Of UFOs and money.....

I'm wondering what you ATSers with a longtime serious interest in ufos, think about money-and-ufos. Funding versus profit. I was thinking about a recent ufologist scandal. He was a fabricator all along, but churned out books. Books garner a profit for their authors. I think that this is a corrupting influence, and a huuuuuge risk factor to give in to temptaion, -even- for someone with ethics. As for funding, there was this substantial debacle in somewhat recent times, with a private wealthy funder, and a ufo organization. Disaster ensued, with 'office politics' and money management styles. In a nut shell. They say that money is the primary reason marriages dissolve. I have been imagining what -Ufology- would be like, if -profit- (and celebrity) were -banned- from it. (But who would be "The deciders"?) How could such be done? Or could it?

I don't know what to think of UFO's. 99% of the time, its some random guy who jumps to the alien conclusion because that's what he wants to believe while what he saw was nothing special. Then again, I've seen supposedly declassified government documents online that suggest our own government acknowledges UFO's as a form of "psychological warfare" other nations are using against us. It seems like somebody is testing our gullibility and taking note of how crazy we're willing to let our beliefs get.

Very insightfull reply. But in 2011 you are saying "I still don't know what to think of ufos". I blame such on no standards for keeping research results honest, and ufology is a freeforall circus. Due to the temptations of profit and celebrity. see? Actually, my question raised should be for everyone to think about, whether they are extremely new to ufology, or not.

reply to post by simone50m
Hiya Simone

I sometimes think the best researchers are the ones who aren't really book authors; they all have a book, but don't depend on them for income and don't hit the UFO circuits. I'm thinking of Mike Swords, Pete Sturrock and others who have academic positions in universities. Maybe their positions enforce moderation in their views or perhaps it's the academic training? Likewise there are those like the guys associated with Project 1947, NICAP, BUFORA and CUFOS...I disagree with some of them, but they aren't generally hawking BS around the place.

The guys who are dedicated to the books, like Keel was, maybe realise that we'll never know the truth so why bother being completely scrupulous? Strieber is one of them, Moulton-Howe and we could probably think of a few more.

At the heart of ufology is human nature and we all come with different notions of right and wrong. Same thing goes in business, sport and politics...for all the honest people, there will always be the scoundrels. Without drifting too far from the topic, don't we beat ourselves up too much in this subject? I'm as guilty as anyone else for attacking the con-artists and maybe not celebrating the honest researchers as much as I should.

The thing about money in ufology is really a problem of *where* it goes and *to whom.* The good guys need funding to maintain the websites and continue research. The great archives need staff, floor-space and shelving, buildings and maintenance costs. They pay taxes for breathing like all of us do.

Still, it's a pity that human nature dictates that the least credible folk enjoy more financial success than the ones doing due diligence.

reply to post by Kandinsky
"The thing about money in ufology is really a problem of *where* it goes and *to whom.* The good guys need funding to maintain the websites and continue research. The great archives need staff, floor-space and shelving, buildings and maintenance costs. They pay taxes for breathing like all of us do."



Yep, yep. Right on. I shared this link over at The Paracast/forum but I want to share it here on ATS as well. Because this is what a REAL Ufologist sounds like, and/or should.......sound like.
www.wbez.org...


Granted, I'm no fan of the cufos-GUYS (from a sheerly emotional level) (But isn't that a -good- start?!) But I am......a fan of theirs from a sheerly ufology/intellectual/honest/scientific level.

reply to post by simone50m
Thanks for that link! I'd read it before without noticing the mp3 interview.

Downloading right now and hoping it's a rare interview with Rodeghier. Some of the CUFOS guys have recorded interviews and keep them in the archives when they should be available as part of the oral history of ufology imo.

Wendy Connors shared her stuff and added to what we know of UFO sightings and shows.

Quite some time back, I made the suggestion in their forum, that The Paracast should have Mark on. All they need to do is give him a request, and you can see where to call, snailmail, or email him at www.cufos.org
I wish coasttocoast would, but they are too busy with guys who hear and see invisible aliens, around D.C., like a particular guest the other night.

reply to post by simone50m
I asked Mike Swords if he'd consider doing an interview and he wasn't interested. Someone like Tim Binnall could really do justice to someone like Swords, but it's not to be.

He mentioned other interviews in the CUFOS archives and I can't help think that putting them out there is better than leaving them in storage. Some of these guys have stories to tell and a lot of us would enjoy hearing them. One of the best Paracast interviews imao is the one with Dick Haines...it's UFO history. Binall's interview with Ann Druffel is likewise historical (amongst others) and Paratopia have captured some of the zeitgeist too.


I guess it brings us back to the money. Nobody is getting rich from hosting podcasts despite being as much a part of popular culture as fast food and high taxes.

reply to post by simone50m


Money in UFOlogy is important and must be pretty good. Just look at Stanton Friedman... he gave up a career in nuclear physics to sell UFO books and tours



If ya can't beat em, maybe I should join em... need a new car

Originally posted by simone50m
I have been imagining what -Ufology- would be like, if -profit- (and celebrity) were -banned- from it. (But who would be "The deciders"?) How could such be done? Or could it?

When it comes right down to it, we are the deciders. Given that Ufology has no academic credentials, anyone can set up shop and play. We can't stop them. But look what just happened. Imbrogno self-destructed right in front of our eyes. His actions show that he knows he was caught and didn't have anywhere to turn, so he "quit" in a huff. That's tantamount to being banned. I don't feel sorry for him a bit, but my take-away from this is that we, the deciders, didn't really do a very good job here. In 20/20 hindsight there were clues all over the place that something wasn't quite right. But we let it slide. Maybe this teaches us a collective lesson that we ought to be much more skeptical than we have been.