• SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY A PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, five years young! For a low subscription fee, you will be able to download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! FLASH! For a limited time, you can save up to 40% on your subscription. Long-term susbcribers will receive free Amazon gift cards. It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

Who is the most important Ufologist?



Who is the most important Ufologist?

  • John Keel

    Votes: 11 30.6%
  • Rchard Dolan

    Votes: 7 19.4%
  • Jerome Clark

    Votes: 4 11.1%
  • Jacques Vallee

    Votes: 18 50.0%
  • James E. McDonald

    Votes: 11 30.6%
  • Budd Hopkins

    Votes: 4 11.1%
  • Coral Lorenzen

    Votes: 2 5.6%
  • Stanton Friedman

    Votes: 7 19.4%
  • J. Allen Hynek

    Votes: 15 41.7%
  • Jim Moseley

    Votes: 2 5.6%

  • Total voters
    36

Burnt State

Paranormal Adept
Is it surprising that Vallée leads the pack early on in the voting? I was hoping to hear arguments for those off the list, specifically those whose historical value, like Ruppelt, is often forgotten. Ruppelt was bumped to make room for an abductee focus and to have at least one woman on the list.

Vallée contributed a wave of books and some heavy thinking that matches a lot of n the ground research and investigation. His speciality was always finding those cases that had not already been corrupted by media reports, other investigators etc.. I'm pretty sure this video was posted somewhere else in the forum but it is a very succinct look at Vallée's concerns regarding the ETH:

 

Randall

J. Randall Murphy
I'd say a doctorate helps. like any doctorate, animal husbandry, dentistry, Portuguese something that gives you an air of importance. A rank helps too, petty officer,colonel major, vice admiral, feldwebel wachtmeister etc...
I realize you're being facetious, but for those who think it's serious, when it comes right down to it, even the brightest public academics on the planet have no better idea than you or I where the aliens originate from or how their craft work, therefore doctorates do nothing to impart real credibility. They only give the illusion of credibility, and that helps them sell their books and get them on talk shows. IMO academic elitism in ufology is more of a problem for the cause itself than an advantage.
 

Burnt State

Paranormal Adept
I realize you're being facetious, but for those who think it's serious, when it comes right down to it, even the brightest public academics on the planet have no better idea than you or I where the aliens originate from or how their craft work, therefore doctorates do nothing to impart real credibility. They only give the illusion of credibility, and that helps them sell their books and get them on talk shows. IMO academic elitism in ufology is more of a problem for the cause itself than an advantage.
I left off all of the titles of these people: the doctors, majors, professors etc. were all blanked. They are who they are/were in terms of how they are known in the field by those who know them. Because if you don't know that Moseley is the court jester of ufology then you might also believe that alien implants are being collected by more people than just Fox Mulder. But the fact is, Ufology does gather acceptability in society through the titles and statuses of those who choose to believe and even promote investigation in a very marginalized field. So for outsiders, it is important, these titles, as it is through the titles that you get respect, money, the good parties and even the possibility that your work will be remembered, used and carry down through history as part of the canon of the field. It is through the inter-canon dialogue of those seriously engaged in the field that causes the field to develop. It isn't about the dialogue between those who publish and those who read that will drive the field - it might drive book sales, but not necessarily legitimacy in the eyes of society.
 

Randall

J. Randall Murphy
I left off all of the titles of these people: the doctors, majors, professors etc. were all blanked. They are who they are/were in terms of how they are known in the field by those who know them. Because if you don't know that Moseley is the court jester of ufology then you might also believe that alien implants are being collected by more people than just Fox Mulder. But the fact is, Ufology does gather acceptability in society through the titles and statuses of those who choose to believe and even promote investigation in a very marginalized field. So for outsiders, it is important, these titles, as it is through the titles that you get respect, money, the good parties and even the possibility that your work will be remembered, used and carry down through history as part of the canon of the field. It is through the inter-canon dialogue of those seriously engaged in the field that causes the field to develop. It isn't about the dialogue between those who publish and those who read that will drive the field - it might drive book sales, but not necessarily legitimacy in the eyes of society.

Legitimacy in the eyes of society is justified by academic credentials when those credentials can be applied in a practical manner to society itself. Doctors need to know medicine to do their job properly. An engineer needs to know engineering to be able to design machines that work, and you wouldn't hire one to do the job of the other, but for some reason, people are led to believe that such credentials also impart credibility when it comes to UFOs, a subject matter that is so far beyond them that their credentials make them look like witch doctors and canoe carvers. And because of this false confidence, perpetuated largely by the media, we've seen academic credentials bolted onto ufology personalities to the point where they started faking them in order to gain favor in the realm of ufology media. I think it really started to take off with Art Bell's Dreamland and his affinity for introducing anyone who could be called "Doctor" in front of their name. Because of our cultural programming, the word "Doctor" definitely adds some tasty icing to that sound byte. But in reality, when it comes to ufology, it's mostly empty calories.
 

nameless

Paranormal Adept
Are there any qualifications that are relevant to UFOs? In terms of understanding what they aren't I would say aeronautics, avionics, military and defence, weather , astronomers. But in terms of what they could be, do we need to compartmentalise expertise? Anyone with bright ideas who can connect the dots who perhaps takes an omnilogical standing may fair better?

In the case of someone who fakes credentials to write books on the subject. What if the books are brilliant ? Are we concerned then with the veracity of an individual's life experience, the journey as opposed to the destination. How does this view apply to other things? Do we then rule out deathbed confessions and people with any criminal convictions?
 

Burnt State

Paranormal Adept
First off, canoe carving is not only a respectable but complex profession that is first about the acquisition of generations of distilled skillsets and knowledge. The only possible way to get good at it, and gain expertise is through sheer devotion. In that respect, yes, nameless, I think that if Mr. Joe Nobody without a degree to his name decided to devote themselves monastically to the pursuit of UFO's then good on them. If in their pursuits and dedication they happened to consistently bring forth new revelations then that could only be good for the field. Science is filled with examples of dedicated amateur discovery and proficiency.

But as far as long term development of ufology, then not only is there a need for a diverse set of scientific skills to be used in an interdisciplinary approach, but it needs to be done consistently across generations so that a legitimate field of study could develop & evolve into practical application. I think for such a field to evolve then attracting expertise in those many fields and allowing them to work in an arena of respectability is what's required.

But what have we done with the many case logs? How many have been collated and indexed? How many are sitting in garages collecting dust? McDonald's life work has been preserved, collected and is available for someone willing to take it to the next step. But there is no real scientific enterprise with $$$ funding to support such pursuits. McDonald was openly mocked and hounded and was really unable to continue his investigations with the rabid fangs of the debunker pursuing his every move like he was a state criminal.

So do the names on the above lists simply represent the lament of scientific pursuit of ufology? Have the best days of real study and inquiry come and gone? NIDS was a flash in the pan. Who has the resources to mount serious investigation at this point?

Or is the field simply too big and perplexing to even put a dent in it? After all, look where Hynek went to in the end, chasing the intangible 'elementals'.
 
Last edited:

nameless

Paranormal Adept
I think a lot of ufologists life works have been monumental and admirable to getting closer to an understanding. But like the data its all scattered and hidden. How can any new progression and new out looks be sought when people can't even agree on or have no knowledge of whats gone on before.

The objective CUFOS list is a good starting point but as a lot of case studies and data points show, "theres nothing in the manual about alien big foots". CE4 s and even greer's CE5S are relevant but whose absence is noted from the list. I would give field agents some basic training in sociology, linguistics, psychology (socio/cognitive) too.
 

nameless

Paranormal Adept
I think if its about cold data analysis you don't need a degree to do that. In regards to data collection, lets look at exploring new sets of data points such as, abductee, contactee and witness evaluations in terms of social, psychological and follow up context before and way after the events experienced. We need to make some new data correlation that goes bound the simple physical and locational elements of a case. I think the objective nut and bolts mind set has in this case done a disservice in missing out on key data collection that only now we have considered maybe as being relevant.

I think MUFON is going more that way, perhaps due to re-evaluation and looking at the stuff from a new/different perspective.
 

Burnt State

Paranormal Adept
In regards to data collection, lets look at exploring new sets of data points such as, abductee, contactee and witness evaluations in terms of social, psychological and follow up context before and way after the events experienced. We need to make some new data correlation that goes bound the simple physical and locational elements of a case. I think the objective nut and bolts mind set has in this case done a disservice in missing out on key data collection that only now we have considered maybe as being relevant.
That reminds me of many an interesting Radio Misterioso conversation. But isn't this part of the heart of the conundrum? Nuts & bolts is what we can measure, radar, ground traces, radiation etc. these are all what makes the intangible tangible. But polymorphic glowing shapes that split apart, reassemble and then become invisible - well, you really do need a different kind of decoder ring out of the cereal box for that kind of weirdness.

Asking other interpretive questions about experiences, and their effects, what do you think this would help establish about the phenomenon? Would this help us understand something about witness selection, about the origins of the objects, or perhaps other connections they have to processes natural or otherwise? One of the most common effects on witnesses seems to be eventual mental destabilization - as if they've seen something they weren't meant to see. Ironically, most witnesses seem to have been "selected" as it were. Many encounters always have the appearance of a kind of randomness, a stumbling onto the scene of something incredible. Yet, we just as frequently talk about the "staging" of UFO events. I wonder just which parts of the show we are supposed to be applauding?
 

nameless

Paranormal Adept
That reminds me of many an interesting Radio Misterioso conversation. But isn't this part of the heart of the conundrum? Nuts & bolts is what we can......,,
Most definitely been thinking about some of the points reiterated by Gregg on his show and particularly with Gene talking about Barney and Betty being around military bases and their recurring dreams etc... I think more (different) data the better.
I am also thinkng about the Charles Fort quote about being property.
 
Last edited:

nameless

Paranormal Adept
One of the most common effects on witnesses seems to be eventual mental destabilisation - as if they've seen something they weren't meant to see. Ironically, most witnesses seem to have been "selected" as it were. Many encounters always have the appearance of a kind of randomness, a stumbling onto the scene of something incredible. Yet, we just as frequently talk about the "staging" of UFO events. I wonder just which parts of the show we are supposed to be applauding?


Behavioural and emotional market research. Possible. Only works on subjects who do not know they are part of an experiment. Whats to say entities or "the others" can't be doing it to us. Again I refer to Charles Fort. Just an idea. There is also this grey area using the blanket term "psy-ops".
 

Top