'Blockbuster UFO discoveries' set for MUFON's August symposium

Here's hoping that the material will be available for independent study and verification

I lost interest at 'Keynote address by Nick Pope'.

Same faces, with the same schtick, buffet and a band for couple hundred dollars? No thanks.

any more information about this?

Originally posted by TeaAndStrumpets

Originally posted by JimOberg
'Blockbuster UFO discoveries' set for MUFON's August symposium
www.examiner.com...

More promises.

Real scientific advances are made by peer-reviewed checkable claims, not as promotions for conventions.

So Jim, you probably agree that more mainstream scientists should get involved in studying this phenomenon then? Because it would be a little strange to slam the work of what are basically volunteers, on a topic in which you claim to be genuinely interested, while also advocating that the current level of quality NOT be improved.

And I wonder... do you believe the Condon / U. Colorado study was objective and honest science?

No i do not believe that the Condon Report was objective and honest science and neither did this man, good question on the Condon/U Colorado study, the lack or inadequate scientific methods of investigation exposed by Dr MacDonald is not very often remembered or even considered important by those out to explain or play down those UFO reports that are beyond mundane explanations or contain information that points to or shows levels of high strangeness.

James Edward McDonald (May 7, 1920 – June 13, 1971) was an American physicist. He is best known for his research regarding UFOs. McDonald was senior physicist at the Institute for Atmospheric Physics and professor in the Department of Meteorology, University of Arizona, Tucson. McDonald campaigned in support of expanding UFO studies during the mid and late 1960s, arguing that UFOs represented an important unsolved mystery which had not been adequately studied by science.

He was one of the more prominent figures of his time who argued in favor of the extraterrestrial hypothesis as a plausible, but not completely proved, model of UFO phenomena. McDonald interviewed over 500 UFO witnesses, uncovered many important government UFO documents, and gave important presentations of UFO evidence. He testified before Congress during the UFO hearings of 1968[1]. McDonald also gave a famous talk called "Science in Default" to the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). It was a summary of the current UFO evidence and a critique of the 1969 Condon Report UFO study[2].

link; en.wikipedia.org...


MacDonalds paper and talk he gave on "Science in Default" at the United States Congress has to be included in any rejection of the possible reality that SOME UFOs could very well be off world intelligences.

"Science in Default" In 1969, McDonald was a speaker at an American Association for the Advancement of Science UFO symposium. There he delivered a lecture, "Science in Default"[2], which Jerome Clark calls "one of the most powerful scientific defenses of UFO reality ever mounted"[8]. McDonald discussed in detail a handful of well documented UFO cases which seemed, he thought, to defy interpretation by conventional science.

en.wikipedia.org...

"The first release of information is scheduled for Friday, August 3, 2012, at the symposium opening ceremonies. The second information release is planned for Sunday, August 5, 2012, between 4:30 and 6:30 p.m."

Soooo...? Have they dropped the first one yet? I don't know what the time would be over there...

reply to post by Goosegash


I'm not really sure.

The "first release" of this information isn't on the schedule:

2012 Symposium Schedule

Friday August 3
7:30am-8:00pm Registration
8:00am-4:00pm Field Investigator Training (Advanced)
9:00am-1:00pm State Directors Meeting
9:00am-11:00am Business Board meets with State Directors
1:00pm-4:00pm Field Investigator Training (Test Prep)
6:00pm-7:00pm Benefactors Poolside cocktail and Reception (Cash bar)
7:00pm- Banquet Dinner with Nick Pope
Saturday August 4
9:00am-9:15am Opening and Welcome
9:15am-10:30am T.L. Keller
10:45am-Noon Geraldine Stith
Noon-1:30pm Luncheon with Travis Walton
1:45pm-2:45pm Kathleen Mardin
3:00pm-4:00pm George Filer
4:15pm-5:00pm Thomas Reed
5:15pm-6:15pm Donald Schmitt
Sunday August 5
9:00am-4:00pm National Air Force Museum at Wright–Patterson Air Force Base
4:30pm-6:30pm National Release of “Blockbuster” UFO discovery
7:00pm- Closing Banquet with Stanton Friedman Followed by
Jam Session featuring the ‘Men in Black” and various
MUFON Musicians.

Only the second release is on the schedule...

reply to post by thesearchfortruth


I noticed that too.
We'll just have to wait 'til sunday. You know, just before Stan & the jam band (urgh!...)

Originally posted by Atlantican
I believe the disclosure people seek will happen once they no longer care for it. Until then, people aren't ready and it won't be disclosed.

I Agree. However i wouldn't say when people no longer care , but when people are no longer worried and scared and even religious.

I'm sick to death of the amount of times over the years (I'm not young) I've heard people say that amazing discoveries, the truth will be revealed, rapture is about to happen, there's going to be an apocalypse, disclosure (rebrand) is imminent etc. If I had a £1 for each time it's tuned out to be a damp squib I would be a millionaire. Most likely this will be another straight to VHS dud like all the rest...

Ok it looks like the first announcement has been made .

Sixty volumes of “meticulous UFO research over 30 years” by the late Ufologist Leonard H. Stringfield were donated to the Mutual UFO Network (MUFON), according to an August 3, 2012, announcement by MUFON Executive Director David MacDonald who spoke at the organization’s annual symposium.

The news of Stringfield’s work surfacing and in MUFON’s hands now had been kept secret prior to the 8 p.m. announcement as one of two “blockbuster UFO discoveries” that the group was to make at the Cincinnati event. A second briefing will be made about 4:30 p.m. on Sunday, August 5.
www.examiner.com...

Well I'm looking forward to seeing whats in there , I hope they publish them sooner rather than later ..... One down one to go

Leonard H. Stringfield
Stringfield's interest in the subject began August 28, 1945, just three days before the end of the war, when he was an Army Air Force intelligence officer en route to Tokyo, Japan, along with twelve other specialists in the Fifth Air Force.

As they approached Iwo Jima at about ten thousand feet in a sunlit sky, Stringfield related: "I was shocked to see three teardrop-shaped objects from my starboard-side window. They were brilliantly white, like burning magnesium, and closing in on a parallel course to our C-46.
Suddenly our left engine feathered, and I was later to learn that the magnetic navigation-instrument needles went wild. As the C-46 lost altitude, with oil spurting from the troubled engine, the pilot sounded an alert; crew and passengers were told to prepare for a ditch! I do not recall my thoughts or actions during the next, horrifying moments, but my last glimpse of the three bogies placed them about 20 degrees above the level of our transport. Flying in the same, tight formation, they faded into a cloud bank. Instantly our craft's engine revved up, and we picked up altitude and flew a steady course to land safely at Iwo Jima."

Stringfield first publicly reported his so-called "crash/retrieval" findings at a 1978 MUFON Symposium. He said he received two death threats beforehand, but was never sure who was behind them or how serious they were. Thereafter, he self-published seven "Status Reports" on new crash-retrieval research until his death in 1994.
en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by gortex



Hey, It's better than a lot of people thought....
I personally can't wait to see the files, but I guess it depends on what's in them.

now on to the second announcement...

But lets be honest. Its not mind blowing, will not make
the news, and will not sway the skeptics

reply to post by Jay-morris


No but its fresh stuff to delve around in and it may contain some nuggets of interesting information , I'm willing to bet that it will be more informative than the recent file dump from our Government

It seems that Leonard Stringfield had some good connections and important friends so maybe there's some interesting correspondents in there , I'm also interested in what may be contained in his crash retrieval files .

WHO's WHO in UFOLOGY

Originally posted by gortex
reply to post by Jay-morris

 

No but its fresh stuff to delve around in and it may contain some nuggets of interesting information , I'm willing to bet that it will be more informative than the recent file dump from our Government

It seems that Leonard Stringfield had some good connections and important friends so maybe there's some interesting correspondents in there , I'm also interested in what may be contained in his crash retrieval files .

edit on 4-8-2012 by gortex because: (no reason given)

As someone who is interested in the subject, i look forward to
finding out whats in these files. The annoying thing is, they were
bigging the news up. I even emailed them and they said the news
is huge. But at the end of the day, the people into the subject will
be interested, and thats about it.

I know there will be another big annoncement, but i think this will
be missleading too

Well, Stringfield is an origonal....real researcher from way way back.....his crash retrieval specialty and the sources he had back then when airforce and other servicemen were willing to talk more to civvies....
The guy is a ledgend fer petes sake...thus is maybe huge.....

reply to post by gortex

hardly "blockbuster" information. self-aggrandizement if you ask me. why is his story (repeat... story) any more groundbreaking than say Philip Corso's or any of the other information gathered from the Disclosure Project? BIG DEAL

Stringfield never revealed his sources his entire life - they were allegedly

high ranking CIA, Air Force, and other secret government operatives.

If his crib notes include their names, and more details on their leaked info,

THAT would be cool.

Personally I think Curiousity Mars rover will dig up something far more interesting

than MUFON starting 3 hours from now....

I personally think that if Stringfield had any legitimate information then those files would have been confiscated after his death.. so while i'm interested in reading through it, I think it will be a lot like other stuff we've already seen.. with no definitive information or proof .. just conjecture

But we'll see... I'm curious what this second big blockbuster thing is.

Originally posted by JimOberg
'Blockbuster UFO discoveries' set for MUFON's August symposium
www.examiner.com...

More promises.

Real scientific advances are made by peer-reviewed checkable claims, not as promotions for conventions.

This is a bit ambiguous. Is the requirement of "peer-reviewed checkable claims" supposed to be for the discovery of the mere existence of UFOs, or is it supposed to be for the 'how' or 'what' of UFOs?

If the requirement is supposed to refer to the existence of UFOs as a class of craft exhibiting extraordinary flight characteristics, then you're grossly misapplying the concept of justification - an enormous data set already exists to provide sufficient evidence for the existence of such craft. In other words, you don't need "peer-reviewed checkable claims" to have sufficient evidence to justify the existence of them. It would, however, appear to still require more evidence if one were to focus their entire study of UFOs on the weakest cases, hoaxes, obvious cases of misidentification, etc. It would also appear to still require further evidence if, when focusing on the strong cases, one were to simply ignore the evidence. Of course, if there were a peer-reviewed study, it would add to the justification for their existence, but it wouldn't be telling us anything we already know.

But if the requirement of "peer-reviewed checkable claims" is supposed to be for the how or what of UFOs, that might be more appropriate, as understanding the mechanics of such craft would require laboratory engineering tests. Nonetheless, it's still barking up the wrong tree, as there are no publicly available craft available for public testing. But even if there were no peer-reviewed studies, as long as the schematics and the studies were publicly available, then their veracity could be tested by anyone with sufficient engineering knowledge. So even in this case, peer-reviewed studies would not be necessary to sufficiently justify a belief regarding the actual mechanics of such craft. It would, however, add to such justification, but would still be unnecessary as far as the sufficiency of the evidence is concerned.

These elementary errors in thinking about evidence and justification are actually very common among debunkers. It is to unnecessarily continue to raise the evidentiary bar in order to continue to maintain a preconceived belief regarding the non-existence of UFOs.

There already exists a large number of very strong cases to sufficiently justify a belief in the existence of UFOs as a class of craft exhibiting enormously advanced flight characteristics. As to their mechanics or any further questions, we're still largely in the dark..