The Decline of Ufology: Decades of Fraud, Frustration and Failure?

The initial sighting of a "craft" over the road in the Alan Godfrey case is (to me) far more interesting than the details "revealed" by hypnotic regression. The latter is always suspect as far as I am concerned, but a large, detailed object hovering directly in front of the witness (and reported at the time of the event) is an entirely different matter.

As for Rendlesham......I guess it's just possible that there may be something to this case, but after 35 years it's all a bit of a mess, and I don't really see anything happening to change all that.

originally posted by: karl 12


Suppose it's only fair to point out there were also separately located police UFO witnesses to that one mate -there's a good interview with Gary Heseltine over on this thread where he goes into more detail about it and also a recent documentary linked below which contains police UFO testimony in the same area (and at the same time of) the Alan Godfrey incident - (see 15:50)

.

As I said, it seems like an actual [corroborated] sighting of something. It's the "recovered details" that are highly strange.

originally posted by: markymint
Worldly issues bother everyone so much now. Facebook, 24hr news and whatever else has made sure of that. No-one gives a rats arse about "mystery" these days. Rugby world cup, crashing planes, tax credits, some kids company? This is all people give a # about on a day by day basis (well, English anyway).

And then when you look at the people themselves in depth, they care about fashion, TV, making sure they have a photo of themselves with every event. Angry about their debts and the gov's they do nothing about - hell knows what people really live for nowadays. Worse still, a sense of wonder and mystery somehow completely depleted.

It's pretty obvious though, imaginations are nowadays destroyed very early. You have # parents that tell their kids santa isn't real age 3, and drink beer and swear around them, of course this air of mystery and curiosity is severely depleted amongst the majority. It take's a special kind of breeding to be interested in anything that isn't The Only Way Is ## these days.

UFOlogy is still out there. But the people aren't.

"It's" got to still be out there, it's been there for centuries, why would it stop in 2015? Nah, it's the people that stopped, is all. Humans declined, because selfies were far more important

UFOlogy was a joke for a long time, if anything it's probably less of a joke now than ever - but for some reason the focus has shifted to, as I say, instagram and just pointless, #y human #. Terrorism has worried us too much about our precious little # existence, to really worry about ufos (en mass).

This is kind of unfair tho. Kids learning lies like santa claus are fake early is a good thing. we don't want or need anyone to believe in fake UFO hoaxes. All the hoaxes are what gave ufology a bad name but it wouldn't have it people weren't gullible. Now they're not as gullible whioch you point out but that's a good thing. They still are pretty gullible, they believe in the war of terror, but there has been some proof that exists like 9/11 happening and ISIS beheading videos, those may be fake or false flags etc too but at least we know they exist. Need better proof of UFOs.

I don't think Ufology is a complete failure. It has helped accomplish one important thing, even if it's not something it originally set out to do: it has helped acclimate humanity to the idea that we are not alone. Just the idea; it never provided proof. But by constantly raising the possibility of extraterrestrial visitation it made important people take the idea of alien life seriously and made ordinary people consider it as a possibility. And it's done it for decades.

Ufology doesn't deserve all the credit for this; some goes to scientists like Fermi or Drake who also speculated about it, and even more goes to science fiction, which has been playing with the idea of alien lifeforms in popular culture for more than a hundred years, to the point where nonhuman intelligence is a stock figure in drama and comedy. But the influence of ufology is obvious, because ufology's Gray alien replaced science fiction's Little Green Man some time in the 80s or 90s as the primary symbol of the Alien Other.

So ufology deserves some credit for anticipating and promoting an idea once so far outside the mainstream but which is now clearly part of our reality. It may be hard to believe in this era of exoplanets, but it used to be an acceptable, mainstream scientific position to claim that humanity was alone in the universe, that Earth was unique in the Galaxy, that other planets probably don't exist and if they do they are probably uninhabitable. Now most scientists agree the universe is probably teeming with life simply given the number of planets out there and how many of them lie in the habitable zones.

All those conferences, lectures, books, cases and so on weren't a total waste: they were perhaps almost an inevitable outgrowth of the human species adjusting its collective worldview from the anthropocentric notion of a spark of random life alone in an abyss of nothingness to one light among billions in a living universe.

a reply to: MRuss

Don't forget its likely the information is being suppressed, which certainly dosen't bode well for the evolution of the subject.

But ufology is not dead.

You raise an excellent point. It's very clear ever to a skeptic like myself that the public record and FOIA requests provide undeniable proof that the government has lied again and again about UFOs in general, and even more blatantly about specific incidents such as Roswell, for example.

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed

originally posted by: Blue Shift

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed
No, the proof is needed for those who are too ignorant to fathom these realities, or too afraid to face a reality where they live on a planet where nobody is 100% safe from a totally unknown foe.

I would rather say that proof is needed for those who don't necessarily accept somebody's story as objectively true (even if the people telling it believe it to be absolutely true). That's what objective, verifiable evidence is all about, right? I don't want to -- and I shouldn't have to -- simply believe somebody's story, because people can still be completely wrong with all the best intentions.

As for me not being 100% safe from an unknown foe. I prefer to worry about it when I'm actually shown that is the case. Otherwise, it's all just stories to me. I'll abandon my fool's paradise when the objective evidence and proof shows up, and you can get all the satisfaction you crave by telling us all "I told you so!" Not that it will matter.

I agree pretty much, but mostly what I am referring to is when people tell a story, and those listening demand this and demand that, without having researched the phenomenon first, so that they can have a valid foundation base of knowledge so that they can make much better and informed response. Choosing instead to rubbish everything because they feel confident that nothing ET is happening.

This is what is often missing from UFO discussions and is the unbalanced side of it. Many of the so called skeptics have a preconceived belief that there is nothing to the phenomenon, and believing this, they do not feel it necessary to research anything because they already "know" it isn't unexplainable. And in doing this, they do the same thing that those who believe every story going round without question are doing, and even much worse.

You're wrong in assuming that cases aren't researched. It's actually when the cases are researched is when questions arise. Believers are much more content with listening to a story, reading an online case, or watching case from a biased TV show and believe rather than investigate those claims further for themselves. They will carry that un-researched belief to help support other cases. When you look past the years of biased reporting of stories such as JAL 1628, Roswell, Betty and Barney Hill, Travis Walton and on, is when these perfect little molds created by others don't seem so perfect. You have decades of cases presented, with very little ways to do any indepth research at the time. People come to subject after years with this uninformed belief and continue with it. Now with the internet, you can download transcripts, reports, interviews, look into a witnesses actions before and after the incident, and so on. When you look deeper into any of this physical evidence, you have questionable study, evidence that can originate on Earth but leaned to alien, and overall biased based investigations.
Weak leveled evidence shouldn't be accepted for what would be an extraordinary event.

a reply to: Mogget

yes. of particular interest to me; when Godfrey returned to the location of his sighting with a colleague,

" the only remaining evidence of the UFO were dry, swirling-shaped patches on the road over which the UFO had hovered; the rest of the road was uniformly wet, as a result of the rain that had fallen earlier that night."

(world's greatest abduction mysteries, Chancellor press 2001)

The show Ancient Aliens are pretty popular . . . . I think that is clearly related to Ufology. It seems like Phoenix Lights was the last time any UFOs visited earth. And that may have been a hoax or just new military technology. But people are getting more open to the possibility that religions were based on not gods but aliens.

What an absolute hatchet piece.

"Ufology" is just fine, depending on how you define the term, of course. The OP tries to make it sound like "Ufology" is an institution, or an official organization. It isn't. Ufology is basically a grass-roots movement, made up of individuals who try to fill the enormous void left by societal institutions that failed us all on this issue.

To blame "ufology" for the secrecy, lies and willful ignorance about UFOs is akin to blaming hippies for pot not being legal everywhere. They both do their best, but they inevitably run into resistance from those in power.

You want to know what HAS failed us entirely?

Start with NASA and the space program.

There's a failure on a grand scale. Fifty years ago we put men on the moon.
Today? We have to pay the Russians to give us a ride to the International Space Station.
Pathetic.
In fact, I think we have a couple of people stranded on the Space Station, with no way on our own to bring them home.

Compared to NASA, "Ufology" is a huge success.

a reply to: trueskepticnumberone

In fact, I think we have a couple of people stranded on the Space Station, with no way on our own to bring them home.

No. They aren't stranded.
But maybe your thinking in terms of "on our own" is somewhat obsolete.

a reply to: Phage

So are you suggesting the United States DOES have the capability to Retrieve people from the International Space Station?

Newsflash: We don't.

We have to pay the Russians millions of dollars every time we want to go into space.

The idea of NASA being able to go into space is "obsolete"?

Nice try. NASA is a failure.

a reply to: trueskepticnumberone

So are you suggesting the United States DOES have the capability to Retrieve people from the International Space Station?

No. I am stating that no one is stranded on the ISS.

The idea of NASA being able to go into space is "obsolete"?

No. The idea that continued space exploration is achievable by a single nation is obsolete.

a reply to: Phage

No. The idea that continued space exploration is achievable by a single nation is obsolete.

No, more a failure of US populace to run a fiscally responsible budget. We are plenty capable, but we continue to elect the absolute worst people to office who cant even muster the votes to slow the debt increase, much less fix it.

No reason to blame NASA, they cant do anything without funding.

a reply to: trueskepticnumberone

Bottom line though, there isnt wide acceptance of the phenomenon. This forum is slowing down and there arent many new cases being widely reported like those in JKRogs catch all thread.

Even if you get to the point where you believe we are being visited, there isnt much information beyond that.

a reply to: trueskepticnumberone

"Ufology" is just fine, depending on how you define the term, of course

If you consider it as part of the entertainment industry then I suppose that is a good point.

To blame "ufology" for the secrecy, lies and willful ignorance about UFOs is akin to blaming hippies for pot not being legal everywhere.

I thought the hippy movement was more a drop out counter-culture that used recreational substances rather than having a prime objective of getting it legalised. And after nearly 70 years ufology has failed to give us anything tangible as to what UFOs may be. So Ufology has failed to cut through the secrecy, lies and wilful ignorance. In fact certain "Ufology" personalities rely their own secrecy and lies and continue peddling their wares to the wilfuly ignorant UFO consumers.

Start with NASA and the space program.

Indeed if you want to use diversionary tactics to avoid the main topic.
What about communism? That seems to have failed badly in the last few decades as well.

Compared to NASA, "Ufology" is a huge success.

NASA can still point at a number of successes. Most recently finding water on Mars.

What examples do you think have been a huge success for Ufology?

a reply to: mirageman

You always sound so non-believer-ish, yet you say you do.
What about Eisenhower and Reagan? Two presidents with UFO sightings, but that's all forgotten somehow?
1897 Aurora, etc., they're all good examples for cover ups, not against the existence of UFOs.
The Minuteman incident and so on, how much more do you need?
A body?

a reply to: Peeple

You always sound so non-believer-ish, yet you say you do.

Well it depends what you think I believe. UFOs exist of course until they are identified. Does it mean they are piloted or controlled by an extra-terrestrial intelligence though? That's entirely another question and is there any hard evidence to prove this?

What about Eisenhower and Reagan? Two presidents with UFO sightings, but that's all forgotten somehow?

Did Eisenhower see a UFO? Or do you mean the alleged meetings with aliens in the 50s? If so the evidence is, at best, circumstantial for that.

As for Reagan's sighting. He saw a light in the sky whilst he was aboard a light aircraft. The fact that he was 5 or 6 years from becoming President is inconsequential.

The Minuteman incident and so on....

Are you talking about Malmstrom 1967? There are heavy doubts over that story as there is little to prove the missiles were offline on the dates and time Bob Salas has claimed. He initially claimed the incident happened at an earlier date (when the missiles did go offline) until it was proven he could not have been present at that time.

....how much more do you need? A body?

There is plenty of evidence that there are UFOs. But nothing that absolutely confirms they are controlled by aliens.
So the search goes on.

originally posted by: HorusChrist
The show Ancient Aliens are pretty popular . . . . I think that is clearly related to Ufology. .

And that's not evidence of the decline of Ufology?

a reply to: mirageman

Start with NASA and the space program.


Indeed if you want to use diversionary tactics to avoid the main topic.
What about communism? That seems to have failed badly in the last few decades as well.

So let me get this straight; you find it somehow "diversionary" for me to point out the complete failure of NASA, our official space travel administration, into a discussion of UFOs, that travel here through space?

Everything we know about UFOs and aliens has come from Ufology, nothing has come from NASA. And they are the space agency, for god's sake.

Ask a person on the street what an alien looks like, and they will accurately describe a grey. Thanks, ufology.

That is far more important than announcing there is water on Mars, by any standard.

And by the way, Richard Hoagland has been saying there is water on Mars for the past twenty years. Thanks for nothing, NASA.

originally posted by: trueskepticnumberone
a reply to: mirageman

Start with NASA and the space program.


Indeed if you want to use diversionary tactics to avoid the main topic.
What about communism? That seems to have failed badly in the last few decades as well.

Ask a person on the street what an alien looks like, and they will accurately describe a grey. Thanks, ufology.

To be fair that clearly is connected to that image being portrayed in popular media for many years.

That's not always been the consensus description. For that matter, even now there are many different first hand accounts of what aliens look like. Over the years stories and descriptions that didn't fit the popular narrative were often disregarded.