Peer review....

[ondafritz]

Hi all,

I have been doing some background work for Gene and David and what that entails is that I have, basically, been listening to every show that is on the front page. Man these guys know how to talk! Anyway, right now I am listening to the April 1st show from this year with Paul Kimball and Ritzmann. And Paul Kimball brought up something that is SORELY needed in the field of Ufology.... Peer review.

Peer review means that people knowledgeable in this field will review something for plausibility and accuracy (I know a lot more as well but I am leaving that up to you all to provide) when someone else in the field publishes something.

The thing that gets me is that Ufologist run away from peer review faster than my cats run away at the mere threat of having to get a bath. Now, I am in that camp of believing that a peer review board needs to be set up. And the only way I can think of to get these jokers to go along with it would be to threaten to withhold the dollars from the dvd's, books, speeches, and flashlights (ie. Greer who wouldn't stand an ice cube's chance in hell in front of a peer review board.).

I really think it is up to us to get this started. If we withhold the bucks, then, we might get the ducks to line up.

My nomination for a peer review board member.... Dr. Bruce Maccabee.

Your thoughts?

 

[DBTrek]

My vote goes to doctorally degreed scientists that haven't written any books whatsoever on UFO's or the paranormal. If you try to pick someone who is already part of the circus to be a ring leader the chaos and stupidity will increase exponentially.

 

[ondafritz]

My vote goes to doctorally degreed scientists that haven't written any books whatsoever on UFO's or the paranormal. If you try to pick someone who is already part of the circus to be a ring leader the chaos and stupidity will increase exponentially.

Well I am glad you agree of the need for a peer review board. And I am not against people who would be considered skeptics (as you must agree that professionals outside the ufo field would be more inclined to fall on that side of the fence). But you must also have unbiased people in the field to keep it honest. Maccabee is one of those types I believe.

 

[The Pair of Cats]

Apart from "knowledgeable in the field" what other criteria would you consider necessary? I would think that a good mix of researchers, intellectuals and persons who had experienced some of the phenomenon would be needed.

But then, who would review the peer review panel? I can just see some of the one's who didn't make it, in the background forming a breakaway group dedicated to character assassinating the former...etc., etc.

It's still a great idea and one sorely needed!

Maccabee is a good choice.He probably would be one of my first.

 

[valiens]

I think once you get into peer reviewing in ufology, the house of cards falls. This is because it is full of quacks and morons. I'm just now waking up to the fact that this, not conspiracy, is the reason mainstream science shies away from the subject.

 

[David Biedny]

I'm inclined to agree with Mr. Vaeni, peer review would require actual cooperation amongst "researchers", which will likely not be possible with the folks involved in this "field". Sad, but true.

 

[Rob]

The real question is peer review what, exactly? What could any group of researchers actually physically examine? Since there isn't anything, what new information do you expect to obtain from these self proclaimed ufologists (or whoever) that they haven't already told you?

Rubber Johnny

 

[The Pair of Cats]

Hey great Video link Rob!!!

Was that Kal Korff or Lloyd Pye???

 

[pixelsmith]

sounds good on paper... i doubt it would work.

 

[tommyball]

As far as peers for the scientific aspect of the phenomena, Maccabee is a great recommendation. Michio Kaku is another credible scientist who seems to be open to the UFO field. As far as other accredited individuals it could be difficult to find those outside of ufology who have an enough of an interest in the subject to give it an open-minded look.

What about MUFON's researchers/investigators? Do they have the credentials to qualify?

As far as peers from the standpoint of historical research, I'd propose Richard Dolan, Nick Pope and John Greenewald.

I've worked in advertising, so find myself drawn to make an analogy towards "branding." Ufology has suffered as a brand. The media succeeded in tarnishing it with bad connotations. When people hear "UFO" they think of little green men, Roswell, Area 51 and of all the credibility-sucking fringe bullshit. We want them to think of the facts, which when well researched and presented are very convincing. We want them to think of good cases (Tehran, Malmstrom), of objective researchers (Maccabee, Dolan, etc.) and of the government's real track record on its interest in the subject.

This field has suffered from its marginalization and as time has passed, the number of researchers has grown, and now we have the rampant infighting. I think a review process has to be established from within, the mainstream science world is not going to one day welcome ufology into it. review and accountability has to come from within ufology. Maybe it's an initiative for an existing group (MUFON?); maybe a new group is needed.

-todd.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

As far as peers for the scientific aspect of the phenomena, Maccabee is a great recommendation. Michio Kaku is another credible scientist who seems to be open to the UFO field. As far as other accredited individuals it could be difficult to find those outside of ufology who have an enough of an interest in the subject to give it an open-minded look.

What about MUFON's researchers/investigators? Do they have the credentials to qualify?

As far as peers from the standpoint of historical research, I'd propose Richard Dolan, Nick Pope and John Greenewald.

I've worked in advertising, so find myself drawn to make an analogy towards "branding." Ufology has suffered as a brand. The media succeeded in tarnishing it with bad connotations. When people hear "UFO" they think of little green men, Roswell, Area 51 and of all the credibility-sucking fringe bullshit. We want them to think of the facts, which when well researched and presented are very convincing. We want them to think of good cases (Tehran, Malmstrom), of objective researchers (Maccabee, Dolan, etc.) and of the government's real track record on its interest in the subject.

This field has suffered from its marginalization and as time has passed, the number of researchers has grown, and now we have the rampant infighting. I think a review process has to be established from within, the mainstream science world is not going to one day welcome ufology into it. review and accountability has to come from within ufology. Maybe it's an initiative for an existing group (MUFON?); maybe a new group is needed.

-todd.

To become a MUFON investigator, you have to buy their training manual, then pass some sort of test. I suppose something is better than nothing, but I kind of expect the quality of investigators varies considerably.

 

[Aaron LeClair]

As far as peers for the scientific aspect of the phenomena, Maccabee is a great recommendation. Michio Kaku is another credible scientist who seems to be open to the UFO field. As far as other accredited individuals it could be difficult to find those outside of ufology who have an enough of an interest in the subject to give it an open-minded look.

What about MUFON's researchers/investigators? Do they have the credentials to qualify?

As far as peers from the standpoint of historical research, I'd propose Richard Dolan, Nick Pope and John Greenewald.

I've worked in advertising, so find myself drawn to make an analogy towards "branding." Ufology has suffered as a brand. The media succeeded in tarnishing it with bad connotations. When people hear "UFO" they think of little green men, Roswell, Area 51 and of all the credibility-sucking fringe bullshit. We want them to think of the facts, which when well researched and presented are very convincing. We want them to think of good cases (Tehran, Malmstrom), of objective researchers (Maccabee, Dolan, etc.) and of the government's real track record on its interest in the subject.

This field has suffered from its marginalization and as time has passed, the number of researchers has grown, and now we have the rampant infighting. I think a review process has to be established from within, the mainstream science world is not going to one day welcome ufology into it. review and accountability has to come from within ufology. Maybe it's an initiative for an existing group (MUFON?); maybe a new group is needed.

-todd.

To become a MUFON investigator, you have to buy their training manual, then pass some sort of test. I suppose something is better than nothing, but I kind of expect the quality of investigators varies considerably.

Also spend time as a trainee and go out with a field investigator for a time. At least that's how it was years ago. MUFON has went downhill the past several years. Think this occurred once Walt Andrus was replaced.

As for peer reviews. I gave up on this a long time ago. Peers don't want to review, and researchers rather release their info. via a book etc. I used to push heavily towards them, but it was kicking a dead donkey.

 

[ondafritz]

I never said it would work. I only said it was needed.

 

[Aaron LeClair]

I never said it would work. I only said it was needed.

I wasn't taking issue with you.

 

[valiens]

I think what's needed is to scrap ufology altogether. Start over. Get some new minds in there from various fields of expertise and fund them. Give them incentive to do real research where the end result won't be a book that requires a narrative structure and a specific point of view be adopted to sell it. Have all of them present their findings in peer-reviewed journals from within their individual fields. If everything looks fine, THEN bring all the pieces together for a book or what have you.

Enough of this "My top secret CIA source who works with aliens told me..." crap.

 

[ondafritz]

I never said it would work. I only said it was needed.

I wasn't taking issue with you.

Never said you were dude. Just reflecting what seems to be the consensus among the post. As much as I feel there is something going on out there it is the "researchers" who have, in large part, ruined this field. It is sickening.

 

[Aaron LeClair]

I never said it would work. I only said it was needed.

I wasn't taking issue with you.

Never said you were dude. Just reflecting what seems to be the consensus among the post. As much as I feel there is something going on out there it is the "researchers" who have, in large part, ruined this field. It is sickening.

It came across as implied. You seemed defensive. Hard to tell over the pooter.

 

[ondafritz]

I never said it would work. I only said it was needed.

I wasn't taking issue with you.

Never said you were dude. Just reflecting what seems to be the consensus among the post. As much as I feel there is something going on out there it is the "researchers" who have, in large part, ruined this field. It is sickening.

It came across as implied. You seemed defensive. Hard to tell over the pooter.

So true. Chill man it's all cool. We're in the Paracast where there is peace and harmony!

 

[Manu]

If you can't get Jacques Vallee out of his self-imposed retirement, then I vote for Maccabee.

 

[The Pair of Cats]

The real experts are the people who experience the phenomenon first hand.The people who see the disks, the people who witness the events, the people who were there at the time, those who take the pictures and videos.

The so called "experts" ,scientists and intellectuals then go about dismantling this evidence and tell the persons who were there that they were wrong or delusional, "...It was the light refracting off Uranus" or some other lame explanation.

Sure the scientists can expose the hoaxers via image and video analysis and this is great but when they find something that defies their analysis all we get is "..we don't know what that is..." , in other words when the scientific community find something anomalous they are reluctant to put their name or reputation to the answer for fear of rebuke from their "peers".

Intellectuals within the field cannot agree amongst themselves on a common course of action , or anything for that matter and intellectuals outside the field look upon those in it as quacks or delusional.

The advent of technology and the fact that anyone with a computer and a basic knowledge of film or image reproduction can make reasonable pictures or videos and flood youtube or google with them make it so hard for the people who do shoot images of the real thing to have a decent forum for their evidence.

The fact that Vallee and such have rejected the UFO field now because they have gone as far as they can with it (or they see it for what is really is) makes it hard to find "peers" to act as reviewers and i think that this is a shame.

I still like the idea of a peer review panel but i fear, as others here have expressed that, we are not going to see that happen anytime soon.

Maccabee still gets my vote. You could probably involve Stanton Friedman in there Greenfield (mabe from an occult standpoint).