tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2019724693487670016.post4702827379597114273..comments2024-03-28T15:55:33.435-07:00Comments on The Big Study: The Communications Revolution: The End of UFOlogy and Anomalies Studies?The Professorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07811807639219365621noreply@blogger.comBlogger55125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2019724693487670016.post-67860523666801954032013-04-03T20:58:43.800-07:002013-04-03T20:58:43.800-07:00Yes I see what you mean and applaud all the work g...Yes I see what you mean and applaud all the work going into it. If there is a way to divide up the work let me and others know. Randel Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10649871674605641915noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2019724693487670016.post-7269839415034490062013-04-03T20:53:59.173-07:002013-04-03T20:53:59.173-07:00True I dont think rockets would get rhem here lol,...True I dont think rockets would get rhem here lol, but I imagine "sensors" that are invisible; the behavior and locations of all these balls of light make me think of nature. Or occassionally the supernatural. That leaves many reports that really do sound like aliens, esp the trace cases. <br />I'm on my iPhone and the spelling and tiny thumb work is maddening. More scotch, my lad.Randel Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10649871674605641915noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2019724693487670016.post-90291095162093208812013-04-03T19:56:36.195-07:002013-04-03T19:56:36.195-07:00Randel, I am in agreement with all that you have n...Randel, I am in agreement with all that you have noted, except for a slight twist on your next to last paragraph. Aliens might explore earth from a high orbit if they were using chemical rockets or similar technology that made it easier to work from an orbital position. But what if the aliens observe us because they are capable of manipulating energy just as we can manipulate matter. Imagine if we could simply send a plasmoid to a nearby star that could beam back information to us; that would put the rover Curiosity to shame! They might be laughing and watching us on their social media setups as we speak!Roberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12539157656501925987noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2019724693487670016.post-43529574930878658562013-04-03T19:48:29.725-07:002013-04-03T19:48:29.725-07:00Chris et al,
I agree that all reports must be acc...Chris et al,<br /><br />I agree that all reports must be accepted into the database. Then it becomes the job of the analyst to screen the database and look for the golden nugget. If we do not accept a BOL or LIT case then we are making a prejudicial decision that prevents any future analyst from determining that a particular BOL or LIT case fits into an interesting bucket that is being investigated. A good database let's the analyst screen out whatever he chooses in order to do an analysis against a particular hypothesis, therefore all data must be kept.Roberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12539157656501925987noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2019724693487670016.post-13272787662294399232013-04-03T17:50:25.478-07:002013-04-03T17:50:25.478-07:00Randel:
Those are good ideas. But note that in or...Randel:<br /><br />Those are good ideas. But note that in order to have a searchable database, the database has to be populated. And that is what takes time. And it's labor intensive. And we have to accept all the cases, BOLs or not, so that we can sort them later.<br /><br />So, we're still back at square one. Collect and record all UFO reports, regardless of whether or not they seem to be Chinese lanterns. And then there's the problem of having to actually investigate or gather enough data for the analyses to be useful.<br /><br />We are working on a master database that can be searchable. But in the meantime, individual years can be accessed at the survey website:<br />http://survey.canadianuforeport.comrutkowshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18347223344637255780noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2019724693487670016.post-73635028890909382672013-04-03T14:24:03.161-07:002013-04-03T14:24:03.161-07:00Hi Chris good to hear from you, I have been a foll...Hi Chris good to hear from you, I have been a follower of your work for several years. You have taken on a major task but an important one. Sounds like some criteria or rules need to be in place to test the report so it can be classified. <br /><br />I would keep all reports, but very vague and general reports like this would have to go under BOLs like you list here; I would not discard anything, but in light of not being able to follow up on a report, what else can a classifier do? <br /><br />If aliens are coming here I would think that about 90% of the reports would likely be something else. Are reports able to be put into a searchable database that can sort by date, time, day of week, number of witnesses, lights only, solid object in appearance, and so on?<br />THAT would be a major accomplishment, and perhaps some of you already have that capability? <br />I'm learning here . . . and wondering how I can help.<br /><br />This is the sort of thing I would travel to attend and participate in a small conference to work on these sort of challenging things. Thoughts? Randel Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10649871674605641915noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2019724693487670016.post-42486298420043220352013-04-03T13:48:22.288-07:002013-04-03T13:48:22.288-07:00Randel:
I agree with your points about sorting th...Randel:<br /><br />I agree with your points about sorting the wheat from the chaff. It's very, very easy to classify UFO reports. If you have enough data.<br /><br />The problem is that the UFO reports must be investigated, and we need to have enough information in a report to classify it. Since I'm in the midst of painstakingly going through the 2012 cases, I can give a typical example of what I'm talking about:<br /><br />This is the information available on a typical case:<br /><br /><b>Date: September 15, 2012<br />Time: Evening.<br />We saw at least 9 - 4 in formation and 5 following individually. Bright fuzzy red lights, but no sound. They eventually disappeared. They traveled north to south.</b><br /><br />Is that an IFO or a UFO? 9 BOLs or not 9 BOLs? Do you discard this case?<br /><br />Oh, you have to get more information, you say? Certainly. How do you do that? This report was filed though an online web form. Most have no email addresses attached. Do we discard these on that basis alone? If so, the number of UFO cases each year drops by about 90%. And cases that are actually well-investigated constitute only a tiny fraction of all UFO reports.<br /><br />I can sympathize, then, with people who argue that UFO report statistics mean absolutely nothing.<br /><br />However, Blue Book did it, and ufologists such as Friedman and others routinely cite Blue Book statistics as evidence that the number of Unknowns was significant in the early studies.<br /><br />Can we have it both ways?<br /><br /><br /><br />rutkowshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18347223344637255780noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2019724693487670016.post-73772610077651306482013-04-02T12:10:38.869-07:002013-04-02T12:10:38.869-07:00Yes gentlemen sorting the wheat from the chaff is ...Yes gentlemen sorting the wheat from the chaff is critical in data analysis, but we do need to record and examine all the reports as you are saying. Over the years I have formed my own opinion from this. Most of that is more based on common sense reasoning than anything else. I rarely see this line of thinking discussed on all the websites or in the books. <br /><br />Looked at this way the truly strange cases stand out immediately. There are too many cases for most of them to be spaceships. A few cases could be supernatural. A few could be aliens on exploratory missions. So what are the majority? <br /><br />It seems we are dealing with a large number of encounters with a natural phenomenon found in nature which man does not yet understand. All these quick, slow, static and zig-zagging points of light and energy. They can change shape, texture and look like they are 'intelligent'. But are they? I have seen them and been able to watch them for long periods of time out over the desert near Mexico. Time to watch, and think. <br /><br />A large part of this mystery may be solved when Industry needs to figure this out for practical reasons, like we did with nuclear physics. We needed to harness the power of fission, so we worked on it and figured it out, then put it to work. <br /><br />What do we really KNOW about most of these things? They illuminate, stop suspended in the atmosphere, move through the atmosphere more like electricity than actually 'flying', so no sonic boom. See what I mean? They can appear solid, light, dark, textured, exhibit points of light on their surface, produce light arrays that shine on the ground, stall engines and radio waves. They come close to people and machinery and zoom away, attracted and repulsed. So they appear at first observation to be intelligent. But are they? We could sure use that kind of thing and it might help us have lower light bills some day or move a load across the earth and more.<br /><br />Wouldn't aliens be able to explore the earth from a high orbit without sending countless thousands of glowing, erratic devices all over the place? My common sense is showing here. This sort of reasoning is what helps me narrow down the cases and makes me all the more anxious for science and industry to learn what most of these things are so we can understand it, harness or re-create it to our own needs. It is exciting to know that there is much yet to learn about the world around us.<br /><br />The truly strange cases and encounters are another thing, and so hard to measure and document, as we know. Randel Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10649871674605641915noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2019724693487670016.post-91167560073942866032013-04-02T11:36:22.789-07:002013-04-02T11:36:22.789-07:00On an unrelated note:
It's interesting that t...On an unrelated note:<br /><br />It's interesting that the Citizen's Hearing on Disclosure takes place at the end of April in Washington, DC. Dozens of UFO experts will testify before a kind-of Congress that release of suppressed information about UFOs is demanded by the public.<br /><br />But two things: first, as Michel Deschamps noted recently in his blog, he obtained many official UFO docs in the 1990s, long before they were "released" through apparent "disclosure" in the past few years (http://www.noufors.com/ufo_related_documentation_in_pdf_format.html); secondly, here on this blog, we are discussing the difficulty in simply sorting through the sea of UFO data that constitutes the foundation upon which all ufology is set, including said "disclosure."<br /><br />In other words, UFO research and investigation is both far ahead AND far behind what is assumed to be the case (and fact) discussed at the upcoming hearings.rutkowshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18347223344637255780noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2019724693487670016.post-53632998861297147282013-04-02T10:49:02.221-07:002013-04-02T10:49:02.221-07:00Robert et al:
Your last comment "It's no...Robert et al:<br /><br />Your last comment "It's not easy" may not have been caught by some readers. And it's the most important point.<br /><br />Why can't ufologists simply discard or filter out all BOLs and LITS cases so that lists of UFO reports are not filled up with sightings of Chinese lanterns and stars? Because it's a bit more complicated. Whenever I suggest to a witness that what he or she has seen may have been a Chinese lantern, the reaction 90% of the time is an exasperated "No way!" They usually say things like: "I've been watching the skies for XX years and I know what a Chinese lanterns looks like!" Or: "I could tell this was something from outer space. It was a real UFO!" So do you reject their view that it wasn't an IFO?<br /><br />Alternatively, I sometimes get reports of BOLs from areas where I know Chinese lanterns have been launched during that same week, but something in one of the UFO reports filed seems anomalous. Do we assume the witness was mistaken with regards to the "abrupt right angle turn" and the "zooming away?"<br /><br />And finally, there's the old problem of apples and oranges. BOLs and LITS have been included as UFO data for decades. Because Chinese lanterns are now popular, do we eliminate certain classes of NLs from the database? If we can screen out lanterns and stars through simple investigation techniques, we will still be left with the unknowns, regardless of the number of IFOs reported as well. The percentage of UFOs versus IFOs might change, but the UFOs will still stand out. <br /><br />My vote is to continue to accept all reports into the databases. I note that Blue Book and others included many IFOs in their lists of UFOs, and while it may may have made the files top-heavy for IFOs, the idea is still to understand what it is that people are seeing and reporting. And if they're reporting mostly IFOs, then so be it.rutkowshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18347223344637255780noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2019724693487670016.post-45114380381775027482013-04-02T10:47:43.727-07:002013-04-02T10:47:43.727-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.rutkowshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18347223344637255780noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2019724693487670016.post-65325320412056370762013-04-02T08:51:17.528-07:002013-04-02T08:51:17.528-07:00Hi purrlgurrl,
You bring up two items that create...Hi purrlgurrl,<br /><br />You bring up two items that create many UFO reports today. Within MUFON, most investigators will usually check to see if Chinese lanterns are the cause of orange lights in the sky. They usually are. They are fairly easy to identify by looking at wind direction, constant speed and direction, flickering, and they just "suddenly disappear." But if a witness indicates sudden rapid changes of direction and speed then that is a quality that allows an investigator to rule out Chinese lanterns. On the other hand, civilian and military drones are much more difficult to rule out. Even with a detailed questionnaire, these are very difficult to rule out, especially with night time sightings, which make up almost 90% of UFO sighting reports. It requires a very close up sighting at night so that physical features are seen or lights in the sky that perform in such a non-aerodynamic manner that drones can be ruled out. It's not easy. Roberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12539157656501925987noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2019724693487670016.post-12022392624683131902013-04-01T18:09:27.387-07:002013-04-01T18:09:27.387-07:00Hi Bob. I really don't know anything about Qui...Hi Bob. I really don't know anything about Quimby. The document that you refer to was one of several wherein the CIA Office of Scientific Intelligence director, H Marshall Chadwell was communicating with persons in the Cambridge Massachusetts area about the problem of sorting out unidentified violations of US airspace. Julius Stratton of MIT was leading this discussion with Chadwell, and a lot more seriously than Zacharias. Stratton wanted some substantial elements of the Lincoln Lab [the evolution from the old WWII Rad-Lab that pushed Radar forward] to take over a truly scientific research project with the CIA as partner to nail down this UFO problem that the USAF couldn't handle. More relevant scientists involved would probably be Al Hill and George Valley. <br /><br />Zacharias probably didn't take UFOs seriously and was being flippant. Quimby had been his major professor in grad school, so he respected the old man. Quimby was also apparently CIA. Since about the 1920s Quimby had become a famous stage magician, even editing a major magic journal. He being an early version of James Randi, and Zacharias thinking the UFO thing was full of fakers, Zacharias probably brought up his name to Chadwell. Nothing in Quimby's research suggests any particular relevancy to studying UFOs or even radar. That's all I've got.The Professorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07811807639219365621noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2019724693487670016.post-17222654660860501512013-04-01T17:40:32.435-07:002013-04-01T17:40:32.435-07:00This is a field that sorely needs agreement on som...This is a field that sorely needs agreement on some basic definitions for the phenomenon as well as a standard reporting tool used by all entities collecting UFO data. <br /><br />Having read so many anonymous orange light in the sky reports, it's hard to fathom any being of value to a serious, objective researcher or proving anything. Especially when such reports come from major cities with streetlights that cast an orange glow. Anything shiny (even something as mundane as a runaway mylar balloon or plastic bag blowing in the wind) would reflect orange at night from the streetlights. Since Chinese hot-air lanterns are becoming increasingly popular for release at after-dark celebrations (they've quite common where I live), the chances that many orange lights seen after dark are these lanterns are high, especially during the summer months and on clear, temperate nights. <br /><br />I would strongly suggest screening out all orange orb at night reports, which did not also contain a report of some other unusual phenomena occurring with them, as NOT meeting the definition of a UFO.<br /><br />Anonymous reports are problematic. Without collecting basic witness contact information, how can any follow up research be done? Anonymous reports are close to useless, you must admit. One can't even begin to verify the report is not a hoax by gathering more witness information or searching for corroborating reports from the same area. <br /><br />Surely there must be some mechanisms that can be put in place to protect witness identify from all but a serious researcher. Identify is generally protected in academic research by using case numbers. Actual identifies are known to only those with an absolute need to know.<br /><br />Of course the impending proliferation of domestic commercial and municipal drones adds a new layer of complexity to UFO case reporting. There must be some questions in any reporting tool that could indicate whether possibly what was seen was, in fact, a civilian drone. Make no mistake, these will become a serious problem for UFO data collection and research if there are no case report screening questions developed that could indicate a possible mistaken drone sighting.<br /><br />The bottom line is that Ufology is either serious about conducting UFO research or it's just a big, fun "what if" game. Only the entities that have set themselves up to collect data about the phenomenon can decide what they want to be -- a source of valuable data for serious research or social outlets for those with a passing interest.purrlgurrlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06519835482606629362noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2019724693487670016.post-21564215539788820432013-04-01T16:32:45.380-07:002013-04-01T16:32:45.380-07:00Good afternoon, Professor.
I apologize for seemin...Good afternoon, Professor.<br /><br />I apologize for seemingly hijacking this stream of comments, but I really don’t have any other way to contact you, presently.<br /><br />I was wondering if you might have had any opportunity to compile any information regarding Professor Shirley Quimby, (Columbia University) and his relationship with the UFO Program. More directly, in one particular CIA document, dated 3 December 1952, Jerrold Zacharias referred to Quimby as being the best person to run the UFO Program (for the CIA), via Project LINCOLN, because “…the latter is probably the most expert man in the country on magic and general chicanery…”<br /><br />Other than Physics, my background searches have, so far, not provided for me any clear explanation for this, and I thought it was an odd way for Zacharias to describe him. I would greatly value any thoughts or insights you may have on it?<br /><br />All the Best,<br />Bob Koford <br />bobkoford@comcast.net<br />Bob Kofordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01739226809252915992noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2019724693487670016.post-75425275539406068842013-03-31T20:52:17.710-07:002013-03-31T20:52:17.710-07:00* Professor, I agree with your assessment of Walt ...* Professor, I agree with your assessment of Walt Webb. His investigation culminating in his book 'Encounter at Buff Ledge' was excellent. He was careful to report exactly what the two principal witnesses experienced and didn't super-impose his p.o.v. about their accounts.<br /><br /><br />I also see your point about not everyone being honest who puts up a blog about their experiences. It's up to the reader to personally decide if what they're reading is truthful or something else or a mixed-bag. This made me think of a certain famous author/abductee who ,imo, had some true experiences which he initially shared but as time went on - embellished and maybe even created stories because a publisher expects a book due and wants it more exciting than the last one, ect.<br /><br />** Bruno, I'm afraid I disagree with some of what you've written to me. The blogs aren't "useless without a filter" because that filter - a researcher or UFO organization - usually has their own agenda. A couple of examples - we can see the agenda in the late John Mack's investigations and writings - a new aged point of view of aliens bringing personal enlightenment mixed with eastern philosophy. And with David Jacobs we see his agenda - aliens hybridizing with humans to breed our species out.<br /><br />As for comparing todays close encounter bloggers to the contactees of the 1950s/60s might fit if you're referring to newaged types today who claim positive experiences, but most bloggers share quite a different story from the benevolent space brothers~contactee mythos. I also think, aside from the presence of some government shills pretending to be 'contactees' back in the 1950s/60s, there were people who experienced something but interpreted it in a positive light. It wouldn't surprise me if those contactees were experiencing 'screen memories' and what they actually encountered was something quite darker than the love&light space brothers & sisters.<br /><br />I do see your point about the "quasi-religious/spiritual approach" to close encounter experiencers recounting their experiences. However when you've experienced something that is not suppose to exist/happen, it's natural to try to figure it out in a religious perspective (if one is so inclined regarding their belief systems). Also we have to consider that aliens know our beliefs (they appear to be telepathic afterall) and may take advantage of them in their interactions (manipulations?) with us.<br /><br />~ Susan<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2019724693487670016.post-37105509217838265842013-03-31T09:41:36.906-07:002013-03-31T09:41:36.906-07:00As usual, good wisdom Chris.
As to LITS [I call ...As usual, good wisdom Chris. <br /><br />As to LITS [I call them that too; it's much better than NLs since not all of them are nocturnal], there are simple LITS cases and there are remarkable stunning LITS cases. MANY of the well-recorded incidents from things like Project Moonwatch were "only LITS" BUT the "display aspect" of some of those make them as valuable in pointing towards possible capabilities and even "agendas" within the phenomenon as about anything. <br /><br />Also, there is the issue of BOLs. When does a LITS become a BOL case? Are LITSs and BOLs the same thing, or are there two different realities mixed together there [possibly one advanced hardware, and one paranormal or cryptonatural]? <br /><br />We need to keep our data doors open.The Professorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07811807639219365621noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2019724693487670016.post-64755637286193876442013-03-30T20:06:41.209-07:002013-03-30T20:06:41.209-07:00Thanks Robert and good to hear from you. Agreed, ...Thanks Robert and good to hear from you. Agreed, an explainable report does not warrant a deeper investigation and multiple witnesses, to anything, is certainly wanted. There will be much to talk about one day when we meet up. All the best. I think you still have my contact information; cell 281-450-1932; 16430 Oxnard Lane, Friendswood, Tx 77546<br />randel@timelessproductions.us<br />I sent you a note last week about your appearance in a doc on TV. Randel Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10649871674605641915noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2019724693487670016.post-13913863650541092972013-03-30T20:04:02.100-07:002013-03-30T20:04:02.100-07:00In response to one of the Anonymous posters above,...In response to one of the Anonymous posters above, it is true that "mundane" UFO reports comprise the vast majority of UFO data. He also suggests that such cases not be included in yearly report stats. Although completely understandable, there are a few concerns with that approach, unfortunately.<br /><br />First, not every UFO investigator considers ordinary lights in the sky as IFOs. Some are certain that even rather boring LITS (Lights In The Sky) are "scout ships" or "probes." So some of these cases will make it into UFO databases. Also, some witnesses who interpret and inflate the importance of LITS will cause their cases to be considered more than ordinary IFOs. <br /><br />Then there's the problem that LITS are already in UFO report databases. IFOs are therefore a good fraction of UFO data. Historically, of course, many of the Blue Book reports and MoD reports (and other docs) are simply IFOs. A lot of the analyses that has been done on UFO data includes IFOs as part of the data.<br /><br />I would therefore recommend a steady course. Include all reported UFOs as data in analyses of UFO cases. The IFOs will easily be sorted out, and the "good" cases will rise to the surface as cream. Yes, it means a lot of hard work sorting out which are which. (I should know; my hands and arms are sore from typing in all the data for 2012... hundreds and hundreds of cases...). But it's the only way to make a direct comparison between, for example, Blue Book data and the Canadian data. Apples and apples, not apples and pimentos. And I will note that in another few years, we will have a database of consistently-evaluated UFO reports covering 25 years in a single country, likely about 15,000 cases by that time. That will be a very nice sample upon which to case some conclusions about the nature of UFO reports.rutkowshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18347223344637255780noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2019724693487670016.post-5352277413669806492013-03-30T19:56:33.197-07:002013-03-30T19:56:33.197-07:00Hi Randel,
I think Mike's explanation of some...Hi Randel,<br /><br />I think Mike's explanation of some of your concerns as well as his sociological review of ufology, is "spot-on" as our neighbors across the pond are fond of saying. You bring up a good point about investigating the witness. MUFON could do better in this area. A determination of the witness's reliability is part of what a MUFON investigator examines. The witness's educational background is part of the investigation form as well as the investigator's impression of the witness. Since most cases are known objects, there is no need to go into detailed examination of a witness's background. But if a case has a lot of merit then the witness's background is checked but not as often as it should be. Personally, I prefer to have multiple witnesses rather than single witness, no matter the integrity of a single witness. One of these days we will meet up when I'm in the Houston area.Roberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12539157656501925987noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2019724693487670016.post-72441073967155005172013-03-30T19:39:48.518-07:002013-03-30T19:39:48.518-07:00Hi purrlgurrl,
A more accurate statement might be...Hi purrlgurrl,<br /><br />A more accurate statement might be, "You'll always be working with SOME unsupported, anecdotal reports." This is true whether dealing with MUFON reports, Blue Book reports, or police reports for that matter. The goal is to improve the quality of reports, which is easier to do with investigators that are controlled such as the Air Force or the police. On the flip side, many of the reports in the MUFON database are far superior to those completed by Blue Book, which would often explain away reports with unsupportable explanations.<br /><br />Just to be clear, professional scientists are interested in and researching the subject of UFOs. I'm not sure why you have such angst on this issue. And so that you know---I don't have frustration with the poor quality of the data; I want to take actions to continue to improve the quality of the data and I've seen those improvements.Roberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12539157656501925987noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2019724693487670016.post-62612200272277497052013-03-30T19:28:56.278-07:002013-03-30T19:28:56.278-07:00Thank you for your excellent description of the si...Thank you for your excellent description of the situation and how MUFON evolved; I did not know all that about the history of the organization, not entirely anyway. I recognize most of the names in your list and they are good people. In fact Robert Powell is right here in Texas not too far away from me, though we have not gotten to meet yet. This is one BIG country and hard to get together in person without some expense, but, as we see right here, the internet does offer practical convenience unseen in human history. <br /><br />I hope to be able to meet and work with these folks one day and perhaps Robert will find me useful some time too! <br /><br />I enjoy your well written and well considered blog. Now being 57 years old, it seems a race between wisdom gained through those years and genuine old age deterring much action to good use! <br /><br />All the best, and a happy Easter tomorrow.<br />Randel Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10649871674605641915noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2019724693487670016.post-8652736741938502722013-03-30T19:24:34.695-07:002013-03-30T19:24:34.695-07:00There could definitely be some improvements in loy...There could definitely be some improvements in loyalties between the state systems in MUFON and the national system---in both directions. As usual, these types of issues are a function of the personalities involved. I believe that MUFON is making improvements as the quality of reports and the rapidity at which they're completed has been improving.Roberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12539157656501925987noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2019724693487670016.post-43246085234225203912013-03-30T19:12:37.025-07:002013-03-30T19:12:37.025-07:00Randel, your suggestions have obvious merit, and t...Randel, your suggestions have obvious merit, and they have been brought up a surprisingly large number of times over the history of the organization. It is my opinion that they don't get anywhere due to the inertia of decades of opposite sociology which have created certain unhelpful expectations as to what a symposium is, what it's really for, what being a state director means vis-a-vis how much one has to "obey" the national, and how much the national needs to give support and feedback to the states. <br /><br />Almost all of this was driven by the crude fact that this was all amateur volunteer work with basically no funding. Early in MUFONs history there was another pretty negative moment with long consequences: Coral Lorenzen, who in her later years was losing perspective on how "important" she was, had an ego-trip blast-off at Walt Andrus, which resulted in actual hatred and the permanent splitting off of MUFON from APRO. Walt had no loyalty whatever to Coral after that [hard to blame him] and went on a policy of gobbling up memberships countrywide, ultimately eclipsing APROs reach even at its peek. <br /><br />My semi-living through those years indicated to me that Walt understood very well a simple fact of human nature: if you aren't in the same location, you better "rule" with carrots not sticks.... thus a forever too loose organization. He also realized that you get more people by honey than vinegar, or in our case, exciting baloney rather than hard science investigation and analysis, and another "looseness" became characteristic of the symposia. Sometimes, as when Dick Hall played major roles in the Journal, the MJ was quite good. Most of the time it was exactly like the symposia: occasional quality mired in shallow wannabee concepts and [too-often] even hoaxes.<br /><br />Because of this institutional inertia, and despite brilliantly correct-minded people like Robert Powell, I hold little hope that MUFON can effectively break away from its past. What UFOlogy needs at a minimal beginning is an annual high quality meeting featuring scholars, vetted case investigations, FOIA and Archives work, etc. A working group of actual cooperating researchers would have to be the driving force behind this. Because of the word "cooperating", most of the UFO Rockstars would not be included. But there are exceptions [ex. Powell, Rodeghier, Clark, Greenwood, Schmitt, Bullard, Haines, Aldrich, Ridge, .... , all can exist civilly in the same room as I can attest. What that group would need would be two administrators [the central administrator and a website administrator], and someone to organize the annual meeting. Such a core group with all their valuable lesser known friends [I could add at least a dozen more excellent fellows to that list] could begin to establish an intellectual and scientific presence which would be something that the "outside" person could count on. <br /><br />But a lot of us are too old like myself to carry such a thing. So my guess is: it has a snowball's chance in Hell of happening. What WILL happen is that Robert will generate good things at his level of available energy and cooperation, and that Fran Ridge's website will get better and better and with luck may become the website part of the Academic-quality UFOlogists' meeting place dreamed about above. <br /><br />That's enough. I've offended practically everyone with that one. The Professorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07811807639219365621noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2019724693487670016.post-6440778754639356602013-03-30T16:26:27.497-07:002013-03-30T16:26:27.497-07:00The professor is right that MUFON, et al, could st...The professor is right that MUFON, et al, could stand to have a principal investigator per state who is a more professional, skilled person with time to put to more detailed detective like work. I personally take the tactic of also investigating the witness. Unheard of! But that is what a real cop or FBI man would do, isn't it? You say you saw or met a flying saucer and the operators, aliens; lets have details about that, and then, about YOU. Uncomfortable? People don't often file false or vague reports to the authorities about a possible murder or other serious act due to being looked into themselves. <br /><br />Would it be useful for MUFON to redesign their annual conferences around investigators and analyst's reports and conclusions, a working symposium like those I have worked for in science, with only a very few guest speakers? In other words, spend the company cash on flying and housing their own personnel to the meeting and only paying out for a very few public guest speakers? So if you are an active, productive investigator you can count on the organization bringing you and your work to the annual meeting for you to make your presentation to colleagues, and much less money spent on entertaining personalities from the field in general? <br /><br />These are reasons I have not paid up dues and joined MUFON and have looked for a group who thinks more like this. <br /><br />The organization would loose some supporting membership due to becoming 'boring' in some ways, but it would also attract more respect and interest from those quarters they have longed to attract. I suggest a name change for the group, redefinition of goals and implementation of enforced methods of action with a serious, if not dull annual report written to accepted academic publishing standards (which my wife and I do routinely), for several years in a row. This behavior would help, at least, attract more personnel and make obtaining grants and sponsorship possible. I guess it would take creating a sub group out of MUFON, with only distant, perhaps VERY distant ties to the larger organization. <br /><br />What do you think? Too critical and ambitious? Randel Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10649871674605641915noreply@blogger.com