The UFO Conference Promoters Do Little to Promote Serious Investigation

Aliensun
reply to post by JadeStar

 

As an avid UFO believer, I agree with you somewhat. But I must ask just what sort of fact-finding org would you think that would have the barest chance of success? When I came to Austin in 1978, there was a member org called Project Starlight International. It had a fine suite in a modern building in Austin and a full-time (sympathetic) astronomer on the staff. Out NW of Austin in the Hill Country it had a facility to observe and record. It was backed with a wad of money initially. It evaporated because, supposedly, it offered a time exposure photo taken by a small telescope of a UFO streaking across the night sky and making a 90-degree turn. Again, supposedly, it was later proven that the streak was from a typical satellite and that the camera had been rotated 90-degrees upon the telescope.

It is naïve, in my estimation to think that an independent investigation group can prove anything about UFOs. Similar efforts have been done and have petered out after recording SOMETHINGS, but what exactly were they? UFOs, swamp gas, secret exotic domestic craft, ...what?

The point of science is to determine the truth behind the unknown. I have heard of Project Starlight and forgot all about it but yes, thats exactly the type of thing I am talking about, or Project Hessdalen in Norway.

Its not about "proving UFOs are aliens" either.

It's about learning more about the source(s) of the phenomena no matter what they may turn out to be.

I see precious little of that going on, and instead plenty of assumptions made based on stories which themselves have little in the way of supportive evidence.

olaru12
I have a small state of the art video Production company and this spring I intend to make a documentary of any and all high strangeness
that occurs in and around the San Luis Valley of Southern Colorado, Northern New Mexico.

www.ourstrangeplanet.com...

Should I be compensated for my efforts if I discover and film something like ufo, bigfoot, triangle etc.?

It depends on what your motive is.

If you're looking to profit first and foremost, rather than gathering scientifically usable data then you're likely going to be part of the problem rather than part of the solution.

You have one strike against you in that you run a video production company (Hello Jim Dilettoso).

You have another strike against you if you plan on doing this for profit rather than pure science.

You have a further third strike if you are not open to allowing your source video and other data to being examined free of charge by other citizen scientists.

reply to post by JadeStar


My motives are simple. I'm a filmmaker and an entrepreneurial business man, not a scientist.

If I happen to film something interesting while spending MY money, on MY time; I own the intellectual property [the documentary] of MY efforts.

What I do with what I own, is no one else's business; just like I have no right to tell you what to do with your data.

I'm totally aware that UFO conferences are meant to be profitable enterprises and not scientific inquiries. It's just entertainment.

olaru12
reply to post by JadeStar

 

My motives are simple. I'm a filmmaker and an entrepreneurial business man, not a scientist.

Exactly.

The problem with that is that you will have all the expertise and tools available to you to hoax "video evidence". So unless your video evidence is backed up by some other hard data beyond your field of expertise from someone independent of you (ie: radar from local airport, seismic sensor data from a local university) AND another video from someone else showing the same thing at the same time in roughly the same location your unlikely to further the field simply by posting a video or creating one for sale.

If I happen to film something interesting while spending MY money, on MY time; I own the intellectual property [the documentary] of MY efforts.

It's intellectual property in entertainment.

In science it is data to be examined. If you aren't open to the free examination of your data then like I said, you're adding to the problem.

What I do with what I own, is no one else's business; just like I have no right to tell you what to do with your data.

edit on 18-2-2014 by olaru12 because: (no reason given)

A scientist does not keep "secret data", they may keep it embargoed UNTIL it is published, at which point it is public domain and open to being rigorously examined by the rest of the community.

This is the problem with UFOlogy. It does not do this because the motives are PROFIT ABOVE CREDIBILITY.

You're right, you're not a scientist. You're a profiteer. Probably a hoaxer.

Steven Greer, Stan Romanek, James Gilliland...... seeing a pattern here?

Good luck, I am sure you will have plenty of wide-eyed willing buyers.

This field needs more scientists and less 'filmmakers'.

reply to post by JadeStar

You're right, you're not a scientist. You're a profiteer. Probably a hoaxer.

Your'e not much of a scientist if you subscribe to condemnation before investigation. You just lost all credibility with that insult!

olaru12
reply to post by JadeStar

 

You're right, you're not a scientist. You're a profiteer. Probably a hoaxer.

Your'e not much of a scientist if you subscribe to condemnation before investigation. You just lost all credibility with that insult!

The first two you admitted to being. The third follows logically based on a plethora of empirical history within the field of UFOlogy.

In science, having your research logically criticized is not an insult, its part of the process of learning to gather better data.

If you have a problem with this, gather better data and prove wrong me and any one else who will look upon your work with reasonable skepticism given what you've shared about your expertise in video and your motives.

You have to realize that you have the full weight of the checkered history of other people like yourself within UFOlogy (experts in video production, special effects or model making) to overcome here, if you want to add anything of value to the field. (Which by your own admission, you don't.)

Like I said, this is probably not the thread for you.

Some advice: Contact Bruce Maccabee before embarking on your little adventure. He may be able to guide you towards credibility as he has it.

As far as my credibility.... I don't think you get to determine that, nor do I need you to.

Taking this thread in a more positive direction.

I have a list of scientists who quietly and almost unknown to most in the UFO field are looking at the UFO Phenomena and the possibility of visitation either past or present by intelligent aliens to our solar system.

These are all fairly credible people who have kept an open mind on the subject and have in the past or are conducting research into it.

Some even have papers published in peer-reviewed journals.

Some have even openly advocated further scientific research into it all.

One even posts here on ATS.

You will not find any of them on the UFO conference/lecture circuit though.

I'll make separate thread with them either this week or next week.

I will do this to illustrate the difference in real research and what passes for "research" at these circus side shows.

Looking over the list of those who spoke at the recent large UFO conference in Arizona, it seems a rather mixed bag. Some obviously have very dubious, unsupported claims to make, but this not universally the case.
Among the speakers was Dr. Jeffery Bennett, astrophysicist, who spoke on the scientific search for life in outer space. There was also Richard B. Hoover who has done work in astrophysics and astrobiology for NASA for years. Also Dr. John Alexander.
I quote from the synopsis of his talk: "Wild, unsubstantiated claims in the field may be titillating and entertaining, but are contraindicated, and are detrimental to furthering high quality research. Many high profile ""UFO experts" pontificate on demonstratively false premises." He seems to agree with the premise of the OP.

The far from ideal reality is that there is obviously more than just scientific discourse going on at UFO conferences. Some people have neither the ability or inclination to apply scientific reason to the subject of UFOs. They may still find the idea of extraterrestrials visitors exciting or entertaining. Their interests are being accommodated by the organizers of these events, who are obviously not scientists either.
It occurs to me that we should not call much of what goes on at these conferences 'Ufology', saving that for the the scientists past and present who have given serious attention to the UFO problem.

JadeStar
Taking this thread in a more positive direction.

I have a list of scientists who quietly and almost unknown to most in the UFO field are looking at the UFO Phenomena and the possibility of visitation either past or present by intelligent aliens to our solar system.

These are all fairly credible people who have kept an open mind on the subject and have in the past or are conducting research into it.

Some even have papers published in peer-reviewed journals.

Some have even openly advocated further scientific research into it all.

One even posts here on ATS.

You will not find any of them on the UFO conference/lecture circuit though.

I'll make separate thread with them either this week or next week.

I will do this to illustrate the difference in real research and what passes for "research" at these circus side shows.

edit on 18-2-2014 by JadeStar because: (no reason given)

Oh wow. I'd be very interested in this. Do you know their personal conclusions as to the phenomena?

reply to post by JadeStar


I agree UFO conferences don't really help with new research, but it could at least be argued that they help educate the public.

In my opinion, the biggest problem ufology faces (outside of hoaxers/charlatans) is the media. On the rare occasions the subject is discussed, it is usually ridiculed. If people were properly educated perhaps ufology would be richer and more popular.

Here's how ufology works. i believe in ufo's or i don't (i do, because i have seen them). Here's how paranormal reserach works. I believe in the paranormal or i don't (i do, because i have experienced it). Here's how politics works, i believe that our elected officials do they're jobs once elected or i don't. ( i don't. i have never epxerienced that, nor will i ever). see? easy as pie. ufology is one thing. tourist traps are another. expecting a monetary resolution to the "ufo" question is problematical. ufo's exist. there is no debate. the paranormal exists, because we have the bible. what? who wouldn't classify the bible as a paranormal manifestation? it just makes a great example. we get the best government money can buy. Horse Hockey !!!!!!!!
So, still wanna throw a huge amount of cash at the "ufo enigma"? if you want to make the word "money" and "ufo" work together, try this sentence, because i believe it makes total sense.l "it's time we start investing in bigger, better, bad-a$$ lasers, i'm just saying, because if those are "manned" space-craft? the assertion they must be enlightened could be fatal".
Keep Looking Up! (what movie is that from ?)

thesearchfortruth
reply to post by JadeStar

 

I agree UFO conferences don't really help with new research, but it could at least be argued that they help educate the public.

In my opinion, the biggest problem ufology faces (outside of hoaxers/charlatans) is the media. On the rare occasions the subject is discussed, it is usually ridiculed. If people were properly educated perhaps ufology would be richer and more popular.

edit on 18-2-2014 by thesearchfortruth because: eta

I get your point. However, being a christian and all that jazz, I see the same going on with "religion". Not to stray off topic but the last thing christianity (mind you any other religion) needs is another extreme form of representation. Notions that negate logic in spite of emotion are not only ignorant but misrepresented by the few who we claim to represent us. This closed minded approach detested by both the optimists and skeptics will continue to be the biggest hurdle in unraveling the "truth". Jmho of course.

The thing is that the 2001 NIDS paper shows that Bigelow has built the equipment for a detection system. The research that JadeStar is talking about is going on. We just don't know where. If we could figure out how much area one of these stations would cover, we might be able to pin down how large of an area could be, or was, instrumented. Also the size of one of these things, and what they could be concealed as.

Basically one good avenue of research would be to hunt the hunters. Imagine getting pictures of one of these station; maybe we could open Bigelow up by forcing his hand?

I don't generally agree with the OP but in this case I do. All these conferences including Citizens Hearing for which I paid the small $$ amount tell us pretty much nothing. I stopped watching them after day 2 or 3 with the endless videos in which there is nothing to look at.

And what is this organization that you work for, that you mention so many times? SETI? MUFON?

In my direction of Astronomy I was searching for something either less engineering like, less of the typical Astronomy where you are either a teacher or professor and sometimes in observatory; and at best - search for UFO visitation. I also know that just like astronomers, UFO investigators are not big money makers and there is little living to do with them.

So what kind of occupation is that? What do you do? I feel like entering such a field much more than Astrophysics due to the importance of other life but I'm just seeing what kind of career exists there without making a miserable living.

reply to post by JadeStar


The use of passive radar systems will detect Ufos, im surprised Ufology hasn't promoted these systems. If the disclosure project used the money collected to create a passive radar system, this would be much effective way for collating the hard evidence of Ufo reality than have a bunch of retired old guys hold expensive conferences and tell tales around the camp fires.

AthlonSavage
reply to post by JadeStar

 

The use of passive radar systems will detect Ufos, im surprised Ufology hasn't promoted these systems. If the disclosure project used the money collected to create a passive radar system, this would be much effective way for collating the hard evidence of Ufo reality than have a bunch of retired old guys hold expensive conferences and tell tales around the camp fires.

NICAP's magnetic anomaly dector was another step forward, and it really deserves to be taken up again.

ImpactoR
In my direction of Astronomy I was searching for something either less engineering like, less of the typical Astronomy where you are either a teacher or professor and sometimes in observatory; and at best - search for UFO visitation. I also know that just like astronomers, UFO investigators are not big money makers and there is little living to do with them.

So what kind of occupation is that? What do you do? I feel like entering such a field much more than Astrophysics due to the importance of other life but I'm just seeing what kind of career exists there without making a miserable living.

edit on 19-2-2014 by ImpactoR because: (no reason given)

Astrobiology.

It used to be called Bioastronomy (lol).

If you are interested in this stuff I suggest you pursue both biology -and- astronomy/astrophysics. Expect a lot of boring labwork, classifying and categorizing various objects, data reduction, modelling, observations not related (at first glance) to life on other worlds. But these are the fundamentals of things you will put in your 'toolkit' and you'll learn a lot in the process if you work hard and have the patience to endure stuff that may be of no interest to you.

I am not working in this stuff yet other than as an amateur because I am still an undergrad, though I have been to NASA Ames twice and the SETI Institute as part of summer programs, internships/work studies.

As for MUFON, I am not sure that they are worth much anymore. Most of the serious science people who were involved in it left sometime in the 1980s/1990s.

I do recommend you read the papers of Peter Sturrock if you want to learn how to navigate the UFO and Astrophysics/Astronomy world while retaining your credibility. He is an emeritus professor of applied physics at Stanford University and someone who I consider a mentor.

So by all means, dive in to this if that is where your heart is. You won't get rich. You will get a lot of stuff to do which you may or may not be interested in at first but if you hang around long enough you might be lucky enough to catch on with a group of planet hunter or planet characterization missions and search for extraterrestrial intelligence programs in the coming decade. And who knows, you may make a discovery of a life time.

The UFO field right now needs more scientists so do maintain your interest in it if you choose to go into academia. Like I said, start with Peter Sturrock's recommendations and if you are still in high school, get the best grades you can so you can go to one of the universities with a good astronomy/astrophysics/astrobiology curriculum. UW, MIT, Arizona State University, Penn State, Stanford, Harvard, UPR, etc.

reply to post by JadeStar


Thanks, I am still choosing my purpose in life. For Astronomy I've read all it can offer you is either becoming a teacher/professor, doing stuff in the observatory plus the regular scientific work, and that for little money (I think). Anyway astro-biology seems a good idea to look into, since it is more related to life outside, not just some calculations of the stars, their spectrum of light and things like that. If I were to be in pure Astronomy that would be planets but in a combination with studying life sounds more worthy. Either way, these fields do not offer much for a living, too bad tho.

Ross 54
Looking over the list of those who spoke at the recent large UFO conference in Arizona, it seems a rather mixed bag. Some obviously have very dubious, unsupported claims to make, but this not universally the case.
Among the speakers was Dr. Jeffery Bennett, astrophysicist, who spoke on the scientific search for life in outer space. There was also Richard B. Hoover who has done work in astrophysics and astrobiology for NASA for years. Also Dr. John Alexander.

Jeffery Bennet - credible

Hoover and Alexander? lolz...... no way.