Who ISN'T a charlatan in the "UFO community"?

Lately I've been feeling a little disenfranchised with the whole state of "Ufology" and I wish this wasn't the case. Until recently, I hadn't read into the accounts of the big name "contactees" and "researchers", so I took a trip to the local library to remedy this; big mistake.

Nearly every single account that I read left me with a lesser opinion of Ufology as a whole. No wonder so many people in the mainstream poke fun, clearly they read our books!

The Day After Roswell - Col. Phillip Corso: Perhaps written by someone with the literary prowess of a junior high school student. Absolute garbage through and through. You'd need to be brain dead to even consider this a half truth.

The Roswell Legacy - Jesse, Jr. Marcel: Again, terribly written, adds nothing to the story as it existed before he decided it was time to make a buck off of his dead father, he saw some metallic junk in a box, big deal.

Dark Mission: The Secret History of NASA - Richard Hoagland: It's difficult to take someone who claims to have exposed a massive government conspiracy seriously, when they have yet to expose a rudimentary understanding of the English language. Sigh. That aside, before reading the book, I thought Hoagland was a little egotistical; now I firmly believe that he's a sociopath. All this book consists of is: ego-stroking, name dropping, paranoid delusional thoughts and building up his illusion of grandeur.

I started reading these in the spring and now I'm about half into - Communion: A True Story by Whitley Strieber - and I don't even know if I can finish this, it's so boring, repetitive and rambling. Obviously Strieber didn't have enough material for a book so he filled 80% of it with irrelevant crap. You'd think being an accomplished author would instill some kind of writing skill, you'd think that, wouldn't you? I don't believe this ever happened.

I'm of the opinion that aliens are probably in our skies judging by all the photographic and video evidence. But I also believe there are a great many people using that fact to make a buck and it really erodes the credibility of legitimate cases.

Who really stands out in the field as an individual with integrity?

George Knapp, I think, is a good guy. Richard Dolan comes off to me as an honest, intelligent man. Nick Pope... Stanton Friedman, although his latest book, which I read last, was a huge disappointment.

reply to post by ZombieOctopus


I just read The Alien Agenda by Marrs and Witness to Roswell. I found both of those books very good and although the bias of the authors believing in aliens does come through I found them both pretty informative.

reply to post by ZombieOctopus


Bruce Maccabee is not a charlatan. He's an optical physicist and if does mistakes, he doesn't by purpose.

Vicente-Juan Ballester Olmos is some GREAT researcher, he never lied.

Josef Allen Hynek has been probably one of the best if not the best researcher: but he passed away in 1986.

Kentaro Mori is another good researcher.

Plus our residents ones, like Gazrok, ArMaP, Jeff Ritzmann, IsaacKoi.
What does matter is whether they lie or don't: i think that all these people will never lie to you (especially Hynek).


[edit on 16/8/2009 by internos]

reply to post by internos


Bruce Maccabee is another good one

Internos won't mention himself because not being a charlatan means being humble.



So I hereby nominate internos as a non-charlatan.

Also on this forum, look into what Freespirit does too, very thorough

[edit on 16/8/09 by Chadwickus]

There are certainly some frauds in UFOlogy, just as there are in just about any field. OTOH, poor writing or not having much to say doesn't show that anyone is a charlatan. I'm sure many of these authors honestly believe they saw or experienced something unusual, aliens, abductions, etc. No doubt some of them tried to stretch a 10-page event into a whole book, and filled in fluff for the rest. But does that make them a fraud? Not necessarily.

I personally don't believe that UFO's are alien spacecraft. I don't think the evidence supports that conclusion. However, many of the people I've talked to honestly do believe that. They're not all crazy or idiots or gullible. There are a few of those, of course. But honest, level-headed people have reported odd encounters. They believe it, and most don't show evidence of having visual or psychological problems.

Since I cannot read a person's mind or heart, I can't honestly know whether they actually believe what they tell me. Maybe they really are all lying or crazy. But it really doesn't matter. What matters is simply whether they are able to provide evidence of what they claim. If they can, then their claims gain some credence. If not, then their claims remain unsupported.

Yea it sucks that it's a field that can be so easily duped that even if there are some real legitimate books they are few and far between, too scattered. better chance looking around the net.

Originally posted by Chadwickus
Internos won't mention himself because not being a charlatan means being humble.

So I hereby nominate internos as a non-charlatan.

Also look into what Freespirit does too, very thorough

I would have to agree with that

How about...

Timothy Good: I think his first 2 books were very interesting.

www.timothygood.co.uk...

Brian Vike: I think his tireless work must be applauded.

hbccuforesearch.blogspot.com...

Originally posted by ZombieOctopus
Nick Pope... Stanton Friedman, although his latest book, which I read last, was a huge disappointment.

I've had a similar experience as you, finding a lot of disappointment every time I look at work of many researchers.

Nick Pope also strikes me as a straight shooter. Stanton Friedman has lost some respect in my eyes though I still think he may be one of the less charlatan-like researchers in the field.

I agree that Hyneck was a great contributor, once he went independent.
UFOwatchdog has a hall of fame in addition to their hall of shame, and Hyneck is #1 on their list.
www.ufowatchdog.com...
Friedman and Knapp are both also on their hall of fame, and while I sort of like both of those guys, I'm not sure they deserve the same status as Hyneck. And unfortunately, you'll notice their hall of fame is way smaller than their hall of shame, maybe it's the nature of the UFO field that this is so.

Internos said that Bruce Macabbee's mistakes are not intentional, I would agree with that, but I'll have to look at the work of the other researchers that Internos and others have mentioned.

By the way, great idea for a thread, thanks!

Originally posted by chiron613
There are certainly some frauds in UFOlogy, just as there are in just about any field. OTOH, poor writing or not having much to say doesn't show that anyone is a charlatan. No doubt some of them tried to stretch a 10-page event into a whole book, and filled in fluff for the rest. But does that make them a fraud? Not necessarily.

I disagree, I would argue that it does.

It shows intent; not that of wanting to disseminate information for the purposes of furthering the body of evidence, but to make a buck as fast and easily as possible.

The same goes for poor writing. If you want to be taken seriously by people outside of those who attend UFO conventions, you have to write something that gives the impression that you are indeed a serious and thoughtful person. If you take your short essay, blow it up into 300 pages of rambling nonsense, it makes you look as if you're only preaching to the choir that you know will eat it up no matter what. Ever see a newspaper full of broken sentences, grammatical and spelling errors? No, they want to be taken seriously.

two words: Jacques Vallee

I would agree that many of the people the OP, internos and others have mentioned are credible and serious researchers, but it's important to not forget that they're only human and when dealing with a phenomena complex as this, and a field filled with nonsense and even disinformation, people will make some mistakes.

For instance, I think Stanton Friedman has done incredible work on most of the things he has worked on but on the MJ12 documents he is probably wrong.

As I said before everything should be judge on a case by case basis.

Having said that however I would would definitely tend to give more consideration to something Friedman presents or publishes, as he's proven time and time again that he is an intelligent person and a serious and good researcher, than say a Greer or a Burisch.

But I would never stop looking at things from a skeptical point of view and on a case by case basis regardless of who the source is, because even good researchers make mistakes and there are definitely too many charlatans in this field.


[edit on 16-8-2009 by converge]

I highly recommend heading over to the Paracast Archives, they eat charlatans and frauds and spit 'em out live on air Their guests are usually the men and women that keep this crazy world of UFO interest going. They are the people that have made our knowledge of Roswell, Kecksburg, Malmstrom AFB etc etc possible. Not one of whom asks for an 'investment' on the promise of telling you a new story. These are the heroes of UFO research, fallible and fantastic. We owe them!

If you do plan on listening, here's a short list of the shows that I think everybody with any interest in UFOs should listen to. If more guys listened to these interviews, the amount of Exopolitics supporters would fade...and fast!

Dr. Richard F. Haines, Chief Scientist for the National Aviation Reporting Center on Anomalous Phenomena (NARCAP), speaks at length about airline sightings, airline safety, and his extensive research into these strange aerial mysteries.

Dr Richard Haines

The Paracast remembers noted UFO researcher Richard H. Hall, who died recently. Featured guests include some of the esteemed investigators in the UFO field who knew him well, including Jerome Clark, Don Ecker, Paul Kimball, Dr. Bruce Maccabee and Kevin D. Randle.

...from HERE.

Award-winning TV newscaster and UFO author George Knapp describes the weird UFO and secret weapons-related claims surrounding Area 51, the tales of John Lear, Bob Lazar and others. He’ll also bring you up to date on the 2008 Needles, CA incident and the strange events at the Skinwalker Ranch in Utah.

...from HERE.

Master UFO curmudgeon Don Ecker returns to talk at length about the state of the UFO field in his uniquely blunt fashion. From disclosure to some of the eccentric characters who, unfortunately, find a home in UFO research, you’ll get frank answers.

...from HERE.

Gene and David spend an evening with veteran UFO investigator and photographic expert Dr. Bruce Maccabee. You’ll hear Dr. Maccabee’s comments about the Gulf Breeze UFO flap, and other major cases that he’s studied in detail over the years.

...from HERE.

This week, we welcome the return of veteran researchers Dennis Balthaser and Frank Warren to discuss the latest evidence on the Roswell case and the prospects for UFO disclosure.

...from HERE.

Nuclear physicist and UFO authority Stanton T. Friedman visits The Paracast to talk about his new book, “Flying Saucers and Science: A Scientist Investigates the Mysteries of UFOs.” This is going to be one of the most fascinating sessions we’ve had with Stanton.

...from HERE.

James Fox, one of the producers of the UFO documentary, “Out of the Blue,” discusses the background of this terrific film that convincingly demonstrates UFO reality, and also provides his personal views on the subject, including the details on his own UFO sighting.

...from HERE.

The Paracast presents an all-star Roswell and State of the UFO Field Roundtable. This informative session features Nicholas Redfern, Jeff Ritzmann and Mac Tonnies. Where is the UFO field heading, and what can be done to solve the problems that keep it fractured?

...from HERE.

There's many more...these are just my immediate favorites and the guys being interviewed by Gene and David are the leading lights of UFO research. In the archive there's interviews with Steven Basset (Disclosure BS), Bill ( I sell non-existant dogs to blind old ladies...really I do!) Knell and Steven Greer. They get taken apart and get all pissy. They should be taken down a metaphorical alleyway and beaten by a sock full of loose change...I can't stand them.

reply to post by Kandinsky

Thanks Kandinsky.....

That's great info.

I shall work my way through all of that as soon as time allows.

Originally posted by ZombieOctopus
Ever see a newspaper full of broken sentences, grammatical and spelling errors? No, they want to be taken seriously.

Yeah, but it's their job. They're paid to do what they do, precisely because they're good at it.

Not everybody can write well. UFOs don't choose to show themselves to people who can. So I don't see how "not being a very good writer" equates to "charlatan".

Good thread though, and has already produced some good info. Thanks to all

[edit on 16-8-2009 by Clickfoot]

Nick Pope. He's not a charleton. He worked for 21 years at the MOD, 3 of those years in charge of the UFO reporting bit. He started skeptical, thought it was all BS. But now he knows different. And like he said, when I saw him speak. When we've got them on radar, then they're not imaginary. He's the man the press turned to last year when there was that little ufo wave. They asked him for some insteresting stories, and 1 stupid one. (you might remember the banana alien story)

Anyway, I rate Nick Pope. True skeptic, as he converted when he saw it wasn't all made up.

Originally posted by Kandinsky
If you do plan on listening, here's a short list of the shows that I think everybody with any interest in UFOs should listen to. If more guys listened to these interviews, the amount of Exopolitics supporters would fade...and fast!

Good God almighty, why do you want to destroy the "Exopolitics" movement? What the hell's wrong with you???

I can understand that maybe you don't approve of some of the characters in it, but still, these are the people who are getting the most MSM time, these are the people doing major summits and press conferences in Spain etc etc..... whether you like it or not, they are the ones being taken seriously by governments and they have the best chance at Disclosure.

Please stop trying to thwart their efforts

Originally posted by ZombieOctopus
reply to post by internos

 

Bruce Maccabee is another good one

I've met Bruce Maccabee and I like him but his involvement with Bob Oechsler's Guardian hoax has always bothered me. Either he was completely duped by Oechsler or he was a knowing willing participant.

Our own Johnny Anonymous is a great UFOlogist, though he claims NOT to be one. And certainly he is no charlatan! I hear he's going to be at the UFO Expo in San Jose amost other notables!

I do get the point of your post and think it's unforunate that UFOlogy is slammed so hard sheeple and exploited by many fakes and frauds.
Maybe one day we will finally find out what's REALLY go on..

Eyes to the Skies,
Synth