UFO good guys (for Siani)

[schticknz]

So ... in response to Siani's anguished plea ... who do we think are the good guys? as opposed to the hucksters and conmen in the UFO field?

Some names to start with (in no particular order):

Gene Steinberg
David Biedny
Jeff Ritzmann
The Clueless One
Jacques Vallee (still haven't tracked down his books but he seems to be ok ... apart from the odd C2C appearance of course )
Mac Tonnies
Greg Bishop
Paul Kimball
Nick Redfern
Richard Dolan
Joseph Farrell (cos I like him and noone else seems to ... not strictly straight ufology but I still think his work is interesting)
Don Ecker
John Greenewald Jr
James Fox
Daniel Brenton

... any more for any more ????

 

[Ally]

I know he is not talked about too much on this forum..and there is the problem that he died back in 2004. I think John E Mack should be part of the "good guy" list.

 

[Siani]

Ooh - thank you, Schticknz. The good guys? I like your list. Ally's suggestion of the late Dr. Mack is also a good one. I'd like to add:

Nick Pope (Schtick groans!)
Stan Friedman
Frank Warren

In a bit of a rush at the moment, but if I think of any more, I'll add them. I think you already named most of mine anyway.

 

[marmer]

Richard Hall?
Dr. Bruce Maccabee?
Kevin Randle?
Dennis Balthaser?

BTW I agree about Joseph Farrell.

 

[schticknz]

Ooh - thank you, Schticknz. The good guys? I like your list. Ally's suggestion of the late Dr. Mack is also a good one. I'd like to add:

Nick Pope (Schtick groans!)
Stan Friedman
Frank Warren

In a bit of a rush at the moment, but if I think of any more, I'll add them. I think you already named most of mine anyway.

Groann ... Stanton Friedman again ... see I can groan about other people other than Nick Pope I just think ol' Stan is a bit of a barrier to further development of ideas in the UFO field that aren't just the 'nuts and bolts' side of things ... but then again he is a nuclear physicist, and looks slightly demonic ... so what do I know

BTW I agree about Joseph Farrell.

Yayyy I'm not so alone in the universe after all ... I think Dr Farrells work is fascinating, and (possibly) extremely important but time will tell on that one.

Marmer: you're right about Maccabee ... not too sure on Hall (not really looked at his stuff in great detail yet), ... Randle ... mmmm not too sure about him either ... but Balthaser ... good guy yeah but I think barking up the wrong tree somehow ... I think Joseph Farrell is possibly going in a better direction in the pyramid stuff etc (although his theories about a war in the solar system are really far out there they somehow feel more right ... just a gut feeling thing I guess on my part ... hmmm ... might have been the prunes )

 

[macavity]

Jenny Randles
David Clarke

 

[Ron Collins]

Ted Phillips
Robert Salas
Scott Ramsey (at least on the two occasions I have listened to him)

Good to See that Timothy Good didnt make the list.

 

[Siani]

Ted Phillips
Robert Salas
Scott Ramsey (at least on the two occasions I have listened to him)

Good to See that Timothy Good didnt make the list.

I used to think Timothy Good was one of the good guys (no bad pun intended!). Sadly, I think he's rather lost the plot in recent years. He's done some excellent research in the past, but he's too inclined to believe any old codswallop, for my liking. Gullible, I guess is the best word to describe him. Ufologists like Tim Good are the reason we need to think for ourselves, and develop powerful anti-BS filters. I think Good is sincere enough - I don't think he deliberately tries to mislead, just to make a buck or fifty. But just because he believes George Adamski and Bob Lazar, it doesn't mean I have to.

 

[TClaeys]

What does it mean to be a good guy??

That you are in search of truth? That you are not highly gullible? Or that you seem reasonable enough to write books? That they are very convincing?? Or that they are genuine and nice?

Some religious leaders genuinely search for truth. They look at experience, text, archeology, history, etc and try to come to some understanding of reality and it's foundations. It may be that they are entirely wrong. So, good or bad??

Macabee sort of promotes the Gulf Breeze photos. I know nothing about them other than they look like the most bogus photos I've ever seen (well, almost). Friedman, Balthasaer, and Randle have rested much attention on Roswell writing books, doing interviews, researching, etc. Does this make them a good guy and why??

And then what about the prominent debunkers that have certainly done some good work? We just don't seem to want to group them in the same category as pro-ufo guys. But what about Schaeffer, Printy, Klass? They have done important research as well, just from a different angle.

I think it may be important to have a working definition of what constitutes a good person in this field, because sometimes "good" seems to coincide with what we would like to think about the nature of UFO's. And I'm guessing that most would not prefer to think of them as prosaic.

 

[Siani]

To me, a good guy (or gal) in ufology is someone who takes a rational approach to the subject, is as objective as possible, avoids wild conjecture, doesn't hoax or deliberately mislead us in any way, who doesn't muddy the waters with false, spurious or inept research, and is in it due to a genuine interest in the subject, rather than to make money from hoaxed media, inflate their own ego, set up a cult, or to pursue any other unscrupulous, ulterior motive. Someone doesn't have to share my opinions on the subject, for me to consider them a goody. As long as they act with integrity, employ a large dose of logic, and take an enquiring and open-minded approach, they get my vote.

 

[macavity]

Nicely put, sounds like a good definition of "good" to me.

 

[dorkbot]

I'm disappointed that nobody has mentioned Grant Cameron yet. I feel fairly comfortable in placing him in the top tier of ufo researchers in terms of signal to noise or light to heat ratio. He strikes me as quite smart, rational and practical. From what I have seen he does a good job of citing sources and references and if he is simply retelling a rumor he will indicate up front that this is what he is doing rather than confabulating a narrative and presenting it as common knowledge. This is not to say that I agree with everything he says but my bullshit detector has been relatively quiet when examining the material he presents.

He's done real field research and an enormous amount of document chasing. As near as I can make out, he is responsible for discovering the Wilbert Smith -> Dr. Robert Sarbacher -> Dr. Eric Walker pieces of ufological history.

If you haven't already heard it I'd encourage you to listen to the 3 hour interview that Tim Binnall did with him in 2005. It is one big infodump.

It looks like those listed thus far have mostly been those people who are still alive but sometime it would be interesting to create a meta-list of everyone and poll their credibility and contribution levels.

 

[marmer]

Keith Chester (WWII and "foo fighter" researcher.)
Brad Sparks
Chris Styles
Frank Feschino (some have problems with him but his research sounds impressive to me.)
Carl Feindt (water UFO's)
and of course Tim Binnall.

 

[ondafritz]

I know I may get slammed for this but I do like Bill Birnes. Although circumstances sometimes appear to point towards deception but I think there may be more to it than that. Especially when it comes to Corso.

 

[Gareth]

The thing is, THERE ARE JUST SO MANY.

Im reading a book by Paul Von Ward at the moment. Does anyone have an opinion on him theyd like to share? He seems to have an interesting point of view as I believe he trained as a man of the church, then discovered all the 'evidence' for alien intervention and misrepresentation of aliens as Gods etc.

Ive been meaning to do a google search.

 

[Bixyboo]

Sorry to be a bit off-topic but just wanted to thank Siani for doing such a great interview! It was fascinating!

Bixyboo