posted on Apr, 13 2012 @ 06:39 PM
reply to post by CardDown
Hiya CD. As far as I know, the BAASS agreement with MUFON is no longer.
They parted ways last year amid a lot of controversy and part of MUFON's change of HQ is intended to signal a return to the credibility they had in
their earlier years. Some say BAASS pulled out of the deal when they'd secured access to the archival case-files and personal details of witnesses.
Whether they pulled out solely for this reason is known only to the higher-ups of MUFON and BAASS.
Whatever the facts of the situation, there's been fallout from NARCAP, MUFON and NUFORC over the FAA seemingly supporting BAASS above them.
I guess it could be argued that a lot of information (reports, patterns, demographics etc) is drawn into these organisations and doesn't always come
back out to the public. In the case of BAASS and Bigelow, they tend to function alongside non-disclosure agreements so what goes in essentially
vanishes from the public domain. With the suspension of NIDS, very little has come out of Bigelow's ongoing interests in unusual sightings
This has generated a lot of conspiracy and doubts, but perhaps the BAASS folk are trying to keep a clean database? A closed system is less vulnerable
to reports being generated by popular culture.
Peter Davenport (NUFORC) has long been dismayed by the volume of hoax callers and general idiots who waste his time. MUFON, in my opinion, are in some
ways stuck in a feedback loop whereby several UFO writers rely on their reports for articles. This means it's hard to rule out the idea that some
reports are erroneous and posted to provide source material by the same writers or associates. One or two pay-per-click Examiner writers are heavily
reliant on the MUFON reports.
Notwithstanding Bigelow's influence in aerospace, BAASS might be more appealing to the FAA because the reports have no accountability and they can't
be accused of suppressing witness testimony. They won't be subject to articles, books or unwanted publicity.
Of course, the lack of transparency is always ripe for speculation.