More Serious UFO Reporting

[Atticus11]

Nevertheless, these assumptions should be set aside in favor of an objective look at the evidence. If the evidence can't be objectively verified somehow, then it reverts to being sci-fi again, and either way the credibility of the source is irrelevant.

Getting back to the topic of this thread, then, the stories of the man who says his name is "Jim Courant" and claims to have been a former airline pilot, cannot be objectively verified because he has obfuscated critical information necessary to verify them; namely, the airline he was flying with in 1995, the flight number during which his sighting occurred, origin and destination airport of the flight, the name of his co-pilot, the names of the four other witnesses he claims saw the event, copies of government-issued photo ID positively establishing his identity as "Jim Courant" and a willingness to authorize release of his FAA medical certificates.

The stories of the man who says his name is "Jim Courant" should be treated like bad sci-fi and can be dismissed with no further thought.

 

[Frank Stalter]

(Not referencing Dolan now, but just generally speaking) for every Imbrogno or Thielmann there are a dozen more who simply haven't been outed. In approaching ufologists, I - therefore - assume each of them is an Imbrogno-in-Waiting until I've personally verified their biography. If their biography is so vague and cryptic that verification is impossible, I simply ignore all their sci-fi stories. When people are vague, cryptic or evasive about themselves, 9 out of 10 times they have something to hide.

Typical trends in most (but not all) ufologist biographies:
- claims of degrees without stating the field of degree, institution or year granted
- degrees from unaccredited institutions, online universities and degree mills
- use of the word "attended" in lieu of the words "graduated" or "received degree from" in describing alma mater
- various illustrious titles from non-English speaking nations (e.g. "holder of the Grand Cordon of the Order of Science of Malaysia")
- generic descriptions of experience (i.e. "worked for one of the world's largest widget manufacturers")
- self-granted laudits (e.g. "widely considered the preeminent authority on ...")
- large gaps of unaccounted-for life work (e.g. "Dr. John Smith was born in Arkansas and received an honorary doctorate from the University of Homeopathic Psychic Healing of Little Rock in 1970. In 2005 he published "UFOs are Here to Eat Us" and headlined the MUFON Northeast Pennsylvania regional symposium.")
- improper double-use of the title "doctor" (e.g. "Dr. John Smith, Ph.D.")

How about some specific examples?

 

[Atticus11]

How about some specific examples?

happy to* -

Steve Allen - criteria 5[generic descriptions of experience (i.e. "worked for one of the world's largest widget manufacturers")] ... "Has been in the transportation industry since the late 1970’s and owner of a medium size transportation company. Proudly serving the community on various functions."

A.J. Gevaerd (Brazil) - criteria 3 [use of the word "attended" in lieu of the words "graduated" or "received degree from" in describing alma mater] ... "Mr. Gevaerd studied chemistry in several universities in Brazil"

Peter Robbins - criteria 2 [degrees from unaccredited institutions, online universities and degree mills] ... "Dr. Valone holds a PhD in General Engineering from Kennedy-Western University"

Richard Sauder | Keyhole Publishing, Richard Dolan UFO Disclosure ExpertKeyhole Publishing, Richard Dolan UFO Disclosure Expert - criteria 1 [claims of degrees without stating the field of degree, institution or year granted] ... "He has a B.A. in sociology, an M.A. in Latin American studies, an M.S. in forestry and a Ph.D. in political science."

Richard Dolan | Keyhole Publishing, Richard Dolan UFO Disclosure ExpertKeyhole Publishing, Richard Dolan UFO Disclosure Expert - criteria 7 [large gaps of unaccounted-for life work]

I can offer a dozen more examples, and a dozen beyond that, but I just knocked these out in 3 minutes.

* (for purpose of clarification, I'm not calling into question the biographical claims of any of the above people, only noting that they are examples of strangely vague biographies of the type that are typical in ufology but not real science, and - in light of rampant resume inflation in this story-telling genre [ufology] - might cause [justifiably or not] reasonable people to view them with suspicion ...)

 

[Frank Stalter]

Steve Allen-He's a Stephenville witness no? Not a researcher.

AJ Gevaerd- Sounds like he did attend college but didn't get a degree. Lots of people do that.

Peter Robbins- That's not his real name either. Not a fan the little bit I'm aware of him.

Richard Sauder- Who?

Dolan- So what? Who cares?

UFO research is a pretty loose field, that should be pretty obvious. If someone becomes a scientist, they usually go to college for that purpose, take the education as far as they can and then go out and get science gigs. I can dig for examples of accomplished scientists where that did not happen, one off the top of my head is Kary Mullis. I'm certain there are others, but again: so what?

 

[Atticus11]

so what?

You asked for "specific examples" and I provided "specific examples." That's what.

If your position is "none of that matters anyway" you should have communicated that position before implicitly digging a line in the sand with the idea that biographical obfuscation doesn't happen (instead of adopting that position only after solid evidence is provided that it does happen and is widespread).

 

[Frank Stalter]

You asked for examples and I provided examples. That's what.

Then you need better evidence to back up your position.

 

[Atticus11]

Then you need better evidence to back up your position.

No, I don't. You asked for specific examples and I provided six.

Once the examples were offered, you then adopted the new position that: (a) it doesn't matter, but, (b) even though it doesn't matter I need to come up with more examples anyway.

This is the position of a Devoted Believer. Because any number of examples will always be too few examples to convince a Devoted Believer, offering more - ad infinitum - is a futile exercise. The goal of debate is to convince or be convinced. Therefore, meaningful debate can only occur with Open Minds, not Devoted Believers.

 

[Frank Stalter]

No, I don't. You asked for specific examples and I provided six.

Once the examples were offered, you then adopted the new position that: (a) it doesn't matter, but, (b) even though it doesn't matter I need to come up with more examples anyway.

This is the position of a Devoted Believer. Because any number of examples will always be too few examples to convince a Devoted Believer, offering more - ad infinitum - is a futile exercise. The goal of debate is to convince or be convinced. Therefore, meaningful debate can only occur with Open Minds, not Devoted Believers.

Hahaha. "it doesn't matter" was my initial position. I already explained why. Misrepresentation, like in Imbrogno's case, is a different matter of course. You don't have anything close to what Lance Moody turned up there. If that's the best you've got, it's next to nothing. Sauder's educational claims raise some eyebrows but who is he? I never heard of him until you brought him up.

Hahaha #2 "Devoted believer"? Well, I think the UFO subject is a lot more interesting than the people in it and that's what I try to focus on. I think there's also a profound lack of understanding on your part regarding these biographical sketches:

Clinton Foundation — President Bill Clinton

Where did this guy go to college? What did he do for a living between 1946 and 2004? He claims he was President of the United States, but there are no dates for this. He claims his wife is a secretary but for what company?

 

[Randall]

The stories of the man who says his name is "Jim Courant" should be treated like bad sci-fi and can be dismissed with no further thought.

Although anonymous unverifiable claims might be about as useful as sci-fi, dismissing them without further thought isn't what I'm suggesting. They can go on record as ufolore in a historical perspective, and there is always the chance that something more substantial might come from them. In the meantime, in the absence of substantial evidence that the claims are either fabrications or facts, our position should be to remain skeptical and reserve judgment. Anyway ... these are just general principles, now you're making me think I should review the actual case. Thanks for bringing it up!

 

[Atticus11]

Well, I think the UFO subject is a lot more interesting than the people in it and that's what I try to focus on.

Ufology consists entirely of telling, passing along and re-telling stories. Research beyond story telling is almost entirely absent in this subject. Ufology is a sub-discipline of Folkloristics. Academic study of folklore considers the sources of myths and legends. Ufology - a sub-discipline of Folkloristics - is only a viable discipline if it also considers the sources of myths and legends.

For example, Richard Dolan recounted an urban myth/legend about Todd Sees as a fact in his self-published sci-fi novel "A.D." He used, as a source, a man he claimed was a police officer, Butch Witkowski. In researching this myth, we need to determine if he was using modern means to propagate popular cultural lore or simply conducted shoddy research. His background and pedigree is key to understanding this.

In every field of research and science, researchers present comprehensive biographies of themselves that allow independent verification. Only in ufology do so-called "researchers" (often, as demonstrated with examples) selectively edit their bios to obfuscate key details that would allow independent verification; no one ever questions these glaring gaps until, periodically every few years like clockwork, someone exposes that XYZ person has been claiming a doctorate he didn't have. Everyone bemoans this person, cuts him out, then goes on happily believing all the other respected ufologists who also have large chunks of their life missing or claim degrees in unspecified fields awarded on unknown dates. Because the mainstream media have relegated ufology to the fringes of society, and because True Believers/Devoted Followers are intent on not probing into anyone's background, most of these charlatans are able to pass for many years - sometimes entire lifetimes - without being exposed. I appreciate and understand the fact that the "field" of ufology has been conjured into existence by a gaggle of Amway salesmen does not phase you in believing it is a legitimate avenue of inquiry.

 

[Frank Stalter]

In every field of research and science, researchers present comprehensive biographies of themselves that allow independent verification. Only in ufology do so-called "researchers" (often, as demonstrated with examples) selectively edit their bios to obfuscate key details that would allow independent verification; no one ever questions these glaring gaps until, periodically every few years like clockwork, someone exposes that XYZ person has been claiming a doctorate he didn't have. Everyone bemoans this person, cuts him out, then goes on happily believing all the other respected ufologists who also have large chunks of their life missing or claim degrees in unspecified fields awarded on unknown dates. Because the mainstream media have relegated ufology to the fringes of society, and because True Believers/Devoted Followers are intent on not probing into anyone's background, most of these charlatans are able to pass for many years - sometimes entire lifetimes - without being exposed. I appreciate and understand this doesn't concern you.

You simply don't understand what a biographical sketch is. I think I demonstrated this already. Of course you ignored it because I made my case. When you come up with something, like Lance Moody did, regarding the background of a UFO researcher that is a case of serious misrepresentation, get back to me. Until then, you've got nothing.

In the mean time, what's your name and tell us a little bit about yourself.

 

[Randall]

Ufology is a sub-discipline of Folkloristics.

Folkloreistics? There's a new one ... it's been a while. According to your logic and the definition given in Wikipedia, pretty much any academic study could fall under Folkloreistics. All it needs is two or more persons who have any trait in common and express their shared identity through traditions. But let's be clear here. Simply possessing such traits and traditions doesn't relegate an area of study to folklore. For example, astronomers have common traits and traditions, but that doesn't make astronomy folklore, nor does it make it a "sub-discipline of Folkloreistics". However there may be certain historical and mythological aspects of astronomy that folklorists can zoom in on and study ( e.g. star of Bethlehem ). Similarly, although ufology contains elements of folklore, it cannot in its entirety be relegated to the realm of folklore. It is not as simple as merely "telling, passing along and re-telling stories". See the links below for a more in-depth explanation.

 

[Randall]

Only in ufology do so-called "researchers" (often, as demonstrated with examples) selectively edit their bios to obfuscate key details that would allow independent verification; no one ever questions these glaring gaps until, periodically every few years like clockwork, someone exposes that XYZ person has been claiming a doctorate he didn't have.

You should be careful not to make absolutist statements. Other fields also have their fringe elements, and science is no exception. In medicine they call them quacks, and a paper published last year exposed hundreds of cases of fraud in medical research papers.

A detailed review of all 2,047 biomedical and life-science research articles indexed by PubMed as retracted on May 3, 2012 revealed that only 21.3% of retractions were attributable to error. In contrast, 67.4% of retractions were attributable to misconduct, including fraud or suspected fraud (43.4%), duplicate publication (14.2%), and plagiarism (9.8%). Incomplete, uninformative or misleading retraction announcements have led to a previous underestimation of the role of fraud in the ongoing retraction epidemic.

Plus, examples of false academic credentials seem abound in the job market. So your comment, "Only in ufology ... " is clearly exaggerated to say the least. Here's a tidbit to chew on:

RESUME FRAUD: THE TOP 10 LIES

Can you cite hundreds of cases of fraud in ufology? I can't. I doubt that there are that many. So the reality is actually the opposite of what the skeptics typically claim. Science seems to have far more examples of questionable claims and their own set of problems to worry about. Ufology is certainly not alone anyway.

 

[boomerang]

I would make a distinction between the importance of personal credibility in first hand witnesses vs. those who collect information from such witnesses (or from published sources) for the purpose of analysis and publication. The relationship between the informational value of a given report and the person making it is obvious. This phenomenon, in fact, has a way of attaching itself to the personal credibility of individuals. So reports from people with a record of stability and integrity, who also tend to be those with the most to lose by going public, are thus unavoidably of higher value. And there are easily enough such high strangeness/high credibility reports on record to establish the ufo phenomenon as more than folklore.

Compiled work of researchers is somewhat more capable of standing on its own. I would think the degree to which it rises or falls on its own merits depends on how well the author's sources are vetted and cited. However, most readers give authors (especially in this field) much benefit of the doubt regarding this. My personal feeling is that, even in the eclectic field of ufology, sincere and credible researchers tend to outlast sloppy confabulators and outright charlatans. At least we can hope so.

There is also the power of brilliant imagination. I read everything written by SciFi author Phillip K. Dick I can lay my hands on with the almost certain knowledge that the talented Mr. Dick would have come away from a psychiatric eval with anti-psychotic meds in hand. Some of the most powerful ideas operating in the real world have been handed down from thinkers whom we would regard as personally detached from reality ! There is a kind of strange loop here.

 

[Atticus11]

You simply don't understand what a biographical sketch is. I think I demonstrated this already. Of course you ignored it because I made my case. When you come up with something, like Lance Moody did, regarding the background of a UFO researcher that is a case of serious misrepresentation, get back to me. Until then, you've got nothing.

I'm sorry you're so terribly upset, but I'm afraid the point has escaped you. Misrepresentation or shady backgrounds can't be proven or disproven where biographical information has been intentionally omitted. I can't verify Richard Dolan's colleague, Richard Sauder, supposed Ph.D. if he won't provide information as to the university that issued it. When people claim to have a Ph.D. they typically - in a biography - mention who granted it.

The biographies of people working in ufology - generally (as I demonstrated with examples) - appear to have been painfully constructed in such a way so as to omit key details that allow any attempt at verification. If you don't find that odd and it doesn't phase you at all, then you are a True Believer/Devoted Follower who is unwilling to consider information that contradicts your paradigm and it's understandable the point escaped you.

 

[Atticus11]

There is also the power of brilliant imagination. I read everything written by SciFi author Phillip K. Dick

I delight in seeing ufologists compared to sci-fi writers so I won't challenge any part of your post.

 

[Frank Stalter]

I'm sorry you're so terribly upset, but I'm afraid the point has escaped you. Misrepresentation or shady backgrounds can't be proven or disproven where biographical information has been intentionally omitted. I can't verify Richard Dolan's colleague, Richard Sauder, supposed Ph.D. if he won't provide information as to the university that issued it. When people claim to have a Ph.D. they typically - in a biography - mention who granted it.

The biographies of people working in ufology - generally (as I demonstrated with examples) - appear to have been painfully constructed in such a way so as to omit key details that allow any attempt at verification. If you don't find that odd and it doesn't phase you at all, then you are a True Believer/Devoted Follower who is unwilling to consider information that contradicts your paradigm and it's understandable the point escaped you.

If you're trying to make your case via Richard Sauder, congratulations. Who is he? I've never heard of the guy before you dug up his name. Making a broad brush statement based on that is just plain silly. I've already demonstrated that biographical sketches aren't meant to be anything more than that. They aren't intended to be detailed CV's with personal references and contact information. I provided Bill Clinton's as an example . . . which you ignored.

I'm certainly not upset about all the non-evidence you compiled. Lance Moody made the effort to do some real research regarding Imbrogno. Even then, even with some researchers in the field claiming they were what they weren't, it doesn't change the cases. It doesn't change DC 1952, or JAL/Alaska or even the Hudson Valley case, which Imbrogno helped write a book about.

You have no compelling evidence backing your claims . . . or a name or a background. That doesn't make you dishonest but it does make you a hypocrite.

 

[boomerang]

I ran across this interview while looking for related YouTube footage that is apparently no longer available. For what it's worth, I regard it as utterly factual because I happened to have been acquainted with the interviewee. It's an elaboration on Col McCaslin's account of the Minot incident from Peter Jenning's otherwise lackluster documentary about the ufo phenomenon. Note that McCaslin is of the opinion that Washington took a special interest in events of that night. Note also that certain firsthand witnesses later denied anything unusual had occurred.

Interview: Patrick D. McCaslin (2001) | The Minot AFB UFO case | 24 OCTOBER 1968


Scroll down for the video:

Introduction | The Minot AFB UFO case | 24 OCTOBER 1968

 

[Atticus11]

If you're trying to make your case via Richard Sauder, congratulations. Who is he?

He is a 9-time guest on Coast to Coast AM (a radio show) and one of only 5 authors published by Richard Dolan's publishing company (Richard Dolan is a self-published sci-fi author in the speculative fiction/roleplaying game sub-genre called "ufology"). His latest book featured a foreword contributed by Dolan. He has been featured as a speaker at numerous MUFON (MUFON is an organization named "the Mutual UFO Network") chapters, at the International UFO Congress ("UFO" stands for "Unidentified Flying Object") and has been interviewed by Linda Molton Howe (Howe is a beauty pageant finalist-turned-space aliens and flying saucer investigator popular among fans of the speculative fiction/roleplaying game sub-genre called "ufology"). His articles have been published in NEXUS Magazine and Atlantis Rising.

I've never heard of the guy before you dug up his name.

If you're trying to say this isn't a fair conversation because I have a more advanced knowledge of the pseudo-scientific field of ufology than you ... um, well, okay. I don't know what to tell you. Sorry - I'm not sure what kind of response you were hoping for here.

They aren't intended to be detailed CV's with personal references and contact information.

No one - except you - has claimed that's the intent. The only claim I've made is that bios follow a predictable pattern in their composition. When bios don't follow that pattern - especially in a field with numerous examples of resume inflation or outright fabrications - a rational person will exercise caution in assuming the person ever held the jobs he claimed, ever attended the schools he claimed, ever saw the things he claimed, or even is using his real name.

I cannot think of any other "significant" inquiry in which an airline pilot is feted for his expertise and in which he is only identified as a pilot for a "major airline." As I've said, I understand that you - as a True Believer - don't find anything unusual about that. That's why I indicated this conversation will only be one that's reasonable to conduct with an Open Mind. True Believers will protect their paradigm no matter what kind of off-kilter arguments it requires they subscribe.

I provided Bill Clinton's as an example . . . which you ignored.

To be fair, your posts - to date - have contained a number of rather rambling, and seemingly random and nonsensical points, like the Bill Clinton one. I've exercised discrimination to select the most lucid ones to which to reply and it seems unreasonable to expect me to try to wade through all of them. Don't you agree? I'm sure you do.

I ran across this interview while looking for related YouTube footage that is apparently no longer available. For what it's worth, I regard it as utterly factual

"YouTube" and "utterly factual"

There aren't many fields in which one sees those words in the same paragraph ...

 

[Frank Stalter]

He is a 9-time guest on Coast to Coast AM (a radio show) and one of only 5 authors published by Richard Dolan's publishing company (Richard Dolan is a self-published sci-fi author in the speculative fiction/roleplaying game sub-genre called "ufology"). His latest book featured a foreword contributed by Dolan. He has been featured as a speaker at numerous MUFON (MUFON is an organization named "the Mutual UFO Network") chapters, at the International UFO Congress ("UFO" stands for "Unidentified Flying Object") and has been interviewed by Linda Molton Howe (Howe is a beauty pageant finalist-turned-space aliens and flying saucer investigator popular among fans of the speculative fiction/roleplaying game sub-genre called "ufology"). His articles have been published in NEXUS Magazine and Atlantis Rising.

If you're trying to say this isn't a fair conversation because I have a more advanced knowledge of the pseudo-scientific field of ufology than you ... um, well, okay. I don't know what to tell you. Sorry - I'm not sure what kind of response you were hoping for here.

No one - except you - has claimed that's the intent. The only claim I've made is that bios follow a predictable pattern in their composition. When bios don't follow that pattern - especially in a field with numerous examples of resume inflation or outright fabrications - a rational person will exercise caution in assuming the person ever held the jobs he claimed, ever attended the schools he claimed, ever saw the things he claimed, or even is using his real name.

I cannot think of any other "significant" inquiry in which an airline pilot is feted for his expertise and in which he is only identified as a pilot for a "major airline." As I've said, I understand that you - as a True Believer - don't find anything unusual about that. That's why I indicated this conversation will only be one that's reasonable to conduct with an Open Mind. True Believers will protect their paradigm no matter what kind of off-kilter arguments it requires they subscribe.

To be fair, your posts - to date - have contained a number of rather rambling, and seemingly random and nonsensical points, like the Bill Clinton one. I've exercised discrimination to select the most lucid ones to which to reply and it seems unreasonable to expect me to try to wade through all of them. Don't you agree? I'm sure you do.

"YouTube" and "utterly factual"

There aren't many fields in which one sees those words in the same paragraph ...

My Bill Clinton point exposes the idiocy of your argument. You want a scientific example?

About | tangledfields

Where did she get her undergraduate degree? What was it in? Are there gaps in the dates in her bio? The only date mentioned is 2012, her entire life is a gap . . . .

It's not like I looked very deep for these examples, they were the only two I looked for. I have little doubt every biographical sketch will be the same, the greater the accomplishment of the person, the sketchier it will be. I used Clinton as an example to make an exaggerated point but there's nothing nonsensical about it . . . you don't know what you're talking about.