Which UFO researchers do you trust?

There are so many frauds making up false claims, hoaxes, and stories to try to make money off of UFOs. I wanted to hear some responses to the following question: which UFO researchers do you trust, and why?

for me, my most trusted UFOlogist has always been Jacques Vallee. I believe he looks at the issue completely objectively, and is not afraid to admit where he has made mistakes/gone wrong. I also enjoy the works of Kevin Randle and Richard Dolan. All three, in my opinion, are genuinely interested in finding the true answer to the UFO question.

If you are a skeptic, (or not) please remember this researcher does not have to be pro-UFO. Skeptics are of course completely allowed.

So, ATS, which UFO researcher(s) (if any) do you trust the most?

I guess I would have to answer with someone I know personally (and locally), Sharon Larkin, she's a committed Ufologist.

Here is an excerpt from the local paper on something she was interviewed over. (apologies to the mods if I have copied and pasted too much, I know the author, doubt he would mind).

UFO sighting spooks Carlisle couple

Workington based UFO investigator Sharon Larkin, 36, believes that most UFO sightings can be explained in earthly terms, but not all of them.

“There are a handful that can’t be explained,” said Sharon.

During 2008, there have been some memorable sightings, some strange enough to make the headlines.

Sharon says some reports are the result of a trend to light paper lanterns which can be lifted high into the air by thermal currents, even on cold nights.

Others have been harder to explain, she said, particularly those over the Solway in the area around Dundrennan.

Memorable UFO sightings during 2008 in Cumbria include:

December: several reports of a cluster of orange lights flitting around the sky at around 8pm;

November 5, Solway Firth: orange lights rising steadily upwards, before finally disappearing;

Cartmel, October 11: a dozen orange, circular objects seen flying across the sky at 10.30pm. Followed short time later by four similar objects;

Kendal, October 6: witness reports of circular object with a comet-like tail flying above Hallgarth Estate. One witness said the bright object, said to be quick and silent, was just 200 metres above houses;

October 5, Penrith: bright object seen “shooting” from the west from the Solway;

September 23, Penrith: witness describes seeing bright oval-shaped light, white at the front and orange in the middle, flying across the sky. From the back came sparks and its speed was constant.

Sharon became interested in UFOs after a close encounter in Broughton in 1999.

“It was about 8pm, and we saw this huge black triangle in the sky, with a red light underneath and three white lights at the corners,” she said.

“The thing was about half the size of a football pitch and almost noiseless.

“The only sound was a faint electric humming noise, like electricity.

“Looking at it, we felt fear as well as excitement, and then it turned around and started coming down towards us. We all jumped in the car and drove off as fast we could.”

UFO research comes into the same category as The Loch Ness Monster, The Abominable Snowman and Big Foot. So the answer to your question is none of them. It's all hearsay and conjecture.

reply to post by thesearchfortruth


I'd say (like you) J. Vallee, Kevin Randle, also John Greenewald, Jr, Jerome Clark is good, Nick Redfern, Micah Hanks, Leonard H. Stringfield , John Keel, Raymond E. Fowler...Probably could name more

I would only ever trust a person, religious included, who does NOT charge you for their information. They're no better than any other punk trying to 'get rich quick'.

Phil Shnieder seemed like a nice guy, had the scars to back his story up too, and a few relics.

AceBryan from Youtube wasn't exactly a ufo expert but his channel filtered out a LOT of the fakes and had some really gnarly footage on it.

Myself, as I've witnessed a UFO up close and tell people about it freely, but (in my life) privately, to avoid ridicule. You'll not find many genuine UFO and alien experience-rs (me being the former) as we're scared to be ridiculed. And trust me, ridiculed we are. I've had people outright laugh in my face and that hurts. Really hurts. I suppose we live in that kind of world...... Deny ignorance... Yeah, sure unless someone has a GENUINE account, then beat around the bush telling them they saw everything OTHER than a UFO. Unbelievable.... Anyway back on course.

There's a YouTube channel called 'suspectsky' you might like that one. There's always MUFON, though I SERIOUSLY doubt those guys. Too mainstream. There's Chuck Missler, though a little Christian fundamentalistic.

Errrrr, there's Jordan Maxwell who's dodgier than a tinfoil hat. There's also David Icke, he too is a whole ball of crazy juice.

reply to post by Joneselius

I would only ever trust a person, religious included, who does NOT charge you for their information. They're no better than any other punk trying to 'get rich quick'.

While in some cases you are right, I believe there can be exceptions to this rule.

Selling a book, or documentary to earn money in my opinion, does not necessarily taint the research done. After all, ufo researchers need to feed themselves just like anyone else.

Grant Cameron, Canadian. briefly met him at the 2013 UFO international conference, fort mcdowell, arizona.
very sober, practical, sceptical point of view. have a copy of his talk there. he has lots of contacts with highly placed individuals in the US and Canada with scientific, military , and political background.

Hmmm. Richard Dolan's original works are interesting. But he's recently decided to "speculate" on the very dubious claims of a "Breakaway Society" that travel to the stars.

I think Nick Pope is fairly reasonable in his assessments but will often play to the media to get his voice heard. He often has little to say of any substance on some matters.

Many people will probably refer to Stanton Friedman. I find him to be entertaining but somewhat out of touch these days. He dwells on Roswell and the Hill's abduction , and displays limited interest in more modern case.

If you want a decent skeptic then Tim Printy writes up a decent free bi-monthly pdf "SunLite" .

Full website here : home.comcast.net...

reply to post by thesearchfortruth


One of the largest problems I see with "UFOlogy" are the Ufologist 'researchers', and adherents to the phenomenon which often enough seem to muddy the waters of the subject more so than shedding any light.

Besides that, even including the often touted 'evidence' we hear so much and so often about, after some 70 years of modern interest, examination and interrogation of the topic, all we really have for the effort is "I don't know" underlying tons of a colorful sweet frosting of speculations in abundance.

The speculations are so prevalent and pervasive that many are even presented and argued as FACT!

In the end, however, we still have a "I don't know".

"I don't know" is okay, and fine. Acknowledging that an unknown remains unknown and attempting to quantify it is one of the cornerstones of science.

I think the best chance for "UFOlogy" are its detractors, the skeptics that would really love to see and meet aliens, but interrogate the topic with the most extreme of extreme prejudice such that when/if any confirming evidence or anything real and worthwhile comes along, it's something to actually sit up and pay attention to.
Call it the Dana Skully paradigm.
If Dana Skully sees aliens, then, we got aliens, otherwise, all we got a lot of spooky Mulder.

Anyone already believing in ETH, or some other narrow non-objective pet speculation is suspect for injection of their own belief into their investigations.
This too goes for folks of former and past objectivity that have drank the koolaid and thus lost their objectivity in favor of ETH, or whichever other narrow scope speculative idea they favor.

Objectively, everything needs be left on the table as a possibility and even probability, especially those possibilities and probabilities that could very well be considered 'boring' explanations like uncategorized natural phenomenon.

Thus, I side with the detractors and skeptics as the only real HOPE for "UFOlogy".

Personally, I think research should be judged only by the facts presented, and not by the person who has presented them. If there are no actual facts to present, then the information isn't really worth much at all.......

I don't trust any researcher, they're all human.
Humans aren't very intelligent.

Dr. Jacques Vallee - His sheer brilliance in asking the kind of questions that suggest answers.

Dr. J Allen Hynek - He overcame his own skepticism, rebelled against being a stooge for the gubmint, and inspired a lot of researchers.

John Keel - Despite his flaws, he was a heavy-duty thinker that even inspired the scientists listed above.

Dr. Harley Rutledge - Because he went for it with Project Identification. Go big or go home they say: He went big.

Greg Bishop - He keeps an open mind, digs deep, and isn't afraid to speak his mind.

Karl 12 - His excellent research skills and facility for collating information in an easy to take in manner.

Originally posted by alldaylong
UFO research comes into the same category as The Loch Ness Monster, The Abominable Snowman and Big Foot. So the answer to your question is none of them. It's all hearsay and conjecture.

wow
ignorant or what

as for people to trust, 'the gut' in the above post listed all good people
and i'd add our own ATS member isaac koi to that list. he has every single ufo book ever published
his threads here are a wealth of information not seen anywhere else

reply to post by thesearchfortruth


1. Guy Malone

www.alienresistance.org...

2. Stan Deyo

www.standeyo.com...

3. L.A. Marzulli

www.lamarzulli.net...

4. Cris Putnam and Tom Horn

www.logosapologia.com...

5. Chuck Missler

khouse.org...


6. Stanton Friedman

mostly . . . he seems to have swallowed the PTB swill about the critters being nice or neutral or whatever but I think he has a fair amount of integrity about his research methods and diligence.

www.stantonfriedman.com...

7. Timothy Good

mostly. I believe he has a LOT of integrity and good solid research methods and a lot of high level connections as well as tenacity and diligence.

He also seems to have bought overmuch into the PTB's explanation. Yet, he does realize to an evidently above average degree that the critters may not be as they claim and may well be quite evil and destructive to mankind.


8. Linda Moulton Howe

mostly.

www.earthfiles.com...

She also seems to have bought over much into the PTB claims about the critters being benign or "saviors" or some such. He seems to be awash in Eastern Religion mysticism that also seems to over much color her interpretation of such goings on.

However, I respect a lot her research methodology and sheer doggedness.

9. Paola Leopizzi Harris

mostly

www.paolaharris.com...

I think Paola--whom I've also spoken with face to face at some length . . . seems to also have bought into the PTB explanations of who the critters are and how benign to wonderful space brothers-saviors they are. Yet, she seems to have a fairly solid style of insisting the her interviewees and the evidence must speak for themselves without much, if any interpretation by herself.

10. Col Philip Corso

somewhat to mostly.

I think he shared a lot of truth as he knew it. I don't know how much of what he was shown or worked with was disinformation of one sort or another.

= = = = =

There are some others I respect a fair amount. Maybe I can comment on those later.

Good topic.

Originally posted by SecretKnowledge

Originally posted by alldaylong
UFO research comes into the same category as The Loch Ness Monster, The Abominable Snowman and Big Foot. So the answer to your question is none of them. It's all hearsay and conjecture.

wow
ignorant or what

as for people to trust, 'the gut' in the above post listed all good people
and i'd add our own ATS member isaac koi to that list. he has every single ufo book ever published
his threads here are a wealth of information not seen anywhere else

edit on 3/7/13 by SecretKnowledge because: (no reason given)

Was going to pick up on the top comment and I agree with the reply and plus, there isn't a mountain of government documents, civilian pilot documents and run of the mill people reports on Bigfoot, Yeti or the Loch Ness Monster, big difference to UFOs my friend

Also, on ATS members, I give a nod in the direction of the skeptics (not debunkers) for keeping it real with some "UFO"s. Gives this place a bit of stability sometimes

Originally posted by Zcustosmorum
Also, on ATS members, I give a nod in the direction of the skeptics (not debunkers) for keeping it real with some "UFO"s. Gives this place a bit of stability sometimes

Great point. Agreed. I actually almost listed Gortex and should have. So I make that amendment now. And SecretKnowledge makes a fine point about IsaacKoi as well.

Btw: IsaacKoi was given a shout-out for some research assistance by Jacques Vallee and Chris Aubeck in Wonders in the Sky: Unexplained Aerial Objects from Antiquity to Modern Times

reply to post by The GUT

Btw: IsaacKoi was given a shout-out for some research assistance by Jacques Vallee and Chris Aubeck in Wonders in the Sky: Unexplained Aerial Objects from Antiquity to Modern Times

Learn something new every day

Originally posted by thesearchfortruth
reply to post by Joneselius

 

While in some cases you are right, I believe there can be exceptions to this rule.

Selling a book, or documentary to earn money in my opinion, does not necessarily taint the research done. After all, ufo researchers need to feed themselves just like anyone else.

[color=6699FF]absolutely indeed

[color=6699FF]Guy Malone offers his stuff for whatever the reader/viewer cares to donate. Some have not even paid enough for postage. And that's been cool with him. His DVD series of his panel of robust scholarly experts in ancient languages etc. did a top flight job analyzing what the critters are and are about. It's worth a typically high price but he still only asks whatever donation folks voluntarily care to offer. He is a zaney character but very high in integrity and seriously about researching the truth and sharing the truth about the phenomena.
.
.

reply to post by thesearchfortruth


Chris OBrien




books.google.com...

I have done my own investigation in the San Luis valley. All skeptics should visit there. It will change the way you think!!

I do agree with others that John Greenwald is top flight.

I corresponded with him when he was 16 and just starting out. I think he's matured well and is doing a great job.