2014 New year : New start for ufology? Or a continuing fall in standards?

vbstrvct
Generally, these people aren't interested in answers, only beliefs.

Mystics aren't interested in beliefs. They are interested in experiencing for themselves, so they don't have to believe, and don't have to take anyone else's answers or dogmas.

Mysticism is not to blame for the poor state of Ufology. Scientism is.

If it weren't for bigoted scientism thralls, science would be much more advanced because it would be able to benefit from parapsychological findings instead of sweeping them under the rug.

The reason people can't see that is they have such a poor understanding of what mysticism really is, and they are ignorant of parapsychological evidence.

I'd like to think that the failure of 2013 doomsday scenarios (since the world's still around) would inject some healthy skepticism into the fields that are often littered with "conspiracy theories". IMHO ufology would benefit from this, even if scrutinizing new evidence may make the community appear to be more full of disbelievers than ever. I'd like to see MORE genuine scrutiny, not mindless agreement or mindlessly shooting down every piece of evidence that comes along.

Or, ufology may move further in the other direction, where only diehard believers will believe and the rest will call them foil hat wearers, which will further convince believers of coverup and further convince skeptics that believers aren't critical. I'm hopeful that the 2 groups will move towards a middle ground this year.

reply to post by IsaacKoi


Hello Isaac,

Please remain as the crucial UFO researcher that truly
informs, inspires & protects the real history of genuine
UFO research. Documents, magazines, audio, UFO photos
UFO case histories, UFO hoaxes and the UFO culture etc.

You are a genuine source in UFOlogy. Seeing James Fox as a
'UFO Rambo' on 'Chasing UFOs' highlights the sell out factor.

Seeing a recent development of an alleged top UFO researcher
promoting a dire piece of UFO footage to gain attention in the media, and then this footage was solved within an hour on ATS.

Well done Alfa1 on ATS by solving a hype media UFO in an hour.

News stand UFO magazines only existed with the X-Files meme.

Recent UK UFO documentaries have a so called celebrity host.

Ammach - Channel 4 UFO abductee fiasco was embarrassing.

The UFO Speaker curcuit is a clique and a total scam.

I don`t know whether Randles or Roberts had first highlighted that Ufology was becoming a product. They were both correct.

Ufology , either 'nuts and bolts' or 'UFO skywatching groups' should have immediately separated from the UFO abductions.

Documentary UFO/Media/conferences is role play Ufology.

Please keep the pulse of genuine Ufology alive Mr Koi - Thanks

reply to post by conundrummer

I think it would be more helpful if we could make people in general see that ufology is, or at least should be, the field of scientific study of unidentified flying objects phenomena. If people would understand this simple definition the people on the fringes wouldn't be lumped in with ufology.

I'm not entirely sure what 'experiencing' means in BlueMule's view, but I'd like to know what, after 'experiencing', those who claim science can do nothing about this, actually do in order to explain the phenomena.

vbstrvct
reply to post by conundrummer

 

I think it would be more helpful if we could make people in general see that ufology is, or at least should be, the field of scientific study of unidentified flying objects phenomena. If people would understand this simple definition the people on the fringes wouldn't be lumped in with ufology.

The only way you could do that is if you first convince people that the UFO phenomenon is nothing more than nuts n' bolts spaceships with biological organisms inside from another civilization. But that's begging the question. Can't do that in an intellectually honest fashion. ET is just a materialistic hypothesis for a materialistic culture that can't think outside the box.

If you start by assuming a materialistic nature of UFOs then you are going to filter out everything that doesn't fit and end up with a materialistic explanation even if its false.

Besides there's good reasons to believe that the UFO phenomenon isn't as simple as the standard-issue ET that Hollywood would like us to think. Nothing ever is.

I'm not entirely sure what 'experiencing' means in BlueMule's view, but I'd like to know what, after 'experiencing', those who claim science can do nothing about this, actually do in order to explain the phenomena.

Tat Tvam Asi

BlueMule
The only way you could do that is if you first convince people that the UFO phenomenon is nuts n' bolts spaceships with biological organisms inside. But that's begging the question. Can't do that in an intellectually honest fashion. ET is just a materialistic hypothesis for a materialistic culture that can't think outside the box.

Did I say anything about ET? My definition of ufology was quite simple and explicit: the scientific study of unidentified flying objects. There's observed, recorded, documented sightings of UFOs, my suggestion is to use scientific methods to explain them. I presume nothing about the origins of the phenomena in my definition.

I have my own suspicions and even beliefs, the difference, apparently, is that I don't let them influence what I think should be the approach and position one takes when faced with an as-of-yet unexplained phenomenon.

vbstrvct

BlueMule
The only way you could do that is if you first convince people that the UFO phenomenon is nuts n' bolts spaceships with biological organisms inside. But that's begging the question. Can't do that in an intellectually honest fashion. ET is just a materialistic hypothesis for a materialistic culture that can't think outside the box.

Did I say anything about ET? My definition of ufology was quite simple and explicit: the scientific study of unidentified flying objects. There's observed, recorded, documented sightings of UFOs, my suggestion is to use scientific methods to explain them. I presume nothing about the origins of the phenomena in my definition.

I have my own suspicions and even beliefs, the difference, apparently, is that I don't let them influence what I think should be the approach and position one takes when faced with an as-of-yet unexplained phenomenon.

To assume they are solid "objects" that the scientific method can address is to assume that they fit into a paradigm of thought that scientists can handle. That can mean only one hypothesis - ET.

BlueMule
To assume they are solid "objects" that the scientific method can address is to assume that they fit into a paradigm of thought that scientists can handle. That can mean only one hypothesis - ET.

Your problem is with the definition of UFO? But even if one assumed a solid object, I don't see why it would automatically mean extra-terrestrial. There are many other possibilities in the context of solid objects, all of them incredibly more probable than ET.

I can't help but see the irony in you criticizing my definition because the term UFO assumes physicality yet you claim there is nothing for science to do because you assume whatever the phenomena is it's not physical. We should consider all possibilities, you say, except using science it seems.

I believe we will never be in agreement because I suspect we have a difference of opinion of the fundamental nature of reality. I'm of the school of thought of materialism/physicalism, so no matter how weird or even seemingly unknowable something appears to be, there's a physical explanation even if it eludes us at this point.

I'm fine with other people having different beliefs, but whatever field of study you seem to suggest it's obviously not ufology.

vbstrvct

BlueMule
To assume they are solid "objects" that the scientific method can address is to assume that they fit into a paradigm of thought that scientists can handle. That can mean only one hypothesis - ET.

Your problem is with the definition of UFO? But even if one assumed a solid object, I don't see why it would automatically mean extra-terrestrial. There are many other possibilities in the context of solid objects, all of them incredibly more probable than ET.

Like what? Weather balloons? Venus? Experimental aircraft?

I can't help but see the irony in you criticizing my definition because the term UFO assumes physicality yet you claim there is nothing for science to do because you assume whatever the phenomena is it's not physical. We should consider all possibilities, you say, except using science it seems.

That's the nice thing about being a UFO contactee and a mystic who has had plenty of veridical psychic experiences that defy materialistic explanation. I don't have to assume! I have escaped questions that can trap people who have to rely on Ufology alone, and I can avoid hang-ups that stump materialists who have to rely on mainstream science alone.

I believe we will never be in agreement because I suspect we have a difference of opinion of the fundamental nature of reality. I'm of the school of thought of materialism/physicalism, so no matter how weird or even seemingly unknowable something appears to be, there's a physical explanation even if it eludes us at this point.

I understand and respect your position but I've seen too much to agree with it.

I'm fine with other people having different beliefs, but whatever field of study you seem to suggest it's obviously not ufology.

Ufology will never get anywhere as long as parapsychology is outside the gates of science.

Is anyone familar with this outfit?

josuavalley
I have scanned partially the inforespace bulletin from belgium num 1 to 64 and some others in the past
(snip) if you want I could put some of them back on line for a short time

I cannot refuse an offer like that.

After getting the scans, I can seek permission to make searchable PDF versions available online on a free file storage website.

In terms of getting the material to me, I can recommend the free file transfer service wetransfer.com. It is very quick and easy (particularly after the first time). You just need to go to wetransfer.com, enter your email address as the sender and my email address (my username at gmail.com) as the recipient then either drag and drop the relevant files or click on the "add files" button and then click on the relevant files. (After the first time you do this, you will find it quicker to do than reading this post! ).

The files may take a while to upload, but you can leave the relevant upload running in the background while continuing to use your computer (or you sleep etc).

I think that there are quite a few people still keeping this alive for those that are looking, I know I just found a place of "high strangeness" that still give me hope

Peace, NRE.

1ofthe9
Is anyone familar with this outfit?

Yep, That's Antonio Paris's website/outfit. He's a member on here. Or at least was at one point. haven't seen him post recently. I've followed him on Twitter for a while now. He's very active, and devoted to what he does/investigates.

reply to post by IsaacKoi


ok I put them back to my site, more easy for me to put the docs there, about 800 mégas of data ...

remember that most are partial scans (data cases have priority in my scans) .. but many many pages scanned nevertheless

and of course this if only for ufo research and non commercial use only

here is the list

www.anakinovni.org/inforespace.htm

and the raw extract of cases

www.anakinovni.org/inforespacev8.xls


1972 (1ère année)
inforespace numéro 1 (test couleur)
inforespace numéro 2 (extraits)
inforespace numéro 3 (extraits)
inforespace numéro 4 (extraits)
inforespace numéro 5 (extraits)
inforespace numéro 6 (extraits)
1973 (2ième année)
inforespace numéro 7 (extraits)
inforespace numéro 8 (extraits)
inforespace numéro 9 (extraits)
inforespace numéro 10 (extraits)
inforespace numéro 11 (extraits)
inforespace numéro 12 (extraits)
1974 (3ième année)
inforespace numéro 13 (extraits)
inforespace numéro 14 (extraits)
inforespace numéro 15 (extraits)
inforespace numéro 16 (extraits)
inforespace numéro 17 (extraits)
inforespace numéro 18 (extraits)
1975 (4ième année)
inforespace numéro 19 (extraits)
inforespace numéro 20 (extraits)
inforespace numéro 21 (extraits)
inforespace numéro 22 (extraits)
inforespace numéro 23 (extraits)
inforespace numéro 24 (extraits)
1976 (5ième année)
inforespace numéro 25 (extraits)
inforespace numéro 26 (extraits)
inforespace numéro 27 (extraits)
inforespace numéro 28 (extraits)
inforespace numéro 29 (extraits)
inforespace numéro 30 (extraits)
1977 (6ième année)
inforespace numéro 31 (extraits)
inforespace numéro 32 (extraits)
inforespace numéro 33 (extraits)
inforespace numéro 34 (extraits)
inforespace numéro 35 (extraits)
inforespace numéro 36 (extraits)
inforespace hors serie n°1 les témoins
1978 (7ième année)
inforespace numéro 37 (extraits)
inforespace numéro 38 (extraits)
inforespace numéro 39 (extraits)
inforespace numéro 40 (extraits)
inforespace numéro 41 (extraits)
inforespace numéro 42 (extraits)
inforespace hors serie n°2 la détection
1979 (8ième année)
inforespace numéro 43 (extraits)
inforespace numéro 44 (extraits)
inforespace numéro 45 (extraits)
inforespace numéro 46 (extraits)
inforespace numéro 47 (extraits)
inforespace numéro 48 (extraits)
inforespace hors serie n°3 les nouveaux ufologues
1980(9ième année)
inforespace numéro 49 (extraits)
inforespace numéro 50 (extraits)
inforespace numéro 51 (extraits)
inforespace numéro 52 (extraits)
inforespace numéro 53 (extraits)
inforespace numéro 54 (extraits)
inforespace hors serie n°4 ovni un phenomene para solaire ?
1981(10ième année)
inforespace numéro 55 (extraits)
inforespace numéro 56 (extraits)
inforespace numéro 57 (extraits)
inforespace numéro 58 (extraits)
inforespace numéro 5 hors serie les dossiers du FBI(extraits)
1982(11ième année)
inforespace numéro 59 (extraits)
inforespace numéro 60 (extraits)
inforespace numéro 61 (extraits)
inforespace numéro 6 hors serie quelques réflexions sur les priorités de la recherche (extraits)
1983 (12ième année)
inforespace numéro 62 (extraits)
inforespace numéro 63 (extraits)
inforespace numéro 64 (extraits)
inforespace numéro 7 hors serie ovni ovi sur un certain etat de la question

---

1990 (19ième année)
sobeps flash 1 février 1990 (full)
inforespace numéro 78 (extraits)
sobeps flash 1 septembre1990 (full)
inforespace numéro 79 (extraits)
1991 (20ième année)
inforespace numéro 80 (extraits)
inforespace numéro 81 (extraits)
inforespace numéro 82 (extraits)


1993 (22ième année)
inforespace numero 86 (extraits)
inforespace numero 87 (extraits)
inforespace numero 88 (extraits)

1996 (25ième année)
inforespace numero 93 (extraits) numéro consacré à roswell + ovnis aux marquises
inforespace numero 94 (extraits) numéro consacré aux rapports science ufologie

originally posted by JadeStar...

From what I've read of Redern's stuff and the interviews I've hear with him on a plethora of subjects I like his work as a Fortean archivist much in the way of Charles Fort or John Keel.

Then you should be interested in an upcoming "Ask Me Anything" thread I'm arranging with Nick Redfern as the guest respondent.

Hopefully we'll have him on in the next couple weeks, keep an eye out for an alert down at the bottom of the screen.

With regard to the topic of this thread, I couldn't have described my thoughts and feelings about "UFOlogy" better than you have.

Springer...

josuavalley
ok I put them back to my site, more easy for me to put the docs there, about 800 mégas of data ...

remember that most are partial scans (data cases have priority in my scans) .. but many many pages scanned nevertheless

Many thanks. Downloading now...

At first glance, this looks like it would have taken a LOT of tedious work to scan all this material.

If you don't mind, I'd like to seek permission from some colleagues in Belgium that were associated with SOBEPS to upload searchable versions of these scans to a free file storage website so they are freely available online in the longer term.

Would this be okay with you?

If I do obtain the relevant permission(s)), who should I say scanned the material? "Josuavalley" of ATS or some other name/affiliation?

reply to post by IsaacKoi


no problems cobeps ,new name for sobeps knows me very well, I was member but more a free electron now ;-)


use my french pseudo anakin_nEo , for example I'm cited here in the new methodology called "ufosystemique"

www.cobeps.org...
www.cobeps.org...

"La bibliothèque mondiale d'Internet offre
normalement une mine colossale de données ufologiques, mais leur recensement, leur classement
et leur exploitation nécessiteraient un travail considérable que personne n'ose entreprendre. Il y a
cependant une personne qui s'est attelée à ce travail et qui le présente sur Internet sous forme
d'un carnet de note et de cartes Google. Le site est visible à l'adresse suivante :
www.anakinovni.org...."

they know about those scans but it would be nice to obtain specific autorisation

It is easier than ever to connect with others and share ideas and data, and easier than ever to collect the data itself. The opportunity is obviously there to advance the study of ufos. And I think it is improving. With fewer people being fooled, and less conclusion jumping being made, I think people are getting smarter about the psychological factors pervading ufos.

I think of magic tricks. The astonishment with magic is dependant on the unconscious belief that "Seeing is believing. And so if I keep my eyes open, I can't be fooled." Because of the huge flood of data coming in on UFOs, I think people are becoming more and more aware of the great number of ways in which we can all be fooled. Thus the attitude is shifting away from astonishment, and toward skepticism (it seems from my vantage point.)

These days, it takes something truely astonishing to make it past our skeptical filters. Why that seems to rarely happen now is open to debate. But when it does happen I think everyone needs to remind themselves, "I am older and wiser now, but I can still be fooled. There are ways I can be fooled that I don't know about yet."

vbstrvct

BlueMule
The only way you could do that is if you first convince people that the UFO phenomenon is nuts n' bolts spaceships with biological organisms inside. But that's begging the question. Can't do that in an intellectually honest fashion. ET is just a materialistic hypothesis for a materialistic culture that can't think outside the box.

Did I say anything about ET? My definition of ufology was quite simple and explicit: the scientific study of unidentified flying objects. There's observed, recorded, documented sightings of UFOs, my suggestion is to use scientific methods to explain them. I presume nothing about the origins of the phenomena in my definition.

^^^^ 100% this.

In essence that's what the studies of UFOs should be. This is why the term UAP has cropped up. Unidentified Aerial Phenomena.

Perhaps it is time to disband MUFON and reactivate NICAP?

By the way I have some serious yet simple thoughts on things which may help move things forward. I am debating whether to post them in this thread or create another one because of the danger of thread drift.

Springer

originally posted by JadeStar...

From what I've read of Redern's stuff and the interviews I've hear with him on a plethora of subjects I like his work as a Fortean archivist much in the way of Charles Fort or John Keel.

Then you should be interested in an upcoming "Ask Me Anything" thread I'm arranging with Nick Redfern as the guest respondent.

Hopefully we'll have him on in the next couple weeks, keep an eye out for an alert down at the bottom of the screen.

With regard to the topic of this thread, I couldn't have described my thoughts and feelings about "UFOlogy" better than you have.

Springer...

edit on 1-4-2014 by Springer because: (no reason given)

Outstanding. I will keep an eye out for that and put my thinking cap on for a good question for him.