UFOlogy, We Need To Talk... Chris Rutkowski Editorial

a reply to: CardDown

It's always a good idea for any discipline to purge the quackery. The hard sciences - especially physics - have had to do a lot of that recently and it's embarrassing and discouraging. They may do it for the same reason as some ufologists. Getting funding to continue research.

You can pretty much gauge when a medical or scientific research team is looking for funding. They discover something new!! They reveal an exciting breakthrough!!! They publish a slightly preposterous peer-reviewed paper that gets attention from mainstream news!!1!

Any of these may be enough for the researchers to garner funding for future research. However, the things they announce as "new" are often not, and sometimes the "breakthrough" is based on questionable results. This also describes what often happens in the fields of medicine, psychology, and ufology.

Rutkowski, who has collected royalties on books about such questionable anomalies as Bigfoot and compilations of other people's investigations, is basing his opinion on very few case studies that have already been vigorously vetted by ufologists. The article reads more like sour grapes. Waaaa I'm not getting taken seriously so neither should anyone else. Waaa I might have to sell pasta sauce to survive.

Pick up your bat and ball and go to another game then, Rutkowski. I recommend the field of physics where you might learn something about how difficult it is for researchers to describe and legitimize their results. Charmed and strange particles that sometimes are in two places at once or that blink in and out of reality - both ways that UFOs have been described - await your careless inspection.

a reply to: CardDown

So... this few paragraphs 'article' is this even an article? It's shorter than a regular post here, not even counting the posts of UFO cases that are as long as a book sometimes. So this 'article' is supposed to tell how the whole ufology is a joke, yes we know a lot of it is a joke, and thus everybody start taking this excuse of an article as your grail of truth.

Firstly, I agree with why Bushman's story especially the doll makes it hard to believe, yet alone the ghost. But overall the debunking is just a few lines about the doll, and then goes to tell what contactee stories were like in the 20th century and that's about it.

I seriously don't think such a post deserves a thread. When one said 'article' I expected to see some long and detailed with lots of reason article, not few sentences!

In bit of semi-related news, skeptic Tim Printy has an article in the latest SUNlite that takes some jabs at Rutkowski:

UFO Report Databases: Panacea or Albatross? Discussing the Canadian UFO Survey, Printy writes,

In my opinion, Rutkowski’s claim that these objects are “unusual” is another instance of UFOlogists not understanding the fact that these are reports made by witnesses who are reporting what they perceived and may not be a true reflection of what they actually saw. It is the witness who often introduces the “unusual” part of the UFO report which can turn an Identified Flying Object (IFO) into an Unidentified Flying Object (UFO) that can not be explained.
(and later)
This human element makes the effort of collecting and evaluating reports a flawed exercise.

SUNlite: UFO Report Databases: Panacea or Albatross?

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: AgentShillington

I have made no such assumption in this thread. Seriously, for someone who claims to be open minded, you certainly have made your mind up about me after a single discussion. Please stop making me the target of your posts.

In "some other thread" you dismissed an experience I had with the paranormal as some "guards messing with kids at Juvenile Hall".

So my "limited" experience with you is one of dismissal about events others report. Just so others know. How can people who are shy tell their own experiences not be put off by that kind of posting?

I want to hear others and I strive to get some who think they may be put down to come forward. You are entitled to your own beliefs about these things and everyone can debunk a photograph or blurry video.

Please stop "dismissing" others stories. Personally, thats where we find the similarities in the experience and compare notes in order to try and understand more about it. If you don't like what others are recounting, just leave it dismissed in your own mind, mmm-kay?

STOP MAKING ME THE TARGET OF YOUR POSTS.

You ASKED me to give my opinion on your situation, I didn't just butt my nose in like you are implying. You didn't like what I had to say, and now you wont stop harassing me. If you don't like what I have to say, stop reading my posts.

This WILL be the last time I address you.

a reply to: CardDown

He's right isn't he. Then again, I'd be surprised if Chris wasn't aware of the issues of UFO sightings databases.

I said the same thing in a thread I wrote a couple of years ago. A lot of reports are going into various databases directly off websites with no filtering beyond time/shape/number of witnesses and a line or two of description. Chris has lamented the quality of reports more than once.

ETA - this is what I was thinking a couple of years ago:

Reading between the lines of Rutkowski’s report is like reading the writing on the wall for the future of ufology. The databases of the past were mostly sourced from direct contact (at some point) with witnesses. That doesn’t mean they were infallible – they weren’t, but some of the reports were very good and had been fully investigated face-to-face. Future databases will be sourced from anonymous internet reporters with little or no direct contact. This will essentially render the reports meaningless and condemn any studies based upon them to GIGO.

There's no escaping the taint of GIGO imo.

a reply to: AgentShillington

Don't have a cow, I am not attacking you, just asking for proof of what you claim isn't real?

You can try to turn it into a personal attack all you want, but the question remains.

a reply to: audenine

Rutkowski, who has collected royalties on books about such questionable anomalies as Bigfoot and compilations of other people's investigations, is basing his opinion on very few case studies that have already been vigorously vetted by ufologists. The article reads more like sour grapes. Waaaa I'm not getting taken seriously so neither should anyone else. Waaa I might have to sell pasta sauce to survive.

Every decent skeptic has also 'collected royalties on books about such questionable anomalies as Bigfoot and compilations of other people's investigations.'

originally posted by: Urantia1111

originally posted by: AgentShillington

originally posted by: Urantia1111
a reply to: CardDown

No one is forcing you to accept any video as evidence of anything, try to remain calm. All I'm saying is that, for a genuinely open-minded person, his story is plausible. He doesn't necessarily have to drive me out there and introduce me to living ETs. If his tale is as absurd as you claim, there shouldn't be the need for so many, absent an antidisclosure agenda, to press so hard to assure nobody believes a word of it.

The need to press hard against this type of story is that there isn't any evidence for it. No evidence means non-story. Why should attention go to this non-story when there are more worthy stories with more evidence that could be looked into?

People are still getting access to all the stories. This one is no different from countless others. A guy with some pictures and a story. Nobody has to believe if their criteria for credibility isn't met, but that's different for everyone. This topic is always subject to the poor signal/noise ratio phenomenon, partly because the debunkers throw so much noise out there as part of the cover up strategy.

What if it's not the debunkers who are part of the cover up strategy, but the believers?

Just a few years ago I wandered onto ATS, all starry eyed, and ready to accept many a YouTube clip, or tall tale (indeed, 2 years ago I would've been adamant that the Bushman video was proof of a coverup, but now I think it's just garbage, designed to obfuscate). These days I find myself often agreeing with the 'debunkers', and I am a believer, as I suspect other of the 'debunkers' are.

Yes, a believer. I absolutely believe there are Ufos. What they are is another question altogether, and as far as I'm concerned there is less evidence for them being extra-terrestrial as there is for them being military technology, a smokescreen, or something else altogether.

originally posted by: liteonit6969
a reply to: AgentShillington

But i thought id bring your attention to say your own naivety is infinite, and you could better use what little resources you have.

I don't have a response to this other than to say that I don't understand how a reliance on critical thinking, scientific inquiry, empirical research, and technological advance is infinite naivety.

Could you elaborate?

a reply to: AgentShillington

Some believe, some know because of personal experiences, and some just like to think that they know without having had the privilege of experiencing anything.

So who to trust? The fervent asshole pseudoskeptics that never experienced anything and therefore can't even judge the situation fairly or the millions of people that did..

It's akin to another subject hotly contested by pseudoskeptics, the supernatural/spiritual, who to trust, the fairly obviously biased diehard materialist skeptic that never once meditated or never even explored spirituality, or the seasoned cultivator with decades of experience exploring traditions/paths that have been explored and painstakingly described for thousands of years?

Hmmm, tough one.

Honestly, I don't even know why some people bother with Ufology if they're not even willing to consider circumstantial evidence, especially when there's tonnes and tonnes of it.

originally posted by: audenine
a reply to: CardDown

Rutkowski, who has collected royalties on books about such questionable anomalies as Bigfoot and compilations of other people's investigations, is basing his opinion on very few case studies that have already been vigorously vetted by ufologists.

audenine, Chris Rutkowski is not on ATS, but asked me to post this reply for him:

Obviously, audenine hasn’t published any books. I haven’t seen any royalties for any of my books in a decade or so. And even then, I think I received about $250.

And the fact that I’ve published on Fortean subjects (“questionable anomalies”) doesn’t mean I haven’t treated the subject scientifically or critically. Phil Klass published books on the questionable subject of UFOs, didn’t he?

And while I certainly did literature reviews of the subjects I was writing about, sharing them where possible, I also examined original investigation files. But most importantly, I have published many of my own personal investigations.

And finally, having only studied several hundred case studies of UFO reports, I suppose that could be “very few” to some people.

Maybe he should read my body of work.

audenine, I hope you'll repost your comments at uforum.blogspot.com... and continue the discussion.

originally posted by: CardDown
In bit of semi-related news, skeptic Tim Printy has an article in the latest SUNlite that takes some jabs at Rutkowski:

UFO Report Databases: Panacea or Albatross? Discussing the Canadian UFO Survey, Printy writes,

In my opinion, Rutkowski’s claim that these objects are “unusual” is another instance of UFOlogists not understanding the fact that these are reports made by witnesses who are reporting what they perceived and may not be a true reflection of what they actually saw. It is the witness who often introduces the “unusual” part of the UFO report which can turn an Identified Flying Object (IFO) into an Unidentified Flying Object (UFO) that can not be explained.
(and later)
This human element makes the effort of collecting and evaluating reports a flawed exercise.

SUNlite: UFO Report Databases: Panacea or Albatross?

I do find Tim Printy backs up his points well. Somehow, I doubt many people have even heard of him, never mind read his free "Sunlite" magazine.

Those who have made their minds up would probably view him as a debunker anyway because his representation of what the evidence leads to does not match theirs. I think this is actually the inherent problem at the heart of this subject being discussed. Too many people are led by their belief and seek to reinforce their 'opinion' by cherry picking the bits of data that fit their world view. Whilst ignoring or denying those that don't.

Like I, and others, said earlier in the thread Rutkowski barely touched the surface with his blog.

He could have pointed to the problems with how the original statements from those two giant pillars of Ufology, Roswell and Rendlesham, seem to have expanded exponentially as the years roll by. Which also begs the question why do UFOs tend to hang around military bases, especially American ones??

Then we should wonder why the 50s style human looking aliens morphed into almost ubiquitous small grey aliens by the late 1970s. Throughout the 1980s and into the 1990s they were abducting millions of us, if stories were to be believed. Suddenly the Cold War ended, the Phoenix Lights went out and the aliens don't land for a chat any more. Nor do they seem to want to abduct us as much either.

Was that half century after World War II really a time when a bunch of aliens came to randomly interact with us? If so have they become bored and moved on?

I like to keep an open mind but the mass of evidence available, does not leave me with any firm conclusions that aliens are here or have ever been here.

ETA: CardDown - I also must remember to read your blog @ www.blueblurrylines.com

Good Stuff

originally posted by: cuckooold

originally posted by: Urantia1111

originally posted by: AgentShillington

originally posted by: Urantia1111
a reply to: CardDown

No one is forcing you to accept any video as evidence of anything, try to remain calm. All I'm saying is that, for a genuinely open-minded person, his story is plausible. He doesn't necessarily have to drive me out there and introduce me to living ETs. If his tale is as absurd as you claim, there shouldn't be the need for so many, absent an antidisclosure agenda, to press so hard to assure nobody believes a word of it.

The need to press hard against this type of story is that there isn't any evidence for it. No evidence means non-story. Why should attention go to this non-story when there are more worthy stories with more evidence that could be looked into?

People are still getting access to all the stories. This one is no different from countless others. A guy with some pictures and a story. Nobody has to believe if their criteria for credibility isn't met, but that's different for everyone. This topic is always subject to the poor signal/noise ratio phenomenon, partly because the debunkers throw so much noise out there as part of the cover up strategy.

What if it's not the debunkers who are part of the cover up strategy, but the believers?

Just a few years ago I wandered onto ATS, all starry eyed, and ready to accept many a YouTube clip, or tall tale (indeed, 2 years ago I would've been adamant that the Bushman video was proof of a coverup, but now I think it's just garbage, designed to obfuscate). These days I find myself often agreeing with the 'debunkers', and I am a believer, as I suspect other of the 'debunkers' are.

Yes, a believer. I absolutely believe there are Ufos. What they are is another question altogether, and as far as I'm concerned there is less evidence for them being extra-terrestrial as there is for them being military technology, a smokescreen, or something else altogether.

I have reached pretty much the same conclusion, although I'd say it's both the debunkers and the true believers who are fogging up the screen. The professional debunkers know they're doing it and the true believers are, well, true believers. Amateur debunkers are rarely so interested that they invest much time in debunking. In my opinion, the agenda of the professional debunkers isn't to get people to disbelieve in the existence of UFOS but to ensure that they do believe in the existence of UFOs and steer what form that belief takes. It's social engineering. What little hope there is to get to the bottom of ufo phenomena lies with genuine skeptics who consider all possibilities but don't approach ufos like religion wherein they pick a "faith", are adamant proselytizers, and are blind to all other possibilities.

a reply to: AgentShillington

Il ask one question, are you able to do any of these things yourself? or like most people just take the word of the "scientists" who say they have the data etc.

A similar anaology: my older brother whose head is in his as* would believe sh*t tasted like strawberry if it was on the news. Just to humour him i asked how did he know there is a planet neptune which which he replied of course there is. I said how do you know, and replied because there just is....scientists have looked through a telescope and seen it.....which i asked have YOU looked through a telescope and seen it.....noooooo.

Moral of this is dont believe what you think is obvious when coming from anywhere other than yourself. Looking to some people i grew up with who have the degrees etc and call themselves scientists and in all honesty they are half wit sheep. They struggle to deal with anything new and refer back to what was taught in uni. So if you can tell me what empirical evidence, technology, scientific research you have done in order to proof what you so strongly believe. Because any ideas or beliefs i have are all based on my own experiences, not what im told to believe.

originally posted by: UnderKingsPeak.....

Astronaut Gordon Cooper relaying a story about a Disc landing at Edwards
AFB right in front of him as he filmed it, comes to mind.
He wrote the UN about it.I don't know about others opinions but certainly
Cooper isn't your everyday witness nor does he strike me as a liar.

.....

Why do debunkers care so much if there is absolutely nothing going on
? Shouldn't the "they must be crazy" attitude suffice ?
And yet tempers rise and reports hundreds of pages long
are written all in in order to discount something so obviously not real
in their mind. That seems a bit odd to me .

Are you angling for the first annual Chris Rutkowski Poster Child of the year award? Your post exemplified everything he complained about in modern ufology and a primary symptom of its cultural shortcomings.

Can you provide a link to any interview where Cooper claims the object landed right in front of him? I bet you can't.

Can you name any other witness who claimed to have seen it land? I bet you can't.

Can you locate the letter he sent to the UN about the Edwards landing story? I bet you can't.

None of your assertions of fact have any first-person testimony or documentation to back them up. You imagined it all, but sincerely asserted it as solid fact.

I second your nomination.

originally posted by: cuckooold

...Just a few years ago I wandered onto ATS, all starry eyed, and ready to accept many a YouTube clip, or tall tale (indeed, 2 years ago I would've been adamant that the Bushman video was proof of a coverup, but now I think it's just garbage, designed to obfuscate). These days I find myself often agreeing with the 'debunkers', and I am a believer, as I suspect other of the 'debunkers' are....

What may be most important about the Bushman video is that it has done its job: seeding doubt among the neophytes. Polarization is a psychological weapon that not only works in Congress, but for all official agencies that have an invested interest in stopping further inquiry about anomalous events. By deciding there are only two camps in ufology - believers and debunkers - you have them exactly where they want you.

originally posted by: audenine

originally posted by: cuckooold

...Just a few years ago I wandered onto ATS, all starry eyed, and ready to accept many a YouTube clip, or tall tale (indeed, 2 years ago I would've been adamant that the Bushman video was proof of a coverup, but now I think it's just garbage, designed to obfuscate). These days I find myself often agreeing with the 'debunkers', and I am a believer, as I suspect other of the 'debunkers' are....

What may be most important about the Bushman video is that it has done its job: seeding doubt among the neophytes. Polarization is a psychological weapon that not only works in Congress, but for all official agencies that have an invested interest in stopping further inquiry about anomalous events. By deciding there are only two camps in ufology - believers and debunkers - you have them exactly where they want you.

But they still have to manipulate the believers into believing that which they want them to believe. Therein lies the art.

a reply to: CardDown

I'm flattered that you felt my remarks were important enough to shuttle to another forum, but I am not interested in debating the issue. The fact that Rutkowski felt it necessary to defend his/her self-determined credentials is proof enough that he/she realizes how unfair this article is. People are just trying to describe their experience or sighting the best they can. No witness craves the negative attention they are sure to get from reporting an anomalous encounter.

Bushman was clearly duped. But it is within the purview of at least sociological inquiry to investigate why anyone would go to such trouble to troll a Skunk Works retiree. In my biased opinion as a published sociologist, that's the sort of question ufology should be more interested in at this stage. Some of these hoaxes cost a lot of time and money to perpetrate. To what extent are taxpayers covering the bill?

It's clear ufology needs to have a consistent philosophical conversation. But it is one of the newest forms of inquiry. The discipline of chemistry rose from alchemy, computer science from ars memoria, and astronomy from astrology.
In historical proportion, ufology has only just begun and it needs as much credentialed research as it can get. This article mocks those who can't make a living solely on ufology. It mocks the duped. Mockery at this stage makes it harder to attract qualified researchers and consistent benefactors.

a reply to: audenine

It's clear ufology needs to have a consistent philosophical conversation. But it is one of the newest forms of inquiry. The discipline of chemistry rose from alchemy, computer science from ars memoria, and astronomy from astrology. In historical proportion, ufology has only just begun and it needs as much credentialed research as it can get. This article mocks those who can't make a living solely on ufology. It mocks the duped. Mockery at this stage makes it harder to attract qualified researchers and consistent benefactors.

I get the impression you mean well and might have some enthusiasm for the subjects of UFOs, ufology and sightings reports. At the same time, it's evident that you have little subject-knowledge from which to draw your opinions. Nothing wrong with that and it's easily rectified at no great cost.

The 'credentialed research' has been there since the early days. UFO reports attracted military scientists and academics were contracted from universities to study them too. The early NICAP and APRO boards were littered with scientists and the subject has continued to attract them ever since. It's attracted psychologists and folklorists from Jung to Sturrock to Bullard and Clarke. Jim Oberg has been in the field for 30+ years and 'CardDown' somewhere similar - not your typical members.

What I'm trying to say is that, although you don't know it, it's attracted 'qualified researchers and consistent benefactors' since day one. There are 'hidden colleges' of academics and private groups who continue to study, dismantle and/or challenge popular beliefs and the reports themselves.

If you decide to thoroughly read the literature, visit the project reports and get up to speed, I can sincerely say that, whatever idea you have, somebody else has already had it.

It's like flogging a dead horse but nobody can agree whether it's a horse, a zebra or a figment of imagination.

originally posted by: Kandinsky

I get the impression you mean well and might have some enthusiasm for the subjects of UFOs, ufology and sightings reports. At the same time, it's evident that you have little subject-knowledge from which to draw your opinions. Nothing wrong with that and it's easily rectified at no great cost.

How nice of you to care so much about my education! However, your UFOdar isn't working this time. I've been reading and writing about the subjects I post about for over four decades. I've been teaching these subjects for 12 years. Grab your library and meet me in front of the saloon at dusk and we'll throw books at each other until someone wins (?)

The 'credentialed research' has been there since the early days. UFO reports attracted military scientists and academics were contracted from universities to study them too. The early NICAP and APRO boards were littered with scientists and the subject has continued to attract them ever since. It's attracted psychologists and folklorists from Jung to Sturrock to Bullard and Clarke. Jim Oberg has been in the field for 30+ years and 'CardDown' somewhere similar - not your typical members.

I didn't say there has never been credentialed research. I said (quoting myself is so ackward): "it needs as much credentialed research as it can get." One of these things is not like the other.

If you decide to thoroughly read the literature, visit the project reports and get up to speed, I can sincerely say that, whatever idea you have, somebody else has already had it.

Dusk. The saloon. Be there (unless yur skurred).

f+s+lolz