whose memories somehow run counter to human experience and actually get better and clearer with age. And this mess has gone on for better than 6 decades without any advancement whatsoever.

There are some more reliable sources out there with more credible sources of information and back-up witnesses. The problems start when the more compelling ones get dropped in the same mix as the crazies.

There is no reason any respectable scientist should throw herself/himself into that quagmire. Many adherents of ufology are less concerned with truth than with either advancing some near-cultish savior myth or a simple fairy tale about god-like sky beings. Ufology has certainly cast itself a very large tent of believers; unfortunately, it's a circus tent full of too many floppy-footed clowns. Serious scientists and serious seekers of truth need to walk in that tent carefully or run the risk of stepping in a mighty pile of elephant shit.

As for whether a good scientist should commit themselves to the field depends on their beliefs and whether they can make an adequate living from their work within it. I guess releasing books, appearing on the numerous "UFOs : are they real?" type documentaries pays the bills. Sure it attracts its fair share of oddballs, but thats just pure entertainment

 

[Verum]

Frootloop wrote...

Well, what qualifications or training would you expect to see on a UFOlogist's Resume?

Physics, astronomy, meteorology, psychiatry, geology, material science, and on and on. The notion that "ufology" is a unique field of study, and that it can't be scientifically studied because it's impossible to provide repeatable data, is nonsense. It is a phenomenon which can very easily be studied under the umbrella of many of the physical science disciplines. It is also a phenomenon which may very well have its roots in the psychological. We don't need carpenters who dabble in "research" standing as models of the level of scientific research the UFO phenomenon attracts; we need honest-to-God scientists who start from the premise that there is something worth studying. But what we have are "researchers" in ufology who typically start out as believers, and evolve into self-dubbed "investigators".

I think the reason most legitimate scientists don't bother engaging in a study of UFOs is that most of them are comfortable with the conclusion that UFOs are generally explicable as misinterpretations of natural phenomenon or "secret" objects, deliberate falsehoods or the product of some form of psychological drive. Through the ages people have "seen" angels, demons, fairies, monsters, witches, vampires, and on and on. Science doesn't feel compelled to study a phenomenon it concludes--reasonably, I might add--exists only in the minds of a sincere, albeit deluded or mistaken, few. "Ufology" is NOT a legitimate science, by any definition, and it won't be until real scientists engage in real research.

 

[Don Keyhoe-Ti]

Frootloop wrote..

I think the issue that puts most scientists off the idea of ufology is that it is almost like comitting career suicide.

No "almost" about it. Ufology is, at best, a pseudo-science. There is absolutely nothing about it that elevates it above the level of an interesting hobby engaged in, for the most part, by untrained or poorly trained "researchers", at best, and outright charlatans, at worst. It's nearly on a par with studying pixies, angels and levitation. And the cause of that can be laid directly at the feet of "ufologists", who conduct conventions more like Star Trek festivals than serious scientific symposia, write books full of creative evidence and unsupportable conclusions and magically find witnesses whose memories somehow run counter to human experience and actually get better and clearer with age. And this mess has gone on for better than 6 decades without any advancement whatsoever.

There is no reason any respectable scientist should throw herself/himself into that quagmire. Many adherents of ufology are less concerned with truth than with either advancing some near-cultish savior myth or a simple fairy tale about god-like sky beings. Ufology has certainly cast itself a very large tent of believers; unfortunately, it's a circus tent full of too many floppy-footed clowns. Serious scientists and serious seekers of truth need to walk in that tent carefully or run the risk of stepping in a mighty pile of elephant shit.

That's a pretty good summary of the negative side of ufology.

 

[Verum]

Don Keyhotee wrote...

That's a pretty good summary of the negative side of ufology.

What's disturbing is that the whole field of inquiry has not only not advanced in 60+ years, it's actually digressed. I think a real opportunity was missed when Vallee's notion (that the phenomenon may represent some manipulative inter-dimensionalism rather than what he referred to as "nuts and bolts") was not pursued more vigorously by the majority of "ufologists" who insist on and promote the extraterrestrial premise. At this point I think the answer will only come with time--maybe our time, as we uncover new answers to the mysteries of the universe through mainstream conventional science, or maybe "its" time, as it chooses to be revealed. In the meantime, I'm not sure pretending to be engaged in a serious pursuit of an answer serves any meaningful purpose. For someone like me, who accepts the "unknowability" of many things, from God to the nature of UFO sightings, I can wait, enjoy the ride and occasionally hope for a passing glimpse at truth. I don't expect to have all the answers to all my questions in this life.

 

[Poi]

Verum, have you read Hunt For The Skinwalker?

The study of the ranch was as close as we have come to what you describe and the results were certainly not repeatable, at least for any firm conclusions. The study goes on in some fashion today. If your argument is that the scientists and experts employed were skeptical or goony true believers, well, you can't know that. It would only be an assumption. Why Bigelow would stack his deck either way and then report that the study was mired in metaphysical quicksand is ludicrous. I think he did the best he could with what he had in the way of science, but science hit a brick wall, imo, due to the lack of inclusion of those who have explored reality beyond scientific protocol. Should have had the two working together.

I don't remember if psychologists were employed, but it would have been a very reasonable response to the overall study, given that the phenomena seemed multifaceted.

The study of the Utah ranch was at least a start. Sure, the scientists may have learned something from it such as the data isn't repeatable on demand, (oops, woe to the scientific paradigm) that a placebo effect may have been at play, (ouch to our conditioned modeling from birth to death (group-think)) and that they have to undergo a complete reversal or abandonment of everything they "knew" coming into the study in the first place.

If an honest to goodness study were to occur, knowing the results of the Skinwalker ranch, it would have to be open to a an entirely new set of protocols that might shift at the will of the phenomenon under study. That's why scientists steer clear. They know that cause and effect also seem ephemeral and resist empirical validation. Why? Because cause and effect play a part not only in our reality, but in a reality we only glimpse on occasion.

A friend of mine points out that shamans might make a much better study of metaphysical mystery simply because the seer is more apt to have explored the realms in which cause and effect are better explained. We are much more than we appear to be. We live in this world as well as escaping into the dreamworld where our actions are forgotten, but the totality of who we are is the answer to what manifests around us. I'm not saying that our egocentricity is totally the key, but that we have to first accept that we are part of an intelligence that is alive and interacting with us all the time. Our current scientific paradigm isn't enough to explain anything about reality in toto. It just expains, poorly, what we have found to be true in what we perceive as reality.

We don't have a handle on the most basic question which is why we may never answer questions of the mystical/metaphysical. I happen to think that the study of the ranch was flawed because the shaman was left out of the equation. Could have helped explain a lot and given science a boost in how to proceed.

Edit: Whoops! While I was writing this post you posted again. With your mention of Vallee, I see where you are now coming from. We aren't so very different in our perspectives, maybe only in our suggestions for going about a study.

 

[Woody Sideman]

This is an interesting thread.

It seems to boil down to a chicken and egg situation. How can you be a scientist when the area that you wish to study does not exist as a science?

Let's try a new phenomenon (well, relatively new anyway). The first computer virus was 'Brain' written in 1986:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/(c)Brain

Viruses were real thereafter. They wreaked havoc in many companies. The first Ph.D. in the subject was not until 1995 when Dr. Vesselin Vladimirov Bontchev acquired his doctorate.

http://www.people.frisk-software.com/~bontchev/

That is 9 years after the event. It suggests that no scientists would bother to look into UFOs even if the UFOs started blocking rush hour traffic every day. Ultimately, you might find that a Ministry of Transport statistician might look into how vehicles could be re-routed around these 'non-existent' traffic problems.

I'm not trying to muddy the pool, it's just my 2¢ worth.

Woody

 

[Verum]

I don't see that "ufology" requires a separate discipline of scientific study. It can, and should, be studied within the context of existing disciplines. Since the nature of the phenomenon is not only unclear but far from anything approaching a consensus as to what it might be, attempting to define it as an independent field of scientific inquiry simply can't work. So, I don't see any "chicken or egg" issue at all. It is merely the subject of study which defines "ufology"...not the manner, scope or underlying scientific disciplines with which that subject should be studied. A biologist who studies apes is nevertheless a biologist, as is the biologist who studies microbes or childhood diseases. Similarly, a physicist who studies aerial phenomenon is not a "ufologist"; she/he is a physicist with a particular field of inquiry; that being, AP. UFOs may be psychological, biological, meteorological, geological, etc. in nature and should be studied from all available perspectives. Absent such an inter-disciplinary approach all we'd do is preclude possible answers.

 

[Don Keyhoe-Ti]

What's disturbing is that the whole field of inquiry has not only not advanced in 60+ years, it's actually digressed.

Well I would agree that ufology hasn't found THE answer, to the satisfaction of any and all disinterested sceptical sane people. But I would disagree about there being no progress. Think of the gold-standard blue-ribbon ufo cases - with multiple highly credible background-checked witnesses, with suggestive photos that've passed multiple attempts at falsification, with radar verification, with government documentation indicating a credible event.... today we have hundreds of these, maybe thousands. Back in '47 we didn't have have hardly any. Presumably these events would've happened anyhow, but without "ufology" there to pursue and catalogue them, they each would've been lost to the sands of time. But taken together today, they form a pretty compelling body of research to indicate that something amazing has been going on in the skies.

I think a real opportunity was missed when Vallee's notion (that the phenomenon may represent some manipulative inter-dimensionalism rather than what he referred to as "nuts and bolts") was not pursued more vigorously by the majority of "ufologists" who insist on and promote the extraterrestrial premise.

I disagree completely. Firstly, if it really were interdimensional woo-woo's doing all this, how the heck are we meant to profitably pursue that idea? It's hard enough pursuing capricious alleged-aliens...but at least they're from the same universe as us! Investigators of the "real" paranormal topics such as ghosts poltergoosts etc, (and as a nut&boltser I would largely differentiate ufos from that,) haven't made any more recent progress than the ufonuts have.

I also have a few fundamental problems with the "interdimensional" idea - firstly, it's multiplying entities unnecessarily, in the Occamic sense.

Secondly, it ignores the basic content of most ufo reports - If I saw an unidentified thing flying in the sky, and it was shimmery & ectoplasmic, and kinda looked like a sheet, and went "wooOooOooOOOO!" a lot, and made clanky chain noises... well fuck me! I'd think I'd just seen a ghost.

Whereas if I saw an unidentified thing in the sky that looked like a shiny metallic manufactured craft with lights and landing gear and little dudes poking their heads out the window saying "take me to your dealer," then call me naieve to our "interdimensional reality," but I would think I'd just seen a frikin alien spaceship.

Now maybe it was really a Jinn or a leprechaun or the booger man or a deceitful daemon pretending to be an accident-prone sex-tourist from the planet Zorg, but do you honestly think ufology could make more headway with academia and government and puublic opinion by pushing this line??????

No I didn't think so.

 

[Ron Collins]

What's disturbing is that the whole field of inquiry has not only not advanced in 60+ years, it's actually digressed.

Well I would agree that ufology hasn't found THE answer, to the satisfaction of any and all disinterested sceptical sane people. But I would disagree about there being no progress. Think of the gold-standard blue-ribbon ufo cases - with multiple highly credible background-checked witnesses, with suggestive photos that've passed multiple attempts at falsification, with radar verification, with government documentation indicating a credible event.... today we have hundreds of these, maybe thousands. Back in '47 we didn't have have hardly any. Presumably these events would've happened anyhow, but without "ufology" there to pursue and catalogue them, they each would've been lost to the sands of time. But taken together today, they form a pretty compelling body of research to indicate that something amazing has been going on in the skies.

I think a real opportunity was missed when Vallee's notion (that the phenomenon may represent some manipulative inter-dimensionalism rather than what he referred to as "nuts and bolts") was not pursued more vigorously by the majority of "ufologists" who insist on and promote the extraterrestrial premise.

I disagree completely. Firstly, if it really were interdimensional woo-woo's doing all this, how the heck are we meant to profitably pursue that idea? It's hard enough pursuing capricious alleged-aliens...but at least they're from the same universe as us! Investigators of the "real" paranormal topics such as ghosts poltergoosts etc, (and as a nut&boltser I would largely differentiate ufos from that,) haven't made any more recent progress than the ufonuts have.

I also have a few fundamental problems with the "interdimensional" idea - firstly, it's multiplying entities unnecessarily, in the Occamic sense.

Secondly, it ignores the basic content of most ufo reports - If I saw an unidentified thing flying in the sky, and it was shimmery & ectoplasmic, and kinda looked like a sheet, and went "wooOooOooOOOO!" a lot, and made clanky chain noises... well fuck me! I'd think I'd just seen a ghost.

Whereas if I saw an unidentified thing in the sky that looked like a shiny metallic manufactured craft with lights and landing gear and little dudes poking their heads out the window saying "take me to your dealer," then call me naieve to our "interdimensional reality," but I would think I'd just seen a frikin alien spaceship.

Now maybe it was really a Jinn or a leprechaun or the booger man or a deceitful daemon pretending to be an accident-prone sex-tourist from the planet Zorg, but do you honestly think ufology could make more headway with academia and government and puublic opinion by pushing this line??????

No I didn't think so.

I could not agree with you more. Well stated sir!

 

[schticknz]

Just reading "Hunt for the Skinwalker" ... woahh ... woahh ... and double woooahhhh to the nth degree.

IF you have not read it ... find it, shoot it down, capture it and read it.

My favourite bit so far??? Black triangles flying out of rips in space-time (???) from unknown skies ??? ... Possibly.

Flying metal balls filled with a writhing blue liquid??? Could be ...

The flying refrigerator things??? Maybe ...

Bloody hell :-D

Tom Gorman (if that was his name) was and is one brave son of a gun ... I need a time machine, a very good degree in some scientific pursuit and a need to be on the Skinwalker Ranch ... nowww :-D

 

[Poi]

LOL! And yes, it's unbelievable. Designed to confused? I think that question alone is worth study.

Now maybe it was really a Jinn or a leprechaun or the booger man or a deceitful daemon pretending to be an accident-prone sex-tourist from the planet Zorg, but do you honestly think ufology could make more headway with academia and government and puublic opinion by pushing this line??????

No I didn't think so.

Except that when Vallee studied the ufo reports first hand, he found that all high strangeness aspects which researchers couldn't themselves "handle" (too woo woo), were left out of reports. So you now have a history of reports that have been cleaned up by people who still don't want to "handle" them and investigations that go nowhere. Any investigation without the woo woo stuff is incomplete whether you or I can handle them or not.

So sure, let's keep supporting investigations with incomplete data so we don't have to deal with things which make us uncomfortable. Yeah, that's real. We can even keep bitching that the field is going nowhere because that's more comfortable too.

Academia, government and the public didn't fund the scientific study at the Skinwalker ranch. Academia, government and the public have shown little interest and will continue to do so, at least as far as the public is concerned. One hoping his government will come clean, really clean, is, well, the height of wishful conjecture. For that matter, people like (was it Ron Collins who started this thread with a wish to being to study?) this thread's originator just may be the guy who someday has something useful to add to a collection of work that may even provide a breakthrough. But our dubbing his wish to contribute a waste of time is just a waste of time and makes us feel important or in some way special. We've had a lovely time arguing our opinions without really answering his question.

Ron, if you are the person who started the thread, take the area that interests you most and follow the researchers many have named in the "suggested guests" threads. My particular advice is to keep to the area that interests you rather than trying to cover the entire related phenomena.

I personally think various studies are required, obviously many without the woo woo factor, (hell, it's all woo woo if we're really honest) but I think it will bleed over often enough anyway. Be prepared to limit where you will go if you think there is more to discover in your area of interest. Don't listen to naysayers either. We're a dime a dozen.

 

[Verum]

Don Keyhotee wrote...

But I would disagree about there being no progress.

Maybe. So what do we know now that we didn't know 60 years ago? Where they're from? Why they're here? Why they eschew public recognition yet "tease" exposure with alleged flights over major cities (with running lights no less)? Why UFOs often are connected with other forms of phenomenon? Why there is no consistency as to descriptions or stories? Why the ONLY "evidence" after 60 years is anecdotal and mainly subjective? If we have learned anything whatsoever about UFOs that we didn't know 60 years ago I'd be anxious to hear what that is.

DK also wrote..

Whereas if I saw an unidentified thing in the sky that looked like a shiny metallic manufactured craft with lights and landing gear and little dudes poking their heads out the window saying "take me to your dealer," then call me naieve to our "interdimensional reality," but I would think I'd just seen a frikin alien spaceship.

Why would you possibly leap to the assumption that your hypothetical sighting was extraterrestrial in nature, as opposed to inter-dimensional or any of 100 other "theories"? There is no support for such a conclusion at all, and being trapped in such a paradigm is why research into UFOs is dead-ended. It is filled with conclusions based on belief, assumption and predisposition, not evidence.

 

[Frootloop]

So what do we know now that we didn't know 60 years ago? Where they're from?

We know that the most people accept that there is life elsewhere and that proof wouldnt be the shock that it would have been back in the 40's.

We know that there are multi witness reports of intelligently controlled craft.

We know that Airplane Pilots have encountered many unexplainable objects in our atmosphere.

We know that there is a high level of secrecy covering what could be pivotal sightings/recoveries.

We know that there is now a large section of hte public calling for disclosure, better research and truth regarding such matters.

 

[Aaron LeClair]

I was let down by Skinwalker. 10 years out there and not one photo or video. Bummer.