What can we do to support valid UFO research?

[Randall]

Is there "no need" to show up in the SLV? ...

OK, let's suppose that there is some need for UFOs to be active in the SLV. Whose sandbox is it anyway; theirs or Christopher's? If as you point out, there have been centuries of activity, and we believe it involves alien activity, then we should anticipate that there will be consequences for digging too deep. What kind of consequences? For starters, they've probably been keeping tabs on Chris since he began investigating the area years ago. We should expect strange equipment malfunctions, black helicopters, MIB, paranormal activity and generally odd occurrences that aren't easy to explain. How much of this stuff has Chris experienced? Chris likes to Joke ( Men in Beige ), but we know it's not always fun and games.

 

[RenaissanceLady]

OK, let's suppose that there is some need for UFOs to be active in the SLV. Whose sandbox is it anyway; theirs or Christopher's? If as you point out, there have been centuries of activity, and we believe it involves alien activity, then we should anticipate that there will be consequences for digging too deep. What kind of consequences? For starters, they've probably been keeping tabs on Chris since he began investigating the area years ago. We should expect strange equipment malfunctions, black helicopters, MIB, paranormal activity and generally odd occurrences that aren't easy to explain. How much of this stuff has Chris experienced? Chris likes to Joke ( Men in Beige ), but we know it's not always fun and games.

I guess I'm confused by your first statement. Does it matter whose "sandbox" it is?

Judging from some of Christopher's statements on some other threads, I can politely surmise he's (more than a bit) older than me. I'm sure he knows far better than me how much trouble he can get into and what the consequences could be if he digs too deep. If this isn't off-putting to him, why should it be off-putting to any of us? The truth is we will never know what he might find or what problems he might encounter until he tries this. This sounds a bit cold but he's the one taking the chances whereas the most we might risk is any funding if we choose to offer it for this project.

Realistically, I don't have any dogs in this fight. I like Christopher O'Brien's books and appreciate the research he has done regarding the San Luis Valley but I've never personally met the guy. He could eat kittens for all I know. Whether or not he's eating kitty cacciatore for dinner, I still think most of us would be interested in whatever results this project would offer. If he's adult enough to weigh the benefits against the risks and still decide this is something he wants to do, I'm adult enough to say "go for it!" He's obviously a grown-up and can make Big Boy decisions. People take risks doing stupid things all the time, so if O'Brien wants to take a risk doing something potentially useful, I can applaud that.

 

[Sentry]

I'm enjoying the conversation, but the underlying premise in my original question was:
What can we do to avoid inadvertently supporting quack UFO research?

Any better advice than just avoiding Steven Greer's projects?

 

[Christopher O'Brien]

... I like Christopher O'Brien's books and appreciate the research he has done regarding the San Luis Valley but I've never personally met the guy. He could eat kittens for all I know. Whether or not he's eating kitty cacciatore for dinner, I still think most of us would be interested in whatever results this project would offer.

Thanks for your kudos, but rest assured RL if I tried to eat my cats, they'd figure out a way to have ME for dinner! Or maybe invite one of their huge cougar cousins that live nearby over for brunch, or something.

As to the SLV Camera Project... hey you can't catch fish unless you go fishing. Nobody else has managed to install a triangulared camera system in a "hot spot" area, so what the heck, why not at least give it a try? One thing I am fairly certain of is that we will invariably catch some of our tech flying around. Those cool flying machines conceived, developed and made operational with YOUR tax $. And, speaking of cats -- I love playing cat and mouse -- especially if I'm the cat...

 

[Randall]

I guess I'm confused by your first statement. Does it matter whose "sandbox" it is?

Judging from some of Christopher's statements on some other threads, I can politely surmise he's (more than a bit) older than me. I'm sure he knows far better than me how much trouble he can get into and what the consequences could be if he digs too deep. If this isn't off-putting to him, why should it be off-putting to any of us? ... People take risks doing stupid things all the time, so if O'Brien wants to take a risk doing something potentially useful, I can applaud that.

Metaphorically speaking, the sandbox is the SLV and like yourself, I applaud Christopher's efforts. I think everyone here is in agreement with that. We're just bouncing around some pro and cons, and the possibility of consequences is a fair element for discussion. Perhaps Chris has taken them into account already. I hope he has because it's likely that strange things will start to happen closer to home before he captures any UFOs on the SLV cameras. Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if some strange things have already happened. Some enhanced home security would be a good idea, but then again what can you do against something that can float people through walls, disable technology, erase memories, and all the other stuff you hope never happens to you? I'm not so sure that Michael Menkin's Thought Screen Helmet would provide sufficient protection, so it might be wise to add on some alien abduction insurance.

 

[Hotkafka]

Personally, I think it takes more than merely dumping money on equipment that will accumulate hard data. From what I can see, 'hard' data is just as fallible as 'soft' data, as it boils down to who's doing the framing and reframing. The real issue lies in penetrating the veil of uncertainty that exists around the very subject itself, which isn't just "Ufology," but reaches deep into the abstract of perception and anomalous phenomenon itself. Culture has created a nearly impenetrable quarantine around the subject and for good reason, as legitimizing even its possibility promotes the deterioration of the territory that supports the foundations of our culture. Nobody wants the ground crumbling beneath their feet. Therefore the question becomes not "how" do we make UFO research MORE valid, but "who?" As in 'who needs to be doing the supporting to make UFO research valid?" Apparently the figures that have been generated in the field of UFOlogy haven't been enough to make it valid in the first place. My guess is it's going to take an abrupt transformational catalyst, either in the form of a major, respected scientific entity or figure coming forward with a outright affirmation based on personal experience, or a sea change episode like a "UFOlogical" event changing the perceptions of global culture in one fail swoop. Maybe then we can get to the business of UFOlogy, as UFOlogy has so far missed the mark on making a business out of itself.

Gene: my apologies in advance for the shameless self promotion that follows...

On another front, if any of you Paracaster's are eager to waste some more time in the blogosphere, I'd appreciate you doing it on my blog, Parapsychotherapy X . More or less, I'm dealing with the paranormal from the treatment provider or psychotherapy side. Hopefully pretty soon here there's going to be a podcast to go with it. All comments, flames, and/or feedback are welcome.

 

[Trajanus]

Culture has created a nearly impenetrable quarantine around the subject and for good reason, as legitimizing even its possibility promotes the deterioration of the territory that supports the foundations of our culture. Nobody wants the ground crumbling beneath their feet.

UFOlogy has gained in respectability, somewhat, in recent years. But that's still valid. I've long thought that, since present culture/ideology isn't exactly compatible with UFOlogy, it will take an ideological and political transformation to make us ready. Maybe then there can be disclosure.

Apparently the figures that have been generated in the field of UFOlogy haven't been enough to make it valid in the first place.

Some have been fine--at least one President has seen a UFO--but others muck it up badly, and probably on purpose.

My guess is it's going to take an abrupt transformational catalyst, either in the form of a major, respected scientific entity or figure coming forward with a outright affirmation based on personal experience, or a sea change episode like a "UFOlogical" event changing the perceptions of global culture in one fail swoop.

The latter, but it's for that very reason--it doesn't want to be openly known--that we can't count on a "sea change" happening, at least not due to the phenomenon itself.

 

[Randall]

UFOlogy has gained in respectability, somewhat, in recent years. But that's still valid. I've long thought that, since present culture/ideology isn't exactly compatible with UFOlogy, it will take an ideological and political transformation to make us ready. Maybe then there can be disclosure ... at least one President has seen a UFO--but others muck it up badly, and probably on purpose.
The latter, but it's for that very reason--it doesn't want to be openly known--that we can't count on a "sea change" happening, at least not due to the phenomenon itself.

Seachange on a societal level is nearly impossible because there will always be some portion of skeptics and deniers. For example, there are still people who think the Moon landing was a hoax, even though that is our own technology and the rocket is on display. So imagine how hard it would be to get everyone to accept alien visitation? However seachange still takes place regularly on an individual level through personal effort. Hynek is probably the best historical example. He never saw anything that he was sure was some kind of alien craft, but from the weight of his own research he became convinced that the phenomenon is real. For those who have a UFO experience, seachange is replaced by revelation. Seachange still culminates in revelation, but its a much slower tide that washes over you.

 

[Trajanus]

Seachange on a societal level is nearly impossible because there will always be some portion of skeptics and deniers. For example, there are still people who think the Moon landing was a hoax, even though that is our own technology and the rocket is on display. So imagine how hard it would be to get everyone to accept alien visitation?

You don't need to convince everyone to have seachange; who cares if a few screwballs don't see the light? As long as society does, that's seachange.

 

[Randall]

You don't need to convince everyone to have seachange; who cares if a few screwballs don't see the light? As long as society does, that's seachange.

Fair comment, but what number do we pick as a demarcation point? Most people either believe UFOs are real or at the very least are worth serious consideration. It is only the vocal minority of rabid skeptics who fail to recognize that UFOs are more than myth, misidentification's and hoaxes. So if we don't need absolute consensus ( as we do with respect to individual seachange ), perhaps we could make a case that it has already happened.

 

[Trajanus]

Fair comment, but what number do we pick as a demarcation point?

About 80--90% or more.

Most people either believe UFOs are real or at the very least are worth serious consideration.

It is only the vocal minority of rabid skeptics who fail to recognize that UFOs are more than myth, misidentification's and hoaxes.

A sizeable percentage believes, but there's another problem: lack of consensus as to what UFOs represent. Of course most people automatically equate UFO with ET, but many believers are overawed by high strangeness cases that make the phenomenon seem to defy any rational paradigm.

So if we don't need absolute consensus ( as we do with respect to individual seachange ), perhaps we could make a case that it has already happened.

No way. For real "seachange" you'd need not only a virtual consensus they're real, but certainty as to what they are and what it means for us. Notwithstanding the considerable numbers who believe now, they think about the phenomenon maybe once or twice a month. It's still in the background and has little discernable effect.

 

[Randall]

About 80--90% or more.

A sizeable percentage believes, but there's another problem: lack of consensus as to what UFOs represent. Of course most people automatically equate UFO with ET, but many believers are overawed by high strangeness cases that make the phenomenon seem to defy any rational paradigm.

No way. For real "seachange" you'd need not only a virtual consensus they're real, but certainty as to what they are and what it means for us. Notwithstanding the considerable numbers who believe now, they think about the phenomenon maybe once or twice a month. It's still in the background and has little discernable effect.

Some good comments there but let's look a little closer at them. Do we really need absolute certainty about what they are and what they mean? On a personal level I don't and I'm as far into the believer zone as you can get. So I think all that's really necessary is for people to believe UFOs ( alien craft ) are real. And regarding thinking about the phenomenon once or twice a month: I beg to differ. Type in UFO into Google and you'll get something like 234 million results. It's been engrained into our culture over the course of some 60 years and is touched on in many places on a daily basis from documentaries to corporate advertising to comedy. It's so prevalent that people probably see or hear something related to ufology on a daily basis and don't even realize it. It's a kind of information overload that's gone right into our subconscious. Sure, a UFO bit in the daily comics or a picture of a UFO as part of some ad campaign may not qualify as "serious ufology", but the cumulative effect from all the little examples has become part of the background hum of modern culture on a wide scale and on a daily basis. But does that qualify as seachange? I still tend to agree with you that we also need a higher percentage of mainstream support. Society as a whole won't see it as valid until the "snicker factor" is gone from the media and our governments finally come clean. They need to be in that 80-90% you mention for it to really work.

 

[Trajanus]

Some good comments there but let's look a little closer at them. Do we really need absolute certainty about what they are and what they mean? On a personal level I don't and I'm as far into the believer zone as you can get. So I think all that's really necessary is for people to believe UFOs ( alien craft ) are real.

Right, the bulk of people would have to believe they're real and alien craft. To have any real impact, we'd have to be certain they're ET. If they're from some separate "spirit world" or just accidental intrusions from another dimension, they're of little or no relevance to our existence, ergo, not much "seachange."

And regarding thinking about the phenomenon once or twice a month: I beg to differ. Type in UFO into Google and you'll get something like 234 million results. It's been engrained into our culture over the course of some 60 years and is touched on in many places on a daily basis from documentaries to corporate advertising to comedy. It's so prevalent that people probably see or hear something related to ufology on a daily basis and don't even realize it.

I do think society is gradually becoming more accepting of UFOlogy. Still it remains pretty much in the background. Ever since I began reading UFO books, I was struck by how little attention such sensational stories receive in the mainstream media, considering their potential import. I read of stories of landed UFOs and humanoids--advanced visitors from other worlds. Amazingly, what were potentially historic events seemed to fly completely under the radar of almost everyone except a few UFO enthusiasts. How many UFO reports did you see in today's paper? We have to go to websites like this.

It's a kind of information overload that's gone right into our subconscious. Sure, a UFO bit in the daily comics or a picture of a UFO as part of some ad campaign may not qualify as "serious ufology", but the cumulative effect from all the little examples has become part of the background hum of modern culture on a wide scale and on a daily basis.

Yep, background hum...the vast majority of people don't seem to have the time or inclination to give it much thought.

But does that qualify as seachange? I still tend to agree with you that we also need a higher percentage of mainstream support. Society as a whole won't see it as valid until the "snicker factor" is gone from the media and our governments finally come clean.

And who knows how long that'll take.

 

[starise]

"Valid UFO research" is certainly different things to different people. When you take walls down anything can get in and anything can get out.Our present day communication technology especially the Internet is the ultimate removal of the wall until it also becomes regulated. Correction, the Internet IS regulated in some countries.

Any schmo including me can produce,post and sell music. Anyone with a few audio tools and a server can make a podcast. Ask your self if you want some big organization to scientifically investigate and CONTROL the investigations or would you also like to hear what individuals hear,see, and report?
In the end it isn't about organization and someone's personal view on what constitutes valid UFO research. It is about thinking outside the box and using all resources to find answers.If a scientific view helps us get there great. If it takes a spiritual perspective then great.
I like to look at what we do know . We have compartments that are easy places to filter certain UFO sightings. This is at least a start.
The military craft/project compartment , the immaterial object/spiritual compartment,the misidentified compartment, the non-human capable high tech craft compartment,the mentally unstable witness compartment.

We could get into some trouble though because a mentally unstable witness could still see a non human high tech craft or an orb I agree with what was said about it being an individual thing.

Validity to the masses is usually not valid.

It has most often been a few individuals that turned the tide. Tesla, Benjamin Franklin, Henry Ford. Look for the smart guy and follow him.Not the self proclaimed smart guy, the one who is doing something.

Disclosure might be ushering in something you never imagined. I'm not sure I want it depending on what "it"is.

 

[Randall]

"Valid UFO research" is certainly different things to different people ... Ask your self if you want some big organization to scientifically investigate and CONTROL the investigations or would you also like to hear what individuals hear,see, and report? ... In the end it isn't about organization and someone's personal view on what constitutes valid UFO research. It is about thinking outside the box and using all resources to find answers. If a scientific view helps us get there great. If it takes a spiritual perspective then great.

If organization and someone's personal view on what constitutes valid UFO research also helps us get there, should that not also be great? Is not what we find on the Internet not composed of the efforts of individuals? Might not the sum total result of organized individuals exceed the results of scattered unorganized individuals? Are some views not more logical and rational than others and should we not prefer them over seeming nonsense? For the record, here is my bit from our organization on what constitutes ufology.

 

[starise]

I see where you are coming from ufology as someone who I am guessing has put a lot of work into an organized approach to UFO research. I really like the website!

When I think about organized UFO research I primarily think of MUFON. I have more than a few reservations about MUFON. I hope this doesn't ruffle any feathers. I have heard reports about intentional misinformation in MUFON and about "moles" being planted there. This may or may not be true but I have still have a bad taste in my mouth after reading some less than good things about them. I think that at the base level MUFON is a bunch of dedicated people who heartily pursue the phenomena with all of their ability. MUFON does a decent job of tracking the areas that things are seen in as reported by witnesses. In that regard the organization is wonderful. There are no doubt very knowledgeble and competent people in the organization. I don't intend to slight those people, but I also think organization can have a downside in that organizations tend to have certain ways of doing things that could squelch or at the very least limit potential . The danger comes IMO when the organization becomes more about support and less about what is happening out there. Organizations can grow and take in funds but be absolutely useless in finding anything out. If an individual with an interest and a different way to look comes in they might get shut down by someone saying, " We don't do that this way here".

Yes the sum total of indiviuals involved in an organization might do far more than they could do on their own going it alone. Please take my comments with a grain of salt concerning my reluctance to look at organized UFO organizations. I don't know your organization but it looks to be a great place for someone who might desire this type of place to discuss and research all things UFO. The descriptions on your web page regarding your organizational approach couldn't be more fair and it seems that you are adept at including all possibilities in your descriptions. What the world once called pseudo science has in some cases developed into scientific discipline later. Science is an attempt to explain everything in concrete terms, only the terms aren't always concrete even when assumed they are . Any historical look at any of the sciences is full of revisions based on changes in knowledge. Sometimes the revisions are huge and books are re written to accomidate the changes. Science is in transition so which version should we conclude is true? We can be fairly certain about a lot of things but never positive about much of anything when considering the unknown territories of science.

I say we let others discuss what they think is legitimate while we continue to look for the answers in whatever way works best.

 

[Randall]

I see where you are coming from ufology as someone who I am guessing has put a lot of work into an organized approach to UFO research. I really like the website! When I think about organized UFO research I primarily think of MUFON. I have more than a few reservations about MUFON. I hope this doesn't ruffle any feathers. I have heard reports about intentional misinformation in MUFON and about "moles" being planted there. This may or may not be true but I have still have a bad taste in my mouth after reading some less than good things about them .... I say we let others discuss what they think is legitimate while we continue to look for the answers in whatever way works best.

Thank you for you kind comment on the USI website, and don't worry about ruffling feathers over your MUFON comments. The reason I started USI goes back to when I was first considering joining their group and I ran headlong into their wall of bureaucracy and fees. If you didn't like it, you got no information, and I am a believer in sharing whatever information we have about UFOs as freely as possible. So I made USI free to join with no dues or fees and started building the website. That was over 20 years ago. Sure we sell books and stuff and charge a small amount for a few things, but it's all reasonable. I get quite a few positive comments about our catalog, and if I had more resources, I'd make a lot more sightings and information available completely free. But I'm the only person actively contributing right now to the website, so it takes a long time to get things added. USI also has no political structure to foster in-fighting or make it vulnerable to corruption, and we've had more than one MUFON member join USI that reason. But while an informal network is a strength on one hand, on the other members are left largely to their own devises where donations and volunteering are concerned, so most are happy to simply get their free membership and hope someone else does the work. Anyway, at least those who take out a membership are showing support for the cause and that is also very important. It's one small thing anyone can do to support valid research.