The Decline of Ufology: Decades of Fraud, Frustration and Failure?

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed
No, the proof is needed for those who are too ignorant to fathom these realities, or too afraid to face a reality where they live on a planet where nobody is 100% safe from a totally unknown foe.

I would rather say that proof is needed for those who don't necessarily accept somebody's story as objectively true (even if the people telling it believe it to be absolutely true). That's what objective, verifiable evidence is all about, right? I don't want to -- and I shouldn't have to -- simply believe somebody's story, because people can still be completely wrong with all the best intentions.

As for me not being 100% safe from an unknown foe. I prefer to worry about it when I'm actually shown that is the case. Otherwise, it's all just stories to me. I'll abandon my fool's paradise when the objective evidence and proof shows up, and you can get all the satisfaction you crave by telling us all "I told you so!" Not that it will matter.

originally posted by: Constance
a reply to: mirageman

The scientific burden of proof is on scientists, don'tcha think? Take your complaints to the universities that won't support ufo research in their science departments, to the federal agencies that fund the majority of academic science projects, and to the government that hides its own ufo research where ordinary people can't get to it. That's as true in the UK as it is in the US, btw.

The burden of proof is with those who make a claim and similar to the "innocent until proven guilty" rule in law.

So I think we have to ask what is the point of organisations like the MUFON? What is the point of Ufology? Is it simply to preach to the converted on TV shows, books and conference halls?




UFO studies have been conducted with Project Bluebook the most famous and of course the USAF's "Fact or Fiction in the New Mexico Desert?" In the UK we had the Flying Saucer Working Party and more recently Project Condign.

The problem is that because they don't reveal anything exciting about the existence of aliens they will always be dismissed as a whitewash and cover-up by a certain quarter. Perhaps that is the case? But again where is the hard proof.

Ufology needs a new approach. Should an organisation, like MUFON for example, instigate a sky watch program with cameras in various places like we have have in place for detecting meteorites?

Meteor Watch Programme

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

.....
I say let the world continue, and just ignore the fools who can't even do a day's research themselves, just to find out that the world of UFOlogy passed them by years ago and they are still left asking to see one case where there is solid evidence. This even though solid evidence has been documented a hundred times over and is available in the public domain, and has been for many years. There is no need to provide anyone with proof of anything, because if you have to ask for proof, then your just not savvy enough to see it when it crosses right under your nose.....

All I can say is that this mystery has intrigued me for decades. But it is only in the past decade that it has been a lot easier to cross reference information and check out the claims with the counter claims. When I have done so I've found a lot of cases are nowhere near as watertight as they seem on first glance.

As a small soupçon of what I've found from doing so:

* The Washington DC UFO overflights of '52 were not witnessed by thousands of Americans, nor are there any genuine photos of the events as some sources lead us to believe. The evidence is not strong for alien spacecraft.

* With the Roswell story, the contemporary reports seem to indicate that the debris of whatever crashed was made of wood, tape and rubber. Maybe alien spaceships are made with same substances but it's a mighty strange coincidence.

* The evidence for Crop Circles being alien in origin is almost non-existent.

* The Rendlesham Forest incident has gone from being a strange lights in the woods story to something featuring time travel, binary codes and a heart damaging unidentified aerial phenomenon.

However some of the really weird and highly strange cases are actually the most interesting because they do tend to defy explanation. The debunkers tend to avoid trying to explain them.

So what is 'solid evidence'? I really don't know because I just don't see the absolute proof that aliens are visiting earth from what I've sifted through. It doesn't mean it isn't there or even that it isn't being hidden from us. But no one can point out where that definitive proof is in the public domain.

So maybe the answer isn't actually that it's "aliens visiting us from another planet" but something we can't understand and that distorts our consciousness in ways beyond our comprehension.

Would it be much easier to say "I just don't know, and I don't want to"?

No - because "I just don't know, but want to".

a reply to: mirageman

"The Rendlesham Forest incident has gone from being a strange lights in the woods story to something featuring time travel, binary codes and a heart damaging unidentified aerial phenomenon."

Rendelsham is not a joking matter. There are significant developments in the Rendelsham case that you evidently aren't aware of. They concern John Burroughs's successful efforts -- with the help of an attorney and Sen. John McCain -- to gain the release of his medical records from Bentwaters to his surgeon(s) and the funding, by a US government or military source, of his subsequent heart surgery. In Burrough's FOI research into the Condign Report and its supporting documents, he had already discovered information demonstrating MoD's knowledge of potentially damaging radiation from 'UAP', specifically in the Rendelsham case. He also discovered that 18 documents in the Condign files were held back in the most recent (ostensibly final and complete) release of UK government ufo files. Those 18 documents were to have been released in mid-September of this year but were not. A possible release date in March of 2016 has been indicated.

These documents not only recognize the reality of emissions of dangerous radiation by anomalous craft visiting military bases but specifically name Rendelsham 1980 as a site where this probably took place. These documents also reveal that responsibility had been placed on commanding officers on military bases in the UK to inform soldiers coming into close proximity to such craft about the radiation damage they might have received. General Williams did not convey this information to either Burroughs or Penniston when he debriefed them after the events of late December 1980. It's obvious why MoD has long resisted disclosing these documents to the public. I wonder if they ever will.

a reply to: mirageman

However some of the really weird and highly strange cases are actually the most interesting because they do tend to defy explanation. The debunkers tend to avoid trying to explain them.

Do you have an example of some of these?

originally posted by: Blue Shift

originally posted by: Jonjonj
They present their evidence...AND NOBODY GIVES TWO *****! No serious study is ever made at all.

The evidence has to be such that it can be studied, of course. Unless there is some kind of objective evidence that links into a witness story, what exactly can be studied? Like in the case of "alien" abductions, without some kind of hard evidence to back it up, a researcher would essentially be doing dream/sleep studies with EEGs and video cameras. That has been tried -- not in every instance, but in many -- and nothing is revealed.

So, yes. If a person has an experience -- and wants somebody else to believe them -- it's up to them to provide the proof as to why they should be believed or at least investigated. I really don't care f somebody is abducted by aliens, or sees a flying saucer, or whatever.

That's why I like to say that the burden of proof is on the person who cares the most.

Yup.

Most people who've had these experiences aren't interested in others believing them. They know what they experienced was real. And that's good enough for them.

Some of them want to reach out to others who've had this experience. To share notes. Make sense of the experience. But not to seek proof. Proof is something other parts of society need. But not them.

originally posted by: Blue Shift

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed
No, the proof is needed for those who are too ignorant to fathom these realities, or too afraid to face a reality where they live on a planet where nobody is 100% safe from a totally unknown foe.

I would rather say that proof is needed for those who don't necessarily accept somebody's story as objectively true (even if the people telling it believe it to be absolutely true). That's what objective, verifiable evidence is all about, right? I don't want to -- and I shouldn't have to -- simply believe somebody's story, because people can still be completely wrong with all the best intentions.

As for me not being 100% safe from an unknown foe. I prefer to worry about it when I'm actually shown that is the case. Otherwise, it's all just stories to me. I'll abandon my fool's paradise when the objective evidence and proof shows up, and you can get all the satisfaction you crave by telling us all "I told you so!" Not that it will matter.

I agree pretty much, but mostly what I am referring to is when people tell a story, and those listening demand this and demand that, without having researched the phenomenon first, so that they can have a valid foundation base of knowledge so that they can make much better and informed response. Choosing instead to rubbish everything because they feel confident that nothing ET is happening.

This is what is often missing from UFO discussions and is the unbalanced side of it. Many of the so called skeptics have a preconceived belief that there is nothing to the phenomenon, and believing this, they do not feel it necessary to research anything because they already "know" it isn't unexplainable. And in doing this, they do the same thing that those who believe every story going round without question are doing, and even much worse.

a reply to: Constance

Rendelsham is not a joking matter. There are significant developments in the Rendelsham case that you evidently aren't aware of.

Cough Ehherm Cough

www.abovetopsecret.com...

These documents not only recognize the reality of emissions of dangerous radiation by anomalous craft visiting military bases but specifically name Rendellsham [sic] 1980 as a site where this probably took place.

None of the UAPs described in Project Condign's report are described as 'craft'. I don't know what is contained in the documents left for release. But somehow I doubt there will be a bombshell.

For some interesting information you may want to revisit Kit Green's response in the thread above. : www.abovetopsecret.com...

Anyway I don't want this thread to be about Rendlesham fascinating though it is.

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: mirageman

However some of the really weird and highly strange cases are actually the most interesting because they do tend to defy explanation. The debunkers tend to avoid trying to explain them.

Do you have an example of some of these?

The Alan Godfrey Case, The Livingston (Bob Taylor) case and Warminster.

The Godfrey case seems like an actual sighting which got its "high strangeness" in retrospect, with the aid of hypnotic regression. I won't get into the value or reliability of such "recovered memories", but I suspect they served to steer his opinion of what happened.

Response to mirageman's most recent post here:

Thank you for the link to that thread from earlier this year.

Kit Greens’s apologetic post is slightly helpful. Anaana’s post following it is immensely informative and contradicts Green’s claim that little research has been done on the effects on humans and other life forms of EM and ionizing radiation. Most seasoned ufo investigators, and those who have read their six+ decades of published reports, wouldn’t expect to get a straight answer or a comprehensive one from any insider in US or UK ‘national security’ agencies. Why do you?

You also posted in that thread as follows: “I've heard a few of the witnesses mention "Heathrow" or "London" Tower tracking something on radar. But no one ever pursued it. It's probably far too late now to get any information now but it could have been vital at the time.”

“No one ever pursued it.” Are you serious? First, you have no way of knowing that. Second, it’s literally absurd to think that MoD and its associated agencies did not pursue the radar sighting they reported to the bases adjacent to Rendelsham Forest that night and all the sightings that occurred over the following three nights.

The ambiguity created in the formerly released portion of the Condign Report is discussed again today at the top of John Burrought's facebook site entitled “Justice for the Bentwaters 81st Security Police at Rendelsham Forest 1980.” Here is the link to that page for anyone genuinely interested in the ramifications of the December 1980 events at Rendelsham, no matter who/what is responsible for the phenomena witnessed and their after-effects on the witnesses.

www.facebook.com...

To me this subject is very fascinating, but when it comes down to it, to find out the real truth you have to buy someone's book on the subject. Although there are those who do some great research, there are also those who take advantage of the subject by coming up with claims that you can only find out by reading their books. To me that tells you their motivation is money rather than the truth. Then you have those who probably know everything that has happened but use disinformation so you don't know what's true and what's not. And it seems the ridicule is a motivator in keeping people away that may have something really important to bring foward.

a reply to: Constance

Hint : To respond just click reply (on the relevant post) and if there is something you wish to quote use the " icon above. That way people can see which post (and part) you are referring to easily by clicking the name of the member highlighted (as your name is above).

Anyway I was actually amazed I got a response from our friend "BlueJay" and the claim that Burroughs' file was as classified as Adolf Hitler and John Kennedy's Autopsy was what I find interesting.

As for the Heathrow Tower saw something on radar claims, as far as I know, these were not made until years later when witnesses gave interviews to the media. Halt's memo does not mention it. Nor was that memo sent to the MoD until the middle of Jan 1981 and the date was wrong on that memo. As far as I am aware all requests for radar confirmation were turned up blank with the exception of one RAF radar operator saying a couple of years ago he noticed a few blips. I can't prove the MoD didn't carry out further investigation until Nick Pope's cold case review in the 1990s. But there is nothing to support it in the public domain.

Unfortunately your link doesn't work to the Justice for the Bentwaters 81st Security Police at Rendlesham Forest 1980 page. It's apparently a Closed Group. Sadly no disclosure there anymore.

However, as a I said earlier, if you wish to discuss Rendlesham then please use the other thread(s) available to avoid this one drifting too far off topic.



MM

a reply to: mirageman

Anyway I was actually amazed I got a response from our friend "BlueJay"...

Hey waitaminute: I thought he was "Prince Ruspoli’s Turaco".

originally posted by: draknoir2
The Godfrey case seems like an actual sighting which got its "high strangeness" in retrospect, with the aid of hypnotic regression. I won't get into the value or reliability of such "recovered memories", but I suspect they served to steer his opinion of what happened.

I don't mind getting into the value of recovered memories....they are absolutely worthless.

Worldly issues bother everyone so much now. Facebook, 24hr news and whatever else has made sure of that. No-one gives a rats arse about "mystery" these days. Rugby world cup, crashing planes, tax credits, some kids company? This is all people give a # about on a day by day basis (well, English anyway).

And then when you look at the people themselves in depth, they care about fashion, TV, making sure they have a photo of themselves with every event. Angry about their debts and the gov's they do nothing about - hell knows what people really live for nowadays. Worse still, a sense of wonder and mystery somehow completely depleted.

It's pretty obvious though, imaginations are nowadays destroyed very early. You have # parents that tell their kids santa isn't real age 3, and drink beer and swear around them, of course this air of mystery and curiosity is severely depleted amongst the majority. It take's a special kind of breeding to be interested in anything that isn't The Only Way Is ## these days.

UFOlogy is still out there. But the people aren't.

"It's" got to still be out there, it's been there for centuries, why would it stop in 2015? Nah, it's the people that stopped, is all. Humans declined, because selfies were far more important

UFOlogy was a joke for a long time, if anything it's probably less of a joke now than ever - but for some reason the focus has shifted to, as I say, instagram and just pointless, #y human #. Terrorism has worried us too much about our precious little # existence, to really worry about ufos (en mass).

originally posted by: mirageman

But there are still many unidentified cases to resolve..

Yes mate when it comes to official attitudes towards the subject apparently the classification status of an 'actual unknown' meant the UFO report had to be 'good' (meaning that it had to come from a competent observer and had to contain a reasonable amount of data) - the scientific findings of Bluebook Special Report 14 stated that the rate of 'actual unknown' UFO incidents studied by the Battelle Memorial Institute was 21.5% of 3201 cases.

It also mentioned how it found that 'the better the quality of the sighting report, the more likely it was unexplainable'; that 'UNKNOWNS were observed for longer than KNOWNS' and that less than 2% of reports fell in the hoax category.


Pseudo-Science of Anti-Ufology


Also looks like about 30 or 40 per cent of Bluebook cases may have been 'miscategorized' by the USAF as 'identified' and the true number of credible cases grossly underestimated - hardly surprising when you look at the almost criminal way many truly puzzling UFO incidents were 'explained away' by the U.S. Government and the fact that the Bluebook team from the 1960's went back and substituted official summary cards for unexplained cases 'to reduce the number of unknowns at any cost' (link).

"Much more disturbing are the indications from my limited review of BB cases that there may be as many as possibly 4,000 Unexplained UFO cases miscategorized as IFO's in the BB files. McDonald similarly stated in 1968 at his CASI lecture that from his review of BB cases he estimated that 30-40% of 12,000 cases were Unexplained, or about 3,600 to 4,800. These are mostly military cases and many involve radar".

Comprehensive Catalog of 1,600 Project BLUE BOOK UFO Unknowns

Also could well be the case that the true number of unexplained UFO cases in the Condon report is 50% (not 30%) so I'd totally agree there are still many unidentified cases.

The Craig papers also reveal that despite publicly reporting over 30 % “unknowns” in the final report (and astonishingly reporting that there was nothing of scientific worth to the UFO subject) the reality was that more than 50% were “unknown.”

When politicised & militarised Science tried to bury the UFO subject – the Condon report exposed

originally posted by: draknoir2

The Godfrey case seems like an actual sighting which got its "high strangeness" in retrospect, with the aid of hypnotic regression.

Suppose it's only fair to point out there were also separately located police UFO witnesses to that one mate -there's a good interview with Gary Heseltine over on this thread where he goes into more detail about it and also a recent documentary linked below which contains police UFO testimony in the same area (and at the same time of) the Alan Godfrey incident - (see 15:50)


.

a reply to: mirageman

"As for the Heathrow Tower saw something on radar claims, as far as I know, these were not made until years later when witnesses gave interviews to the media. Halt's memo does not mention it. Nor was that memo sent to the MoD until the middle of Jan 1981 and the date was wrong on that memo. As far as I am aware all requests for radar confirmation were turned up blank with the exception of one RAF radar operator saying a couple of years ago he noticed a few blips. I can't prove the MoD didn't carry out further investigation until Nick Pope's cold case review in the 1990s. But there is nothing to support it in the public domain."

There is much in the public domain now about various radar observations of unknowns over Bentwaters/Rendelsham during those three nights. Robert Hastings has interviewed two radar operators at Bentwaters who now admit to having seen these fast-moving targets on radar as well as seeing one of the ufos above the water tower outside their window, and also receiving confirmation from another military radar in the area of one of the ufos they tracked. They explain that they did not report these sightings at the time because to do so would have been career suicide for them.

Similarly the individual in charge of observations from the tower over the nuclear warhead storage area has confirmed that he saw the ufo itself and the beams it directed onto/into the storage area.

Robert Hastings has also provided testimony from two sources that two of the warheads were removed from Bentwaters to Kirtland AFB for analysis the second week following the Rendelsham/Bentwaters events. This was a significant operation involving a major aircraft, managed with high security at Bentwaters.

The pressure on individuals involved in all this -- not to talk even among themselves about what they saw and experienced, not to leak it to the public, and not even to report radar sightings up to superior officers -- is a large contributor to the stress these servicemen and women were under. And when reports were filed -- Halt's is an example --
they were not filed promptly and greatly minimized the nature of what had happened. We even see this squirrely behavior from Gen. Williams in his debriefing of Bustinza: he explicitly tells him *not* to describe what he saw and experienced in Capel Green. What's all this about? It's about maintaining denial and deniability concerning an anomalous reality that the military plainly does not know how to deal with.

The consequences of this official policy of dishonesty and irrationality are all around us -- in the absence of documents concerning these events from the period in which they took place; in the confusion (and worse) suffered by those who witnessed the events; and I think also in the eagerness with which a number of people who follow the ufo subject are willing to grab on to the hope that the whole 65-year-history of the modern ufo phenomenon has been a terrestrial manipulation by the US, UK et al. So eager are many people to accept this hypothesis, evidently grateful for it, that they seem to have lost the critical ability to judge the ethics of the high-tech psi-ops hinted at in documents such as Condign. I think this if anything is why and how 'ufology' is in trouble in our time.

a reply to: mirageman

"Unfortunately your link doesn't work to the Justice for the Bentwaters 81st Security Police at Rendlesham Forest 1980 page. It's apparently a Closed Group. Sadly no disclosure there anymore."

It's simple and free to join facebook and then request acceptance to that forum. There is a lot be learned there about Rendelsham, Condign, and related subjects.

a reply to: mirageman

"None of the UAPs described in Project Condign's report are described as 'craft'."

Of course they aren't. What were you expecting?