Has MUFON Investigators switched to the Debunker List?

Originally posted by karl 12
Converge - would you tend to agree with these comments made by Richard Dolan (or not) ?

I do with the part you emphasized, that the arguments against alien visitation come from people who haven't looked at the evidence.

It's predominantly true and we see it every time there is a Larry King, or any other mainstream media show, about the subject: the so called "skeptic" that is invited hasn't looked at the evidence and merely attacks the straw man position made up by all the clichés about the phenomena he can find, that in most cases don't even address what the witnesses or proponents of a certain theory are arguing.

But that's not really a skeptical position. It's what I call the pseudoskeptic and denialist position.


But look, as I've mentioned several times, I believe some UFOs are of non-human intelligent origin because I think and agree that some of the evidence hints at that, but I have yet to see the smoking gun that definitely and undeniably asserts this notion.

Even though I have a personal theory on what's probably behind some of the UFOs, being skeptical means evaluating the evidence and judging the phenomena based on that.

As of now I agree that there is evidence of something unknown flying in our skies and perhaps even interacting with people, but I don't think there is any definitive proof of what exactly the origin of that unknown is.

I think sometimes people who (strongly) believe a certain hypothesis have a hard time understanding what people like me are saying and what our position is. I'm not saying there isn't anything worthy of investigation here just because I don't think there's any definitive proof of non-human visitation, on the contrary!

I'm simply committed to the evidence and what it shows, and not to one particular conclusion, and I think that's what some people do.

MUFON should be skeptical. It is the only way to obtain credability. Credability will lead to more information. Right now, if I saw something, I don't know if I would report it or not. I'd have too much to lose by being labeled a kook. How many other people would feel the same way?
I posted about a fireball that was seen in my area a few years ago. The morning news even reported it. Once a plane or a satellite was ruled out, the reporter on the evening news started with the little green men jokes and the story went downhill from there.

Sightings can be grouped into three catagories.
1. A misidentified object
2. A hoax
3. A unexplainable incident.

The first two account for about 99.8% of all sightings.
It is that .02% that MUFON is after, but to get it, they have to get past the rest.

I have nothing to do with MUFON, other than having kept up with as much information as I can. I have nothing to do with any government agency.

Originally posted by Springer
Having first hand and personal knowledge of the MUFON/BAASS arrangement and having spent time with one of the BAASS Directors (actually the brilliant fellow who is in charge of the MUFON piece of BAASS) in Las Vegas, only a couple weeks ago, I will agree with everything Mr. Easter just wrote.

It's curious to me why anyone would characterize a genuine attempt at applying REAL FORENSIC SCIENCE to this "field" as "debunking" and only "debunking"?

If a case has merit, it will stand on its own. If a case can pass muster with trained investigators it might actually get "the light of day" shed on it in a huge way.

REAL investigation by trained professionals is what Ufology needs more of IMHO.

Making rash assumptions and spewing false claims arrived at by those assumptions is NOT what Ufology needs ANY more of, again, in my humble opinion...

Springer...

i agree with you...but if a case does not pass "muster", should it still be available for others to see, with a brief explanation on why it is not viable. i think this would elleviate some of the fears that those false "cases" would simply be thrown in the trash bin and never heard from again.
or...maybe just a reference point (website, book, interview, documents, etc.) where people could go and see what is NOT passing "muster".
this would eliminate (hopefully) the paranoid idea that "selective" investigation was being used for some nefarious reason.

Originally posted by jimmyx
or...maybe just a reference point (website, book, interview, documents, etc.) where people could go and see what is NOT passing "muster".
this would eliminate (hopefully) the paranoid idea that "selective" investigation was being used for some nefarious reason.

ufowatchdog does (or did) that to a certain degree. But there should be a more up-to-date place doing that service, exposing the hoaxes and hoaxers.

Maybe ATS could start or support an effort to provide that service.

Originally posted by Springery

Making rash assumptions and spewing false claims arrived at by those assumptions is NOT what Ufology needs ANY more of, again, in my humble opinion...

Springer... [/quote...

Mr.Springer...you say that you feel this way so much that you had to add it to your name dropping (& "real" serious UFO researchers are a different species of humans) POST.

AND YET ATS had a "staff" video thread last week, from the Bay Expo, with some very excitable guy just raving on about the most extreme 1990s alien wars where the sky is falling etcetera... that "spewing" of "rash assumptions you refer to!

I did note the disclaimer!...but you are in both opposition to & promotion of just what you say Ufology doesn't need anymore....I know... both truth & reality are not the same....but no "rash" thinkers!...where is the fun in that?