UFO politics: solidarity or segregation?

I want to open up discussion to a wider audience on whether or not the UFO community should actively root out and segregate "charlatans" & "buffoons" (and what is our criteria for doing so); or should we embrace those who advocate UFOs as a subject worth further study but who also voice beliefs that are highly contentious & speculative (contactees / abductees, conspiracy theorists, claims about zero point energy / anti-gravitic technology, etc.).

This debate originally started in the Disclosure Countdown thread. However, it's somewhat inappropriate to continue discussing this very abstract concept of "who's acceptable" in a thread about "seeking out disclosure news."

So the question is "Who's acceptable? Who's not? And who or what dictates the rules?"


To start I'll copy in IgnoreTheFacts commentary:

Originally posted by IgnoreTheFacts
Basset is a buffoon. I have heard him in some pretty extensive interviews and he is a negative influence on this subject. If you disagree, then seriously go out and listen to his interviews out there on some smaller podcasts. He and his organization is filled with children, and they need to be babysat by the rest of the community lest they keep setting the subject back like all the other "ufo investigators/groups" do.

I'm about equal part 'UFO skeptic' and 'UFO advocate.' I frankly don't buy the conspiracy-position. Which is to say I disagree with many things Stephen argues in favor-of.

However to claim that Stephen is stupid is baseless and inflammatory. He's clearly well spoken and obviously his own personal experience leads him to believe there is an extensive cover-up. Therefore he thinks the correct way to solve the problem is to demand "disclosure."

I disagree.

I also think the way he's approaching this will possibly do more harm than good, but neither of us are in a position to police peoples beliefs. What I've tried to convey to Stephen is this:

The solution is to reduce the rhetoric so it's accepted by the lowest common denominator 'UFO advocate.' So those of us who agree the UFO subject deserves recognition and study get on board the PRG political movement. That means rather than demanding "disclosure" (which assumes the 'conspiracy cover-up hypothesis') we should be demanding scientific and governmental investigation (which only assumes the 'grand foul-up hypothesis').

The 'grand foul-up vs. conspiracy cover-up' debate is an extremely important topic because it serves as a basis determining where we should focus our efforts and has a very real affect on the credibility of UFO investigations.

The trick that Stephen needs to learn is to escalate as the movement / evidence warrants it rather than at the rate that the man with the megaphone wants it to.

All that aside, there is one thing I really like about Stephen. He views the UFO movement from a historical perspective. Consider gay rights, women's rights, civil rights, AC vs DC, the negativity around manned flight, the Enlightenment era science vs. religion debates, all of these issues were eventually overcome through the continuous pressure applied by individuals who believed strongly enough in what they were fighting for that they didn't give up advocating their position.

Bassett gets this. He also fundamentally understands that the UFO movement has no cohesive organization. Listen to the March 1, 2009 episode of the Paracast with Bassett, he is extremely clear in his statement @ 1:17:45,

This isn't going to get us anywhere. Until you finally understand that the problem here is not about our opinions of who is a laughing stock and who's not ... Soon as you realize that the problem here is the United States government, has been, still is, you're just going to continue to chase your tail round and round and round. Focus all of your concerns about legitimacy, focus all your concerns about image on your own government, and it's willingness to lie to you, manipulate you, ... [and] turn reality on its head.

...

Changing government policy is what counts. ... It's just keeping the pressure on the government. I will not chase my tail; and I will not play the governments game in this intellectual ghetto that they've created for us, where we're all tossed in here behind the ridicule walls and deprived of money and a lot of other things, and so we slowly decay and feast on ourselves like a pack of jackals. I'm not interested in that. You want to feast go ahead.

Bassett is trying to keep pressure on what he perceives as the "enemy" rather than doing what we're doing here; debating if one of our own has the character, integrity and intelligence to be considered a legitimate face for the UFO movement.

Stephen's right. We are not enemies. We simply have different beliefs and because of that we fight amongst ourselves over who's more sincere, who's in it for the money, and all that other garbage. That has to stop. We need to be tactically smart. That requires finding common ground and advocating that position as a group.

The establishment marginalizes the subject of UFOs. There is clearly something being observed. That's a good place to start.



[edit on 3-6-2009 by Xtraeme]

Following this I addressed Subject X's commentary:

Originally posted by subject x
I listened to that episode when it was broadcast. That's the same episode in which Bassett stated that credibility is not an issue in the UFO field. That's the kind of soft thinking that gets all UFO researchers lumped into the same category of nuts and whack-os.

If not for credibility, what have you got in the area of UFOs? A lot of "suggestive" evidence that won't prove anything.

I agree. Credibility is a big issue. However I also understood what Stephen was driving at. He didn't convey the thought in the clearest manner possible, but if I were to summarize I think he was trying to express,

"We don't know what the truth is! We don't know if people have actually been abducted, we don't know if there are contactees, but we do know something's going on. To claim all these people are crazy is to claim any one of us knows the truth. The fact is we don't know! Not a one of us. That's why the government is the enemy for making UFOs a subject of ridicule! That's why any person that's willing to take a stand against the government is a friend fighting for the same cause."

That's a pretty compelling message. Stephen is only assuming one thing. He's assuming the US government has a downed craft from Roswell. That's his only assumption and based off that he see's the military and the United States government as the enemy.

I don't even make that assumption. That's why I'm banging the drum saying, "at least investigate!"

Bassett's just playing a numbers game, in which he believes that with enough people yelling for disclosure, the government will cave and "disclose" all. This, as we all know, ain't gonna happen. The government cares not one whit about what the public thinks, as has been demonstrated repeatedly for as long as I can remember. They care not about how many people scream for disclosure, they will just go about their business as usual.

I agree. The absolute best outcome any of us could hope for is another "Blue Book" with a bigger staff, more than one scientific consultant, and lots of field equipment to make a real go at studying these things.

Whether or not the government even has anything to disclose is, of course, an entirely different debate.

It all comes down to Grand foul-up vs Conspiracy cover-up.

I just can't imagine the government keeping a lid on something like this, for this long (and they haven't just look at all the FOIA documentation that's in the public domain!). Having read Ruppelt's book, Quintanilla's draft, Hynek's manuscripts, Dr. McDonald's biography (four men very in the know), it really does sound like a huge mess that was largely the product of bias reinforcement.


[edit on 3-6-2009 by Xtraeme]

Next up Majorion's excellent and extremely valid points.

Originally posted by Majorion
When myself and others mock Bassett, Greer, and the similar types in the ufo community, we do it for good reason. Being that these people are nothing more than charlatans,

We all need to be careful when wielding the word charlatan.

Lets imagine for a moment that you felt UFOs were all misidentifications and other mundane observations. Now lets pretend for a moment you saw a very strange maneuvering light that made 90 degree turns, changed various colors and was roughly the angular size of a tangerine at arms length. After observing this bizarre phenomenon and escalating through possible explanations, eventually you arrive at the conclusion that it's a genuine unknown.

However as a rational individual you don't jump to the conclusion that what you observed was a "craft." You further rationalize it would be even more of a leap to say it was an "alien spacecraft." So due to this observation your position changes from UFO-skeptic to UFO-advocate.

You also contact the government to ask for meteorological data and they suggest you witnessed a lighted-radiosonde. Though helpful you realize the suggestion is incorrect based on size and maneuvers. However rather than conclude "conspiracy" you assume the person was trying to help think-up a down to earth explanation.

A "foul up" if you will.

Several months later you see this same bizarre object in the sky, performing the same maneuvers, but this time it gets much closer, within 2000 ft, lands, and looks very much like a craft! You also see "people get out" that have a somewhat bizarre'ish shape to them and their height looks wrong. These people spot you, quickly run back to their craft and dart off.

At this point, as an observer, the UFO no longer represents an "unknown" it represents a craft flown by someone. Still as a rational thinker using only what you've seen to guide your judgment, you conservatively assume the craft was a manned secret test flight by the United States Air Force & that the officers flying the craft were in some form of flight-suit. At this point you no longer advocate that UFOs represent unknown phenomenon, but rather that some UFOs, if not all, are unknown military crafts.

Based on the governments response you conclude that some small "cover-up" is underway to hide our secret aircrafts, but not to the degree others like Stanton Friedman suggest (a "cosmic watergate").

Several months pass and again at the same spot, the craft lands, but this time the occupants walk up to you. They're 4' tall and have over-sized heads. Also the proportions of their legs and arms to the rest of the body aren't human. These humanoids amazingly somehow speak English or maybe they don't speak at all, was it telepathy? After this brief conversation the little guys walk back to their craft and exit earths atmosphere, departing to who knows where.

At this point you're fully converted. You now fully believe that some UFOs are in fact extra-terrestrial in origin.

You contact the military to let them know that our territorial airspace has been violated by what appeared to be friendly creatures from another world. The military ridicules you. You try calling other different branches of the government, you submit FOIA requests for radar data, and the government continually subverts your attempts to get information. At this point you go from the "foul-up" hypothesis to the "conspiracy cover-up" hypothesis.

You contact the press. They tell you to see a shrink. After questioning what you saw, you decide to go talk at a UFO group to locate other people who have experienced the same thing. The strange part is these people give dramatically different stories. Many say the ETs were intruders who abducted them, conducting tests against their will. You start to suspect some of these people are schizophrenic and that others are simply making up stories, if only because there accounts don't match up with your experience.

So now your position is some UFOs are ET and the ETs are friendly.

This is known as "personal escalation of explanation."

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/464fe2453d13.png[/atsimg]

Now lets pretend as a fully converted believer you try to talk with an acquaintance about your experience. Most people aren't going to believe you because your subjective reality has no objectively measurable basis. So you submit yourself to polygraphs and other various truth tests, but people still don't buy it.

You write a book. Trying to get the word out to as many people as you can. Detractors start to accuse you of trying to make a profit off your "bullsh#t contrivance."

See where I'm going?

To call a person a charlatan without knowing how the person got from "here" to "there" is assuming "any one of us knows the truth!"

and their public attempts are doing anything but damage to the goal of some possible disclosure and this subject taken more seriously.

In the minds of these people they know the truth and they're trying to communicate it. Are these people nuts? Maybe. Are they telling the truth? Possibly.

Since there's so much uncertainty we shouldn't make it our goal to rip these people a new one. Rather we should accept them as a part of our cause, BUT we should communicate to them that they need to advocate a PUBLIC position that's acceptable to the lowest common denominator 'UFO advocate.' We didn't go from algebra to calculus overnight. We need baby steps.

However to call these people liars, charlatans, and other nasty things is akin to me walking in to a church and telling the pastor and his followers, "Your belief is garbage. You're all stupid and nuts!"

To question a persons beliefs is an exercise in futility. You'll burn yourself out on it.

(continued below)


[edit on 3-6-2009 by Xtraeme]

Originally posted by Majorion
They are a burden, they have their own cult, and most of us who have a real interest in this subject and want it taken seriously know that these types need to be fought, or else they'll make things even worse than they already are. This is the sad truth.

I'd caution against questioning peoples sincerity and their objectives.

I'm not suggesting that we should uncritically accept peoples claims. Absolutely we need to evaluate the evidence to see how well it holds water. Is the evidence anecdotal? What's the persons level of education? Is the person making the claim willing to sign an affidavit to the truthfulness of their statements? Will the person submit themselves to fMRI lie detector testing?

However so long as the person isn't caught actively lying or massively over-inflating the truth, they're another voice advocating our position. The trick is to convince these people to tone down the rhetoric.

Yes they may believe very strongly they know what's going on, but that's not going to help if they can't show other people how they got from A to Z.

Time and time again we've heard charlatans like Greer, Bassett and the ilk make 'claims'. And their claims and promises have all been a lie, or at best, a complete and utter failure (see; Disclosure Project).

Nearly everyone loved Greer back in 2001 when he was pushing for Senate hearings, filming documentary evidence, and holding high-profile press conferences.

We later changed our tune as we saw him shifting focus in to more questionable topics like remote-viewing, the spiritual aspect of the UFO phenomenon, and advocating the position that the government is hiding antigravitic and zero-point energy technology from the public.

His biggest sin was escalating at a rate that those of us who aren't in the know could observe and follow.

That aside, the work he contributed was extremely useful to the cause. The video testimony he's collected has done more in the last few years to convince people there's something going on than probably all the books on the subject combined, even those written by scientific and skeptically minded people like Dr. Hynek.

It's ashame that we now lambaste Greer, when really the only reason we're in disagreement is because we don't know how he got from "here" to "there" and because our own biases prevent us from following him.

Personally, I feel a strong need to fight these types, I just hope you understand me.

I do understand, you want to separate the wheat from the chaff.

Just like you I want to see progress on this subject. However I recognize the value of these people and I recognize my own limits on knowing the truth.

I haven't been abducted. I haven't had a contactee experience. I haven't even seen a UFO.

So I take a conservative, skeptical stance, but that's all it is a stance. That stance does not impart the truth. It merely prevents me from accepting a lot of garbage that I might otherwise accept as fact.

Other people potentially know quite a bit more about what's going on due to their own first hand experience. I'm not about to tear them apart for their "out-there" claims.

Measuring their credibility is important, yes, but only insomuch as to determine whether we should accept the new information they bring to the table. Their position and advocacy of UFOs is independent from their reason for advocating in favor of it.

So long as people can separate that, the reason for advocacy from the cause itself, they can be productive useful contributors. Even if we as skeptics don't buy everything they personally say or believe in.

Following this back and forth Majorion again replied with valid counter-points.



I thought long and hard about your points. I think we may have to agree to disagree on several of them. Specifically:

Originally posted by Majorion
Not to generalize, and since we are specifically on the subject of Greer and Bassett, I dont think it matters whats in their minds, as their actions and words deem any other thing as irrelevant to the bigger picture. While we may have initially somewhat applauded Greer back in 2001 for bringing about a big number of witnesses and documenting them - even at 2001, we can still criticize strongly, as many people agree that he is the worst representative and that some of his witnesses were the wrong ones and this tainted the whole project.

I agree that Dr. Greer used witnesses who I wouldn't have put on national TV.

I also agree that, yes, some of what Greer has done I would call "over reaching." It's a bit silly that he would claim he was "debriefed" by the CIA when he simply had dinner with the Peterson's and the Woolsey's. However this isn't an outright lie. It could just as easily be an exaggeration or even a misunderstanding.

Dr. Greer also, unfortunately, engages in a lot of speculation, but nothing so egregious that warrants giving him the same treatment usually reserved for the likes of Jonathan Reed.

Though, while on the subject, I have to say Jonathan's photographic / video fakery was quite good! On the other hand his acting was poor. Yet I still find it odd he would have added a dog to his story, being such an easy thing to check, if he never had one in the first place, but I digress...

I can say all these things criticizing Stephen, but also think of ways he's positively benefited the UFO community. While I personally keep Greer at arm's length I can easily think of ways to spin his efforts to deflect away the negative aspects of his research rather than needlessly airing the UFO movement's dirty laundry. For example, if a reporter were to ask me what I thought of Stephen I would answer,

"Dr. Greer's done much to raise awareness on this subject. He's collected hundreds of hours of video testimony, briefed numerous people in government, and hosted the extraordinary 2001 National Press Conference. I disagree with Dr. Greer on several points, specifically I don't believe there's a conspiracy so much as there is a government foul-up. However I think we're still fundamentally advocating the same idea and that is UFOs deserve serious scientific and governmental study."

In writing this I point out the main area of difference, but at the same time praise the things Dr. Greer has done that are noteworthy and reflect positively on the UFO community.

The points here are two-fold. First, by destroying the messenger you also sometimes destroy the message, shooting the UFO movement in the foot, and diminishing the persons legitimate accomplishments. Second, Greer is a part of the UFO community whether we like it or not.

Even when dealing with the truly egregious cases, people like Reed, we can still word ourselves in such a way as to deflect criticism and demonstrate that UFO investigators are truth-seekers by expressing certainty and uncertainty in the correction proportions!! For example,

"Jonathan Reed, or by his true name - Jonathan Rutter, released extremely compelling footage that was of great interest to those of us who make it our business to identify UFOs. After analysis, however, based on testimony from Mr. Rutter's, now, ex-girlfriend and his live-in roommate, Larry, there's question to the truthfulness of Mr. Rutter's story. It's the position of most organizations that the events surrounding Mr Rutter's story were likely manufactured."

Again notice I point out the best aspect of Mr. Rutter's case, but proportion it correctly to the best known counter-information. There's no reason for me to personally attack Mr. Rutter. It's entirely plausible the counter-evidence is as much a forgery as is the pro-claim. Getting in to these sorts of debates only wastes time and prevents discussion of the incidents that are truly worth our efforts.

In summary, don't paint with a broad brush. Summarize condemnation and praise in correct proportions. The truth is rarely black and white.

Whats worse is that he not only tainted the Disclosure Project but also tainted any similar efforts that may come about in the future. Putting long lost failed goals aside, Greer is indeed a charlatan. I think this article here sums up this character very well. He is ufology's own worst enemy.

While Greer certainly has given people an impression (conspiracy, zero point energy, and other hard to buy speculation) there are many who have come before him that have done the same. No one person is the face of ufology. To assume he alone has the ability to destroy the credibility of this field is to ignore the countless others who have done the same (Meier, Hoagland, etc.).

We shouldn't be focussing on the rubbish rather we should be focusing on what's compelling - the evidence. I highly doubt anyone outside the UFO community cares if Greer's the shining pillar of science and objectivity we'd like him to be.

UFO newbies only care if the cases themselves hold water.

I can say this with some authority because Greer's 2001 National Press Conference introduced me to flight JAL-1628. It was the first case I couldn't easily hand-wave away as garbage. If it wasn't for John Callahan's testimony I would have never formed an interest in this subject.

Most people are smart enough to separate the evidence from the person presenting it.

(continued below)

[edit on 3-6-2009 by Xtraeme]

I've never liked the tangential accusations and speculation surrounding this subject. Sure it makes for more material to discuss or profit from, but it takes us no further to the truth. Not to mention that these tangential arguments create handy strawmen to wipe out whatever sliver of credibility exists on this conspiracy. Its like 9/11 no plane and space laser theorists, but worse.

All anybody should be focused on is whether or not ET and UFOs are real and getting information gathered from our governments on this subject. Not wondering aloud about ET technologies, reptilian shapeshifters, or space brothers. It not only damages believability it serves no useful purpose in finding out exactly what the truth is to all the reported sightings and government documented cases that we know of.

Entirely my opinion of course.

[edit on 3-6-2009 by Frith]

However to call these people liars, charlatans, and other nasty things is akin to me walking in to a church and telling the pastor and his followers, "Your belief is garbage. You're all stupid and nuts!"

No, I disagree. I think its akin to normal modest people of faith fighting the extremists who are causing all the problems to them and the world and tainting and generalizing the modest ones.

There's a common cognitive bias called "extreme aversion." Like it sounds it's the tendency to avoid extremes in favor of intermediate choices. I admit I'm guilty of this myself.

I had an excellent debate with rich23 about whether "extraordinary claims" should "require extraordinary proof." As Rich said, "In summary, they shouldn't. The fact is that what is extraordinary is a value judgment and has nothing to do with science. A hypothesis is testable. It works as long as it handles data - as soon as it ceases to do so, it requires modification. That's all."

However so long as the person isn't caught actively lying or massively over-inflating the truth, they're another voice advocating our position. The trick is to convince these people to tone down the rhetoric.

I'm sorry, we cannot even risk giving questionable people the benefit of the doubt - not for a subject like ufos. This is the precise reason why ufology is not taken seriously.

The problem with UFOs is the word UFO. Uttering that simple acronym instantly discredits anything associated with it, be it Presidents, atmospheric physicists (ie/ the most qualified people to discuss the subject), astronauts or take your pick of notable individuals.

The problem isn't the quality of the people. It's that no one focuses on the objective reality of the observations!

Why is it no one discusses Project Blue Book Special Report 14? To quote Friedman,

Of prime importance is the fact that the better the quality of the sightings, the more likely to be an Unknown and the less likely to be listed as Insufficient Information. These results are precisely what one would expect if the Unknowns were fundamentally different from those reports in the astronomical, balloon, aircraft, or other categories and also completely contradict the oft made statement that “There are no interesting UFO sightings that are reliable and no reliable sightings that are interesting.”

... The first question to ask in attempting to determine the identity of the Unknowns is “Is there any difference between the characteristics of the Unknowns as described by witnesses and the characteristics of the Knowns?" The results consistently showed that the probability that the Unknowns were just missed knowns was less than 1%!

I haven't heard this uttered ONCE on a TV broadcast and I've listened to more than my fair share.

If we're going to go to the media we should discuss the cases that are the closest thing to objective evidence. The RB-47 case is a great example. I wonder, why is it no one mentions it? I'd wager less than 1% of all people on this forum have read Brad Sparks analysis. It's pretty damning! It's boring in comparison to other more jazzed-up accounts, but it near conclusively demonstrates that there was a "radar-emitting ball of light" in the air traveling several hundred miles along the same course as the RB-47!

Or how about Dr. Thayer and Dr. McDonald's analysis of the '56 Bentwaters case? It's never mentioned. Yet it's one of the few cases that managed to make it all the way before the AIAA and the Condon Committee! Even then it withstood identification.

UFO-advocates need to learn that skeptics care about cases that have hard data behind them. The question should then be, what is objective evidence?

Objective evidence starts when the number of degrees of independently corroborating data outweigh the differences and where there's a plethora of data-points. Put another way, objective reality begins when there is corroboration by many trustworthy sources backed by standardized equipment that measures and authenticates the observation, followed with analysis by a group of people expert in a given technical area of study.

I would argue human testimony, anecdotal evidence, should be admissible by weighting the supporting evidence against what the person stands to lose.

For example the JAL-1628 case is interesting because John Callahan has the FAA report, the flight-tapes, his testimony is corroborated by the pilot, co-pilot, the flight-engineer, the AARTC controller, and the ROCC controller. Not to mention he's gone before the National Press Club and flatly stated he's willing to provide this data, along with testimony, before Congress under oath.

This is compelling because there's a stable of physical evidence; circumstantial evidence supported by physical evidence; as a high-ranking FAA official John Callahan is putting his reputation on the line; the degrees of removal between the witnesses is extremely high; and if Mr. Callahan is lying he would face perjury charges.

That is as close as human testimony gets to objective evidence.

This is a paranormal subject

It's paranormal by declaration. Rather I submit UFOs represent the science of identifying the unidentified, particularly as it relates to things seen in the sky.

(continued below)

[edit on 3-6-2009 by Xtraeme]

, there is an inherent giggle factor, people like Greer and Bassett are at the forefront of this giggle-factor - and the only thing one can do is to fight them, not allow them any opportunity or any support at all (no conditions). They are charlatans.

While I disagree with Bassett and Greer on many points. I've yet to see evidence to suggest they're purely in it for the money or that they're outright frauds / liars. If you see evidence to the contrary, please, by all means point it out.

Reading Ufowatchdog's critque only demonstrates that Greer is extreme fringe. However I'd like to point out most people involved in the study of UFOs are also fringe. Even credentialed scientists studying this subject, Dr. David Jacobs for example, are considered "out there" regardless of their associations or condemnation of other more fringe people like Greer.

I also find ufowatchdog's take of Greer a bit eye-rolling.

For instance, the author of the article makes the $600 dollar donation scheme sound like the scam of the century. However if you read carefully a $600 donation, according to the watchdog article, gets 15 people 5 days of Dr. Greer's time. That's $8/day/person or $120/day.

Now consider Dr. Greer used to be the chairman of the Department of Emergency Medicine at Caldwell Memorial Hospital. $120 / day doesn't strike me as salubrious compensation.

If the article was meant to read $600/person. That's a bit more eye-catching at $1800/day. However I'd pay roughly the same for a 5 day lift-ticket, rentals, food, housing, etc. So if a person views it as a "vacation" it's in the ballpark of other outdoor activities. Though not something I'd pay for.

I and others who have had real experiences strongly believe in this principle, most people who've had genuine experiences know for a fact that these people are nothing but cult-growing money-grabbing sensationalistic trolls who never had any experience, theyre just nutbags honestly.

This is why in my last reply I went through the "personal escalation of explanation loop." Why is your subjective experience any more credible than Bassett's or Greer's?

I'm quite certain that if I were to dig in to your past I could find areas where you've exaggerated or misspoken. However I'd only do this if my bias predisposed me to think you were worth character assassination.

Please understand I'm not saying I would do such a thing. I'm just stating that if a person were to undergo such an effort they would be operating under the assumption that "they know the truth," the other person is the antithesis of that truth, and as such character assassination is fair game.

Did you read the latest Disclosure Project release? - 'claims' of briefing Obama and intelligence. That says it all.

The exact words are, "currently advising ... figures very close to the Obama Administration." This does not mean the same thing as "briefing Obama." In fact it actually suggests briefing people outside the Obama Administration.

This is the same exact thing that happened with Bassett. He was taken out of context during the CNN broadcast and now people are hanging him for their misinterpretations.

And this type of behavior needs to be strongly condemned.

The only thing that needs to be condemned is painting with a broad brush. We need to express our certainty and uncertainty in correct proportion. This goes for everyone, especially, public figures like Greer and Bassett.

Ive seen the latest sensationalist release unsurprisingly get hyped on UFO blogs, and everyone (almost) are all duped so easily and naively by these types, and that frustrates myself and many others. There remains only one solution here for this problem.

In the minds of those at PRG and the Disclosure Project there is something to disclose based on their own personal evidence. To make this a national debate they're trying to get interest from the press. So they use suggestive language.

I don't find this particularly damning. Almost everyone that has a "cause" uses politics at one stage or another to advocate their position. And as we've seen over the last 60 years the scientific approach has unfortunately fallen on deaf ears.

While one may argue that Bassett may have been misinterpreted with his statements for example, its crystal clear what effect he and others have on the gullible. Look at the title of this thread; Disclosure Countdown - what does that tell you?

It tells me people need to be more thorough in their analysis of peoples speeches and stop buying in to sensationalism.

- it makes it clear the type of message and false hopes people like Bassett and Greer are sending out and promoting.

I don't see it as pandering hope so much as UFO advocacy. Also Stephen wasn't the person claiming that disclosure was imminent. He simply set a date as a notice of intent and was using it as a timeline to move into the next stage of his political campaign.

Did anyone else notice that the Phase 3 of the Million Fax on Washington started on June 1st?

I don't see the sin here. In the game industry we do the same thing. We send out dates for trailers, demos, etc, to build hype. This isn't an uncommon thing.

When really, all these claims and promotions are for themselves, for their own egos, for their own benefit. Theres no mistaking that this thread; 'Disclosure Countdown' is exactly the type of bad hype that Bassett and his ilk intended to bring about. And this is not a good thing at all.

I really don't see evidence of this. I appreciate your interpretation and certainly don't discount it, but based on my own digging in to their backgrounds I see two men who have had a very personal and heartfelt involvement in this field who make assumptions I simply won't.

Doesn't mean they're wrong, doesn't mean I'm right, just means they've seen evidence convincing them of certain corollaries that I'm unwilling to accept as fact (ie/ crashed alien spaceships).

Thank you for discussing this with me in such a civil & thoughtful manner Majorion! You're one of the good guys in my book.

Best,
-X

[edit on 3-6-2009 by Xtraeme]

Originally posted by Frith
I've never liked the tangential accusations and speculation surrounding this subject. Sure it makes for more material to discuss or profit from, but it takes us no further to the truth.

Agreed that's why I said in an earlier post.

"I also think the way [Stephen Basset's] approaching this will possibly do more harm than good, but neither of us are in a position to police peoples beliefs. What I've tried to convey to Stephen is this:

The solution is to reduce the rhetoric so it's accepted by the lowest common denominator 'UFO advocate.' So those of us who agree the UFO subject deserves recognition and study get on board the PRG political movement. That means rather than demanding "disclosure" (which assumes the 'conspiracy cover-up hypothesis') we should be demanding scientific and governmental investigation (which only assumes the 'grand foul-up hypothesis'). "

Not to mention that these tangential arguments create handy strawmen to wipe out whatever sliver of credibility exists on this conspiracy. Its like 9/11 no plane and space laser theorists, but worse.

I'll say this, I have spoken with abductees who seem earnest about their experiences. Sadly in telling their story people accuse them of over-inflating the details and that, if they're not lying, they're remembering a very frightening dream or recalling an experience induced by sleep paralysis.

This is derogatory. I can understand why "abductees" would actively fight these sorts of claims. If I honestly believed I was abducted and someone was telling me I was crazy, or to shut-up for the benefit of some trite political movement, I would very likely beg to differ.

All anybody should be focused on is whether or not ET and UFOs are real and getting information gathered from our governments on this subject. Not wondering aloud about ET technologies, reptilian shapeshifters, or space brothers.

I wish we could be entirely objective, but for people who believe they've had real experiences they're going to have extremely emotional reactions.

Consider Corso, if he truly believed the government had secret alien crafts he wouldn't waste time studying observations, he'd simply encourage UFO group, sympathetic to the ET hypothesis, to submit FOIA request and flood the civilian government & military with requests to unlock the data.

That's what people like Bassett are doing.

It not only damages believability it serves no useful purpose in finding out exactly what the truth is to all the reported sightings and government documented cases that we know of.

Again this requires people understand the requirements of academia and the scientific community (objective analysis). It also requires everyone interested in this subject be utterly logical and show how they got from step A to step B before accepting step C.

People like Bassett, Greer, and many others want to start at step Z and that's sadly not going to work. For the good of the whole community, everyone, has to tone down the rhetoric, but as we all know that isn't going to happen.

So the best we can do are these things:

1. Research for ourselves whether there's a grand foul up or conspiracy cover-up, determining where we should focus our efforts.
   
2. Recognize that none of us know the truth of what UFOs represent. To say another persons is crazy is to claim any one of us holds the truth. I'd caution against questioning peoples sincerity and their objectives.
   
3. Advocate finding a common ground so we can petition as a group rather than as independent voices with no shared goal. The objective should be to reduce the rhetoric to that of the lowest common denominator UFO advocate. So long as people can separate the reason for their advocacy, from the cause itself, they can be productive useful contributors.
   
4. Toning down our criticization of other UFO advocates. Destroying the messenger also sometimes destroys the message, shooting the UFO movement in the foot, and diminishing the persons legitimate accomplishments. Since truth is such a difficult thing to glean we should express certainty and uncertainty in the correct proportions to what we know.
   
5. Rather than focusing on our own credibility lets focus on the credibility of the UFO evidence. That's what's going to move this field forward.
   
6. Last, but certainly not least, we should all be very cautious to read between the lines and defuse sensationalism.

[edit on 3-6-2009 by Xtraeme]

Hello Xtraeme, I always find time at the crack of dawn for a bit of good debate A bit of UFO politics goes a long way

Originally posted by Xtraeme
We shouldn't be focussing on the rubbish rather we should be focusing on what's compelling - the evidence.

I would like to continue on the same line of thought as previously, I stuck to my argument well, and so did yours.

The evidence - in this case, and my main point being, that Greer has tarnished whatever credible evidence youself, I, and other diligent researchers were keen enough to pick up on - however the average joe, on the other hand, will only see the rubbish, because its too profound. This is what I condemn, this is what I believe to be the root cause of the ufo subjects' demise.

The problem with UFOs is the word UFO. Uttering that simple acronym instantly discredits anything associated with it, be it Presidents, atmospheric physicists (ie/ the most qualified people to discuss the subject), astronauts or take your pick of notable individuals.

Oh yes, most definitely, I agree. I vote for; UAP (unidentified aerial phenomena)

Why is it no one discusses Project Blue Book Special Report 14? To quote Friedman,

Ah you see, lol, when it came to the real goods and good evidence you cite Friedman's work for example, and there is no doubt that Friedman yells credibility compared to Greer and Bassett. Say what you want about Stanton, but hes no charlatan, thats for sure.

It's paranormal by declaration. Rather I submit UFOs represent the science of identifying the unidentified, particularly as it relates to things seen in the sky.

Hmm, that is an interesting aspect you bring up. This could warrant its own thread, but just to surmise - my personal opinion is that ufos are not part of science - because science has to yet to fill that gap, science may be accurate but it is with its limits, so this is really is an area of pseudoscience, and I can understand why scientists and the like may label the subject with that term. In other words, Science is a great method to go about the phenomena and investigate it - it should be no surprise that science has yet to solve something that is not part-of-it.

I also find ufowatchdog's take of Greer a bit eye-rolling.

Sorry, I just find it priceless! - because I think it demonstrates my point very clearly. Ufowatchdog shows you how easy it is for even a ufologist to condemn those other people, theres a whole list of reasons for the those in the hall-of-shame to rightfully belong in the hall-of-shame. They show how easy it is to mock Greer and Bassett, who are mostly laughable characters, in all honesty, lol. I think Ufowatchdog really did a good job with some of their insights that have now become popular on the web. Theres a very good reason why so many people now use ufowatchdog as a source to back up their position of fighting charlatans.

This is why in my last reply I went through the "personal escalation of explanation loop." Why is your subjective experience any more credible than Bassett's or Greer's?

Because I make no name off of it. I make no fame. I earn no profit - nor do I intend to. And most importantly, and just like most other genuine experiencers, I would never dare act the way Greer and Bassett do. They are only messing things up, and making things worse. Do you deny that either one of them is sensationalist?

It tells me people need to be more thorough in their analysis of peoples speeches and stop buying in to sensationalism.

So you concede that what mainly comes from Greer and Bassett is sensationalism? - lets put aside our own diligent research, look at the bigger picture, and ask ourselves what we are mainly receiving from these people?

Anyways, I'm darn tired, gonna hit the sack soon, call it a day. And just hope that my post is constructed properly. I'd estimate myself to be half sober at this point, lol.

Cheers,

Majorion