It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
We can't continue to be represented by the stereotype that we ourselves perpetuate unless we just don't care about getting to the truth anymore.
For a long time now I have felt that ufology needs a makeover (yea yea, I know poor terminology, but it is true). How many times have you seen a breif news report on UFO's only to see a picture of someone wearing a tin foil hat at the end, while the reporter makes some condescending comment about it. To get anyone to start taking us seriously, we need to present ourselves seriously, then once it is common knowledge that there is something to the phenomenon, we can dig deep.
Originally posted by X-tal_Phusion
The problem with ufology's leading figures is that they seem more interested in selling books and getting hired for public speaking engagements than discovering the truth about this phenomena. Even people like David Jacobs (with proper academic credentials) can't seem to enlist anyone with the sorts of forensic skills required to perform the sort of analysis that's called for here.
I think a lot of people would pay good money to get their hands on a book that details a proper forensic investigation of some well-known incidents in ufology! Furthermore, getting these studies published in some format (preferably in a peer-reviewed journal) would go a long way towards giving ufology a fresh lease on life, so to speak!
Quit peddling books and start churning out some real data!
Originally posted by MysterE
I think the term Ufology is too broad. It seems to cover more then just the UFO phenomenon, and include Aliens and other fringe ideas. Maybe there should be seperate terms depending on the subject matter, such as "Fringe Ufology" to cover the more speculative topics.
UFOlogy proper ought to get back to its roots
"My definition of "ufologist" is: someone who speaks of the UFO phenomenon. Thus, I am a ufologist, Pierre Lagrange also, and so are for example Philipp Klass, Jean Jacques Vélasco, Jacques Vallée, and the members of COMETA. Their respective sayings are of course not the same."
"I propose that true skepticism is called for today: neither the gullible acceptance of true belief nor the closed-minded rejection of the scoffer masquerading as the skeptic.
One should be skeptical of both the believers and the scoffers. The negative claims of pseudo-skeptics who offer facile explanations must themselves be subject to criticism.
If a competent witness reports having seen something tens of degrees of arc in size (as happens) and the scoffer -- who of course was not there -- offers Venus or a high altitude weather balloon as an explanation, the requirement of extraordinary proof for an extraordinary claim falls on the proffered negative claim as well. That kind of approach is also pseudo-science. Moreover just being a scientist confers neither necessary expertise nor sufficient knowledge.
Any scientist who has not read a few serious books and articles presenting actual UFO evidence should out of intellectual honesty refrain from making scientific pronouncements. To look at the evidence and go away unconvinced is one thing. To not look at the evidence and be convinced against it nonetheless is another. That is not science."
Bernard Haisch, astrophysicist.