Huffington Post is destroying UFO Research

Originally posted by Druscilla

UFOlogy's only hope comes from skepticism and accredited doctorates who don't play footsies with or give any cotton to UFOs.

It's the Dana Skully paradigm. You can have 100 Billion wide eyed mouth gawking Mulders believing in whatever, but, it won't mean a single bit of spit of nothing, and even risk doing untold amounts damage to the credibility of anything coming out of "UFOlogy".

If, however, Skully sees it, and recognizes it, and gives it her thumbs up, then, only then you might maybe could possibly perhaps have something.

So who decides who has the relevant qualifications for this job?

reply to post by deprogrammer

The problem with a lot of UFO news sources is that they report more frequently than there is worthwhile news. They commit to more than they can deliver, so they end up dishing up weak, repetitive or disreputable material.

There are many things destroying UFOlogy, but when one simply looks at the case history, one HAS to ask the following question: What happened to all the truly GREAT cases? The days of prolonged flaps with multitudes of witnesses are GONE, and they have been gone for a long time now.

We are left with orbs, a craft here and there, and a bunch of people trying to squeeze a buck from folks who are curious enough to believe.

A worthy endeavour may be to devise a way to see if our internet is being monitored from an "outside source."

Originally posted by BullwinkleKicksButt

So who decides who has the relevant qualifications for this job?

All the other Dana Skullys.

The UFO phenomenon, including side-show elements like alien contacts requires extreme prejudice.

If you can get all the talking heads and the rest of the peer review community to step up and confirm, then, you've got something.

Everything that doesn't confirm nor inspires anyone worth anything to step up and confirm has any real value except to 'collectors'. Like baseball cards and beanie babies, UFO stories and so called associated "evidence" are worthless to those that don't care.

Bring out the collector's card that's worth $1,000,000 though, and you might get some attention.

Thing is, there's yet to be a $1,000,000 trading card in the UFO deck.

reply to post by deprogrammer


No single media outlet can be responsible for swaying a conversation to one direction or another.

All the media outlets treat UFO's and the subject of aliens the same. There's a pretty good reason for that, considering the entire Ufology movement is mostly run by charlatans and people who have poor understanding of science and history.

I can't blame the world media for not paying serious attention to something like that.

Personally I believe most of the UFO stuff can be chalked up to military craft and other R&D.

I have severe problems with the theory of light or warp travel that haven't yet been reconciled by science.

~Tenth

reply to post by deprogrammer

Huffington Post is destroying UFO Research

Huff Puffington has always been about politics and glamor. Their articles are not news... not in the purer sense. But then again... that commodity is almost extinct now anyway. Nevertheless, one doesn't go to Puff's magic cave to find news. People go to find opinion that matches their own or drives them to attacks those who don't.

Does anyone recall Ariana Huffington on camera stage and in a bed during the 2000 election? It was quite a show... and for all that really matters, it still is.

The UFO community has nothing to fear from this quarter.

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
I have severe problems with the theory of light or warp travel that haven't yet been reconciled by science.

~Tenth

You have a lot of faith in such science to consider that it might be capable of answering our deeper questions. Like consciousness and gravity for example. Not to mention the state physics is in: "Quantum? String? Plasma? Hell, we don't know..."

Other than that, yeah, I know what you mean...

reply to post by The GUT

You have a lot of faith in such science to consider that it might be capable of answering our deeper questions. Like consciousness and gravity for example. Not to mention the state physics is in: "Quantum? String? Plasma? Hell, we don't know..."

Oh trust me, quantum physics is what makes me most skeptical of that sort of technological feat. Don't get wrong, I've read enough science fiction and seen enough real science to know that anything is quite possible.

I just can't bring myself to believe certain things, until people who are smarter, better educated and understanding of these concepts show me their discoveries and subsequent peer reviewed research.

~Tenth

Originally posted by Druscilla

Originally posted by BullwinkleKicksButt

So who decides who has the relevant qualifications for this job?

All the other Dana Skullys.

The UFO phenomenon, including side-show elements like alien contacts requires extreme prejudice.

If you can get all the talking heads and the rest of the peer review community to step up and confirm, then, you've got something.

Everything that doesn't confirm nor inspires anyone worth anything to step up and confirm has any real value except to 'collectors'. Like baseball cards and beanie babies, UFO stories and so called associated "evidence" are worthless to those that don't care.

Bring out the collector's card that's worth $1,000,000 though, and you might get some attention.

Thing is, there's yet to be a $1,000,000 trading card in the UFO deck.

So who decides who has the qualifications to be a Dana Skully?

The problem I see with UFOLOGY is that the majority of people aren't truly objective, they have too much ego and want to prove their point of view is correct, that includes the "Dana Skullys".
Very few actually investigate they just give their POS point of view.. The only person here I see truly investigating this area is probably Isaac and maybe two others, and I don't even think they would be qualified to be a Dana Skully.

Probably the closest person to having somewhere near the right credentials is probably Dr Allen Hynek, but he is no longer with us.

Bob Bigelow sponsors/ed research into studying the phenomena but no longer shares the data with the general public.

Originally posted by BullwinkleKicksButt

So who decides who has the qualifications to be a Dana Skully?

The problem I see with UFOLOGY is that the majority of people aren't truly objective, they have too much ego and want to prove their point of view is correct, that includes the "Dana Skullys".
Very few actually investigate they just give their POS point of view.. The only person here I see truly investigating this area is probably Isaac and maybe two others, and I don't even think they would be qualified to be a Dana Skully.

Probably the closest person to having somewhere near the right credentials is probably Dr Allen Hynek, but he is no longer with us.

Bob Bigelow sponsors/ed research into studying the phenomena but no longer shares the data with the general public.

What part of "accredited doctorates who don't play footsies with or give any cotton to UFOs" from my earlier statement is causing a problem or hard to understand?

Let's put it this way: everyone that's discounted, laughed at, or made jokes of UFOs and Aliens needs to believe.
You need to bring the mountain to Mohammad.

In other words, you need to have predictable replicable physical access to UFOs and or Aliens, and be capable of presenting such to anyone at any time for verification unconditionally.
We need a UFO and/or Alien bodies (alive or dead) in the public domain to poke at.

reply to post by Druscilla


Or just any sort of proof of their existence and interaction would do.
A radio signal from deep space.
An archaeological dig that turns up undeniable evidence.
Etc.

We don't need a body. Just something to give to our "doctorates" so we can say see, we aren't crazy. Now what are we gonna do about it?

Would we still sit on our hands and say "not until we have a body?"

That would be foolish.

ETA: also, if you consider for a moment that all of the stories may be true (Roswell bodies, craft, etc.) What does this say about our doctorates? Only once the gov says its OK to take a subject seriously?

If that's the case maybe we should consider phasing out the scientific method for a better philosophy.

reply to post by JayinAR


Sure, a verified and verifiable radio message might do the trick as far as intelligent life somewhere in the galaxy goes, but, I thought we were talking about the mythology of UFOs here on Earth, plus the sideshow add-on of the possibility of Aliens visiting Earth.

I doubt there's a scientist alive today, or anyone on the planet that would deny there's strong probability for life and even intelligent, technologically advanced, socially organized life somewhere in the Universe, or even our Galaxy.

Visiting Earth?
The mythology associated with such, all recorded, reported, examined, researched, perpetuated and built up by the UFO circus, regardless intentions, is such a bulwark AGAINST proper examination of the subject that every case that's ever existed contaminates every other case.

It's going to take a pure, virgin event, untouched, unknown, and unexamined by contaminating agents associated with UFOfology in any way, to be discovered, and reported then recognized by the peer review community who can back up and replicate the same findings.

Edit: there's two sides to your coin about UFO stories. What if all those fun little stories are the stuff of fantasy, delusion, mistaken identity, willful purpose told lies, Asch Conformity, Sympathetic Social Collusion, the result of entirely Earth based and Earthbound studies and projects?

What part of "accredited doctorates who don't play footsies with or give any cotton to UFOs" from my earlier statement is causing a problem or hard to understand?

I say we contact bunches of PhD's immediately. Of course they would love to participate. They have just never been offered the chance!!! It was so simple all along.

Let's put it this way: everyone that's discounted, laughed at, or made jokes of UFOs and Aliens needs to believe. You need to bring the mountain to Mohammad. We need a UFO and/or Alien bodies (alive or dead) in the public domain to poke at.

I love the one step scientific method too. It is so much easier than the other pain in the rear version.

reply to post by TheEthicalSkeptic


Actually, it's much easier than that.
There's this thing called a Skinner Box with a button inside of it and if you push the button enough times, UFOs and Aliens will finally get recognized as being f'real, true, fosho.

All the world leaders will admit to being reptilians. All the secret UFO bases will get opened up for group tours. Souvenir implants will be available to everyone and anyone. Cattle mutilation demonstrations will be carried out at all the Agricultural and Farming Universities. Abduction training seminars will be held. Yup.

Actually, it's much easier than that.
There's this thing called a Skinner Box with a button inside of it and if you push the button enough times, UFOs and Aliens will finally get recognized as being f'real, true, fosho.

All the world leaders will admit to being reptilians. All the secret UFO bases will get opened up for group tours. Souvenir implants will be available to everyone and anyone. Cattle mutilation demonstrations will be carried out at all the Agricultural and Farming Universities. Abduction training seminars will be held. Yup.

Yes, decathexis is most efficient when formulated from the homogenous illusion or promotion of hyper-memes.

reply to post by Druscilla

Edit: there's two sides to your coin about UFO stories. What if all those fun little stories are the stuff of fantasy, delusion, mistaken identity, willful purpose told lies, Asch Conformity, Sympathetic Social Collusion, the result of entirely Earth based and Earthbound studies and projects?

Well of course there is that side as well. But my point is that with all of the stories from seemingly credible people, you would think that a responsible doctorate would have a hypothesis to start work with. And there are those who HAVE taken up the task. However, I feel there should be many more.

The implications of being caught with your pants down by a potentially hostile race of alien beings visiting from another star system are SO SEVERE that it seems to border sheer insanity that we are currently doing very little real science in these directions.

It goes back to the religious argument of "what if I am right?"
But in this case there are potential real world consequences for inaction.

In any event there is little you or I can do about any of this and a very important field of study sits in shambles.

I personally feel that these big cases I mentioned earlier are gone now because our visitors have realized they don't have to come all the way down to the ground anymore to monitor us. They could be on the internet with us right now.

I know you don't share the view of them even being real..just speaking my mind.
There is an avenue of serious research to be had there...

Science starts with an observation, right?
Shouldn't we consider UFOs "observed" by now?

Originally posted by JayinAR
Science starts with an observation, right?
Shouldn't we consider UFOs "observed" by now?

Observation and Problem Formulation, yes Jay. But there is a filter which prevents us from wasting our time on ideas which can only serve to distract and tax the resources and focus of science. It is called Ockham's Razor, and it states "Plurality should not be posited without necessity."

Plurality is the condition where an idea has been introduced 1) above and beyond accepted science (plurality stacks), or 2) suggesting an alternative view of current observation explanations (horizontal plurality).

There exists indeed a large database of documented observation. This is not in question. The question is, have we enough gravitas inside this observation base to pluralize science's understanding of these observations. (ie. suggest that several constructs need to be investigated at once - horizontal plurality). These are not yet theories, as theories demand selective predictive testing and iterative maturation in order to become a theory.

However, it is the job of the current cabal of skeptics (until this generation dies off and a new one with fresh ideas comes into power) to prevent plurality from being established on a specific set of subjects, including UFO's, at all costs. You will find that these forbidden subjects all relate to a common thematic element, the mystery of our presence on this planet. Despite the ample credible evidence for evolution, we remain yet an enigma nonetheless.

This vehement denial of the right to perform or undertake the process of science, constitutes in itself an extraordinarily interesting set of studies. Between this obfuscation of science and the totalitarian enforcements of religion, we find ourselves cocooned inside an elegant set of bookends of ignorance.

But they are both losing the battle.

Originally posted by TheEthicalSkeptic

Yes, decathexis is most efficient when formulated from the homogenous illusion or promotion of hyper-memes.

Was that a symptomatic expression of Grandiosity I detected? Though a cute try, it was hopelessly confused regarding the difference between a retraction and sarcasm. What's the internet vernacular now: Do you even DSM?
Thank you for the laugh, but, please do try to stay on topic. The topic is not me, or you. The topic lies somewhere along the lines of the utter and complete failings of UFOlogy, albeit blamed on outside sources such The Huffington Post. It'd be nice were you to contribute along those lines.

Originally posted by JayinAR
In any event there is little you or I can do about any of this and a very important field of study sits in shambles.

I agree there's very little we can do. I'm more than happy with a working classification of "Unknown" as applies the UFO phenomenon until such time as "Unknown" may be quantifiable.
There's nothing wrong with "Unknown". There's nothing wrong with saying "I don't know".
As to its importance ranking of 'very', well, that depends on what's to be seen.

Originally posted by JayinAR
Science starts with an observation, right?
Shouldn't we consider UFOs "observed" by now?

Off topic: Just a friendly criticism, not an attack: You could have added that to your previous post in an edit. You've 4 hours from point of post to addendum. I see you adding these extra statements all over the place on other topics. It makes it look like you're begging attention. Note how I've responded to TWO of your posts, AND another member in just one post.

In reply to your statement about observation, yes, observation is a part of science.
What, however, are the observations?
By Who or Whom?
Are they consistent?
Are they reliable?
Can they be replicated?
Can they be predicted?
Can these observations be verified?
also by Who or Whom?
Can these observations be tested?

What data is collected, how, and by Who or Whom?
Has the data been collated, and how?

Are all the data subsets included, including the obvious frauds, or has the data been culled?
If culled, by what means?

We can go on, and ask pages of questions, and in the end, after 70ish years of modern interest in the phenomenon, regardless these "observations", we still have UFO - Unidentified; classification "Unknown", despite sundry attempts to formulate hypotheses after the fact to fit non-objective perceptions of some specific data sets.

All we can really do is wait.
We wait until we either have the technology to make confirming observations, and/or discover means by which reliable, predictable, replicable and testable observations might be achieved, and/or recreate the phenomenon by accident, and/or capture a representative (if nontransient) sample of the phenomenon, and/or the phenomenon (if from intelligent agency as some would like to think) willfully makes itself known.
There's more, sure, but, the gist is, we wait.
We accept the phenomenon as an unknown for now, and we wait.

Thank you for the laugh, but, please do try to stay on topic. The topic is not me, or you. The topic lies somewhere along the lines of the utter and complete failings of UFOlogy, albeit blamed on outside sources such The Huffington Post. It'd be nice were you to contribute along those lines.

No, you missed what I said. It was a critique of the action of broadsweeping generalizations about the failings of UFO'ology; not of you personally. And I did not see ne'er a mention of me in the whole thing. So, now that you have attempted to insult me personally..... I will not respond in kind...

Let's get back to the subject.