Peer review....

[tommyball]

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.

I agree with you.

Can anyone think of any good recent examples of other subjects or areas of research that were once marginalized like the UFO phenomena and are now mainstream subjects? I know many scientific subjects were once marginalized. Psychology is a young science. Much of theoretical physics is relatively new; of course that subject as a whole does not get a great deal of mainstream attention.

-todd.

 

[valiens]

What about climatology? Aren't there people from various fields converging on the global warming issue that just a few years ago wasn't an issue?

Hand-in-hand with that, alternative energy research.

To an extent, archeology, although I think the holistic approach there is still considered fringe. (Or do mainstream archaeologists consider the geological evidence that the Sphinx is 12,000 years old?)

Maybe a better example of what's needed is when a police case gets so badly messed up that the FBI steps in and says "We'll take it from here."

Does ufology need an elected body?

 

[The Pair of Cats]

Ufology needs an enema!

 

[tommyball]

What about climatology? Aren't there people from various fields converging on the global warming issue that just a few years ago wasn't an issue?

Hand-in-hand with that, alternative energy research.

To an extent, archeology, although I think the holistic approach there is still considered fringe. (Or do mainstream archaeologists consider the geological evidence that the Sphinx is 12,000 years old?)

Maybe a better example of what's needed is when a police case gets so badly messed up that the FBI steps in and says "We'll take it from here."

Does ufology need an elected body?

Climatology. Of course! Those are some great examples.

I wonder if it's a matter of time for ufology to become more mainstream (going along with an archeology analogy) or if a larger impetus is necessary to lead to a more revolutionary change.

David mentioned some large scale event a few shows ago. Maybe this will be it.

Or (and not to draw too much of a parallel between UFOs and space exploration) perhaps confirmation of life on other planets from NASA? Personally, I feel that this is not far off. The Viking data is still being debated over and with so many planned missions to Mars, the discovery of life there seems to almost be a foregone conclusion from NASA's perspective. The Mars missions are increasingly oriented towards biological research. Astrobiology is even a growing field of study with more and more universities offering degrees.

Some sort of governing body would be beneficial to establish and maintain a level of credibility, but if elected, who chooses them? This is a bit of a chicken/egg scenario...

Gotta run...

-todd.

 

[Manu]

Good point about the "experts" being the experiencers. But I'm not so sure they would generally make good UFO "scientists."

On the other hand, theoretical ufologists (like theoretical physicists) would need to be more than intellectuals, and might not necessarily be good ufo scientists either. As Vallee and others have concluded, the UFO phenomenon is similar, and perhaps connected or identical with, the subtle and/or psychic phenomenon of times past and of other fields or disciplines. That doesn't lend itself to analysis or examination by scientific methods. Most science and scientists are too crude.

I would not label such phenomena as spiritual (has a lot of vague, relgious, fuzzy conotations), but merely structured in a different level of reality. Such phenomena are perceivable by refined or subtle senses, or in moments of such perception. The same logic we use in day-to-day processing may not apply. That's why I think it is a mistake to exclude UFOlogists who have a psychic approach like Steven Greer (though I don't really know much about what he does), unless they are obvious hucksters like Billy Meier or Fred Bell.

 

[Goody]

UFOlogy does not need to rebuild; it simply begs for new thinkers.

 

[devan]

In order to give credibility to the ETH, we need insights on how these unimaginable distances can be traversed. Another candidate and a potential guest that Gene and David may want to consider is Dr. Travis S. Taylor.

A discussion with a scientist who has worked with the DOD and NASA, is an expert on advanced propulsion systems with work on warp drive theory would be fascinating. He has a Doctorate in Optical Science and Engineering, a Master's degree in Astronomy, Aerospace Engineering and also Physics. And I've heard that he can even tie his own shoes.

He also came out with a book earlier this year, taking a serious and scientific look at the possibility of and preparation for an alien contact or worse. He has also done interviews.

 

[The Pair of Cats]

So how many persons have been nominated as a "peer' up to now?