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

a reply to: expresswayrunner

The OP is trying to very casually suggest that because there were some fraudsters that provided disinformation in the past, that as such is has made people such as Lazar (who has had many scientific theories and proposals that he related as being 'clandestine' in nature be standardized since he made his reports), Betty and Barney Hill, or many others come across as questionable and perhaps also equally as much of a fraud.

You're doing it again and not reading things properly.

I didn't say Lazar was a fraud. All I stated was he appeared at the tail end of the 80s and Area 51 entered the lore. I didn't even mention the Hills abduction case,

Let's put it very simply for you.

Do you think Ufology has failed or don't you?

a reply to: mirageman

I don't think it has failed. I think you're putting many millions of man hours of research and experience into a bucket and kicking it to the curb because it doesn't conform to your preconceived notions of reality.

And I think you're wrong to do that.

But hey, to each their own. At the end of the day, people who know and have experienced the unexplained know. That's good enough for them, and as such, good enough for me.

Now if you'll excuse me, I must venture off back into the vastness of the interwebs.

a reply to: expresswayrunner

I don't think it has failed. I think you're putting many millions of man hours of research and experience into a bucket and kicking it to the curb because it doesn't conform to your preconceived notions of reality. And I think you're wrong to do that.

Cough! www.abovetopsecret.com...
Guess we all have preconceived notions

a reply to: data5091

Glad you posted that Data. Let's take Stanton Friedman's points one by one that you linked to:

The evidence is overwhelming that Planet Earth is being visited by intelligently controlled extraterrestrial spacecraft. In other words, SOME UFOs are alien spacecraft. Most are not.

Well actually the evidence is overwhelming in volume. But at present no one has found the right piece(s) of evidence that prove, beyond reasonable doubt that Planet Earth is being visited by intelligently controlled ET spacecraft. Now that doesn't mean Earth isn't, hasn't or never will be visited by ET. But there is no proof in the public domain not even with Friedman's efforts. Otherwise everyone would accept we are being visited by aliens.

The subject of flying saucers represents a kind of Cosmic Watergate, meaning that some few people in major governments have known since July, 1947, when two crashed saucers and several alien bodies were recovered in New Mexico, that indeed SOME UFOs are ET. As noted in 1950, it’s the most classified U.S. topic.

We can't actually prove that aliens crashed in New Mexico in 1947. (Why do the aliens not have any search and rescue operations for all these crashes either?) . We know the stories but how can we jump to any conclusions about what is involved here.

None of the arguments made against conclusions One and Two by a small group of debunkers such as Carl Sagan, my University of Chicago classmate for three years, can stand up to careful scrutiny.

None of what Stan Friedman, great speaker that he is, can stand up to careful scrutiny that he has any proof that aliens exist and are visiting this planet as he claims. Otherwise it would be accepted wisdom. Even though certain debunkers will give ludicrous explanations rather than admitting when something is unexplained.

The Flying Saucer story is the biggest story of the millennium: visits to Planet Earth by aliens and the U.S. government’s cover-up of the best data (the bodies and wreckage) for over fifty years.

It could well be. But again there is nothing to his argument to prove that there is a concealment of an alien presence on Earth. He uses all the tricks of the trade to deflect the burden of proof falling upon himself and forcing it on those that ask for definitive proof from him. Stan makes the claim and then expects others to prove him wrong. Proving aliens don't visit earth is impossible,

The problem is NOT that there is not enough evidence to justify my conclusions; but that most people, especially the noisy negativists, are unaware of the real, non-tabloid evidence.

Yes, UFO documents are withheld to this day. There is evidence for a clampdown on UFO reports and attempts to explain everything away as mundane as far back as the 1950s. The intel boys keep poking around in the field as well.
There is something at the bottom of it all for sure. But no one can get their hands on irrefutable proof not even good old Stanton Friedman.

a reply to: mirageman

The sad fact is 'mainstream' Ufology is starting to echo televangelism and it's getting ugly.

Roswell is the book of revelations. Rendelsham is the book of Corinthians. Valentich is St. Paul. the same old stories are being regurgitated and swallowed up again, just like those televangelists who quote the same bible quotes over and over and people still believe and pay good money to hear the same thing over and over again.

If ufology is to succeed, it needs to go back to it's grass roots. Correspondence is a good start. Instead of posting a photo online and asking 'is this a UFO?' maybe get in contact with MUFON or another organization and give your story and the details, no matter how pedantic they seem.

'Do you live near an airport or a flight path? how fast to you think the UFO was traveling? how did it move? did you see any other aircraft? did your neighbors see anything?'

The internet brings out the best and worst in us and ufology is no exception.

originally posted by: mirageman

There is something at the bottom of it all for sure. But no one can get their hands on irrefutable proof not even good old Stanton Friedman.

I was acquainted with a woman Ufologist from back in the early Stanton Friedman days.

She got out because it was too cutthroat.

She said tenacious is an understatement when referring to Stanton. If he even got a whisper someone heard something, he'd be knocking at their door - - - and not leave until they shared the info.

Proof? What exactly would someone accept as proof - - other then an actual ET holding a news conference?

originally posted by: RoScoLaz4
UFO lore was what first got me into the whole 'conspiracy' shebang. i was mildly obsessed with the subject to begin with (dozens of books, videos, late nights eating up each and every ufo-related tidbit). now, though i still firmly believe in the ETH, i no longer really give it much thought. too much repetition, too little meat on the bones, too many CGI vids, too much of a muchness. but i have seen them and i just quietly accept that, without some new and revelatory piece of evidence to confirm it, the ETH must remain, in popular culture at least, a hypothesis. but i'm cool with that.

Same here but the Conspiracy Theorist in me has to play devil's advocate.

Could it be that we are closer than before to have evidence and that with every possible 'bombshell', a certain amount of total crap is being released so that people who used to be really interested lose interest and believe everything is always fake [worked with you and me ].

I mean sometimes the CGI is so incredibly bad, they are not even trying. Even the elaborate 'hoaxes' are so dumb, the internet is figuring them out in a couple of days.

If ever there was footage of an alien or a genuine UFO, everyone [including me] would immediately shout "fake" and leave it at that. No better way to keep something from arousing interest.

Just throwing that out there.

originally posted by: Annee

Proof? What exactly would someone accept as proof - - other then an actual ET holding a news conference?

Physical evidence that withstands the scrutiny of the scientific community.

A repeatable and verifiable detection of an artificially generated signal.

Stuff like that.

the cases that stand the test of time...missile shut down in North Dakota, Rendlesham forest, sightings by groups of soldiers during the Vietnam war, etc....are the ones believers should point to, when talking about this subject in the future.....

originally posted by: draknoir2

originally posted by: Annee

Proof? What exactly would someone accept as proof - - other then an actual ET holding a news conference?

Physical evidence that withstands the scrutiny of the scientific community.

A repeatable and verifiable detection of an artificially generated signal.

Stuff like that.

And what physical evidence would that be?

Everything in the universe is made up of the same thing.

Proving something exists - - does not actually prove where it came from.

In my more negative moments, I often feel like the whole of UFO study has essentially wasted decades of time and effort and money chasing after "aliens" and getting essentially nowhere. If you read what people were hypothesizing about UFOs in the late 40's, they're saying the same things we are today, with none of the questions answered.

On the other hand, there has been a kind of sea change in Ufology, particularly over the past decade or so which I think is promising if you look at it in the right way. When we first started trying to figure out what flying saucers were, we had a very vague idea about outer space. We didn't know what the other planets were like, and we didn't really understand just how huge and dangerous space actually is. So it seemed reasonable to us that UFOs could easily represent creatures like us who just managed to build a better "rocket" and were visiting Earth.

So one thing I find at least slightly encouraging is that a lot more people are finally realizing that while aliens could be a possible "explanation" for UFOs, none of the research done so far has linked any UFOs with standard Star Trek-type aliens, and the simple physics and logistics of interstellar travel make it extremely unlikely that they exist or could make it here through the crushing distances and toxic environment of space.

How is that a good thing? Well, if we're going to allow for the fact that people see weird stuff, then we have to get more creative. We have to start giving more thought to how UFOs affect us in our own heads, and how we interact with the phenomenon. We're starting to question ourselves more about how we use our limited intelligence and physical and psychological predispositions to perceive and create our realities, and where UFOs fit into that mix.

Stanton Friedman can wave his blanked out FOIA papers until the day he dies, and claim that the answers to space aliens are hidden underneath the redactions, because as a remnant of the old, post-WWII mindset of UFO research he will forever be stuck with trying to prove that flying saucers equal aliens from space in fancier rockets. And he'll always focus on the blacked out text, rather than simply looking at what people actually report -- including all the high strangeness stuff that makes no rational sense (at this point).

So there has been progress in UFO study. But we are at a point where we're not quite sure what the next steps are going to be. Going out and chasing more data isn't necessarily the answer. We have a lot of data. We never found the "smoking gun," and I think we realize now that the smoking gun will have to fall into our laps if we're going to get it. The hard part now is to figure out where to go next. How do we incorporate methods of investigation into Ufology that we don't even have good definitions for yet? I don't know. As I've said many times, the biggest problem we face with UFOs is that we just might not be smart enough to understand what's really going on.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: draknoir2

originally posted by: Annee

Proof? What exactly would someone accept as proof - - other then an actual ET holding a news conference?

Physical evidence that withstands the scrutiny of the scientific community.

A repeatable and verifiable detection of an artificially generated signal.

Stuff like that.

And what physical evidence would that be?

Everything in the universe is made up of the same thing.

Proving something exists - - does not actually prove where it came from.

No, but it's the first step.

Find an "Alien Hubcap", look for the rest of the vehicle, determine who the drivers were, where they came from... etc..

As of right now we don't even have the hubcap.

originally posted by: Blue Shift
We never found the "smoking gun," . . .

No one, openly, has confirmed undeniable evidence of the "smoking gun".

There's still Unexplained.

originally posted by: draknoir2

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: draknoir2

originally posted by: Annee

Proof? What exactly would someone accept as proof - - other then an actual ET holding a news conference?

Physical evidence that withstands the scrutiny of the scientific community.

A repeatable and verifiable detection of an artificially generated signal.

Stuff like that.

And what physical evidence would that be?

Everything in the universe is made up of the same thing.

Proving something exists - - does not actually prove where it came from.

No, but it's the first step.

Find an "Alien Hubcap", look for the rest of the vehicle, determine who the drivers were, where they came from... etc..

As of right now we don't even have the hubcap.

Are you sure?

"We have something unusual, but we can't explain what it is".

Or

"What you saw is an experimental aircraft".

Proving that something came from an off planet craft is next to impossible. Does not mean it didn't.

originally posted by: draknoir2

originally posted by: Annee

Proof? What exactly would someone accept as proof - - other then an actual ET holding a news conference?

Physical evidence that withstands the scrutiny of the scientific community.

A repeatable and verifiable detection of an artificially generated signal.

Stuff like that.

to the believer very little evidence is required, when skeptic(or the common sensed) ask for proof, their argument is always the same... 'what constitutes as proof'.... well PROOF, as you know it, and what PROOF of such claims as ETs are zipping in and out of earth should entail. you know, the same proof that can withstand in a court room, along those line kinda proof. the same proof scientist can show for the claims they make today in medicine, engineering etc... the same proof great engineers and scientists have no problem demonstrating in their research.

no one is asking for ET to be taking selfies and posting them on instangram, but empirical evidence. verifiable, substantiated, credible evidence from the same group of scientists whom are currently working on the technology that we use everyday. because those scientist can say we can create a device to transmit data at a rate faster than ever before, and here is how we can do that... along those lines kinda proof. ...

not obscure videos, or here say from someone who had a brief contract with the military, or someone who 'sees' things... or people who have a high school degree and think they can explain how ET crafts moves when they dont even have a handle on how our own airplanes fly, or people who can tell you how many Alien species there are yet wouldnt be able to identify some of the species that inhabit our own planet...

those mentalists are why UFOlogy is a joke.

originally posted by: Annee

Proof? What exactly would someone accept as proof - - other then an actual ET holding a news conference?

News conference was staged and scripted with SFX.

Right?


Nothing can be considered absolute proof of anything. That doesn't mean in its absence all evidence is equally compelling.

We've found real meteorites that have originated from Mars. How'd we do that? Guess it's not next to impossible after all.

originally posted by: odzeandennz
. . . but empirical evidence. verifiable, substantiated, credible evidence from the same group of scientists whom are currently working on the technology that we use everyday. because those scientist can say we can create a device to transmit data at a rate faster than ever before, and here is how we can do that... along those lines kinda proof. ...

That is never going to happen.

Research grants are funded. Often, with a political backed agenda.

Any scientist that comes forward saying he/she has proof of an alien craft - - - will lose all funding and be discredited.

Those that have come forward, are usually old and no longer viable in the scientific community. They are immediately discredited for some reason or another. Often, "Oh, he's just trying to get a book deal".

Skeptics shut people down before they can even take a breath.

originally posted by: draknoir2

originally posted by: Annee

Proof? What exactly would someone accept as proof - - other then an actual ET holding a news conference?

News conference was staged and scripted with SFX.

Right?


Nothing can be considered absolute proof of anything. That doesn't mean in its absence all evidence is equally compelling.

We've found real meteorites that have originated from Mars. How'd we do that? Guess it's not next to impossible after all.

LOL - - and the moon landing is a hoax.

Until we have intergalactic space travel any citizen can buy a ticket for - - - proof will not exist.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: draknoir2

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: draknoir2

originally posted by: Annee

Proof? What exactly would someone accept as proof - - other then an actual ET holding a news conference?

Physical evidence that withstands the scrutiny of the scientific community.

A repeatable and verifiable detection of an artificially generated signal.

Stuff like that.

And what physical evidence would that be?

Everything in the universe is made up of the same thing.

Proving something exists - - does not actually prove where it came from.

No, but it's the first step.

Find an "Alien Hubcap", look for the rest of the vehicle, determine who the drivers were, where they came from... etc..

As of right now we don't even have the hubcap.

Are you sure?

"We have something unusual, but we can't explain what it is".

Or

"What you saw is an experimental aircraft".

I used to hold high hopes for the Bob White artifact until I saw it thoroughly debunked here.

a reply to: mirageman

What is a 'genuine' sighting?

A sighting of an alien space ship.

What is it we should we all know so we know what we are looking for?

A genuine flying saucer, triangle or "orb"

How does one gain first hand experience to help us?

Look up at night, a lot. Know the difference between planes, satellites, planets and orbs that move really fast and not in straight lines!