Friday, September 30, 2011

UFO-DNA is back on-line

To all who pursue the UFO field seriously: this is really good news. The terrific case resource UFO-DNA has returned to active duty after a hiatus. If you have access to a good research collection of books and journals, this accumulation of references to case commentary locations has been very helpful to me. When coming across a case new to me, I habitually go there if I have only a slim single piece of information. Many times the site lists several books, journals, collections where comment on the case resides. Piling my desk with five or six references, all of a sudden I begin to feel like I am getting clearer on the incident. Extremely valuable and kudos for all the hard work by the creator.


  1. About time! I emailed the webmaster months ago and didn't get a reply. They'd been victim to a sustained DDOS attack and went offline.

    You're right about the quality of the quantity; it's been a rare site for the serious end of ufology. The Hatch 'U' database is (largely) back on-line, but UFO-DNA were hosting many of the Hatch UFO maps and keeping the efforts alive and accessible.

    Naturally, it's frowned upon by site-owners when someone mirrors their sites. On the other hand, I've mirrored a few sites to a hard-drive to save them for posterity.

    The nature of archives is almost thematic to your own fine blog. It's an ongoing discussion between copyrights, ownership and 'when it's gone, it's gone' fears.

  2. I've been pouring through UFO-DNA. What a wealth of info and sightings that are obscure and from the past! I was fascinated with sightings (including alleged abductions) in my neck-of-the-woods that date well back many decades. Also abductions by gray, small beings dating back into the early part of the 20th century in various parts of the world! So much for the tiny, bulbous headed/bug-eyed gray being a product of Hollywood.

    And when I poked around some hot-spots in the U.S., I found the Linda Napolitano case. Love that UFO-DNA labled it a "hoax"! Good for them! Butler, Hansen and Stefula exposed that Napolitano/Budd Hopkins mess about 15 yrs. ago. The late Budd Hopkins will unfortunately always be tied to this because he knowingly went along with Napolitano's hoax, making book money off it it. And he publically defended her in the last few months of his life (as well as visciously attacking his ex-wife Carol Rainey and visciously attacking Emma Woods - his colleague David Jacobs client).

    ~ Susan Brown

  3. Thank you, Susan, for your comments. They express a commonly [currently] felt belief about Budd and his work. But I feel that the situation is/was much more complicated than this.

    "Back in the day", I to a degree lived through this era with Budd as a geographically distant but friendly colleague nevertheless. There was a great deal to like about Budd Hopkins. Budd and I liked each other enough that he would regularly ask me up to his room [with a small number of colleagues, ex. John Mack] to talk about "the latest", when we were attending meetings. I'd give him the science related to his speculations, and he'd argue but buy into some, while he just couldn't get into a few of them. This lead to him sending me drafts of two of his books [most thoroughly the one of his and Carol's] to science-edit.

    As to the Linda case: I listened to Budd talk about that almost from day one. There is no question that he believed that it was true. The early parts of it were very intriguing to the rest of us also. It was only as things expanded that Budd went one way in total belief and some of the rest of us began sliding the other into heavy doubt. When one has only the perspective from outside the incident and at it's "completion", one would not have seen how it could be that you could be drawn in.

    Budd [and David] were "drawn in" for the most understandable of reasons: they already believed that all the foundational aspects of CE4s were beyond doubt. No matter how spectacular Linda's framing claims were, her story was just an add-on to what Budd thought that he already knew.

    As to his end times: an old man who spent most of his productive life chasing something that he felt was extremely important is not going to easily just surrender that. Whatever "unpleasantries" went on then are at the very least understandable. Whether the Linda case is the case of the millennium or a hoax/bust, I believe two things: A). Budd believed in it; and 2). Budd's work doesn't totally rise or fall on only this later-in-his-career case. What he did rides on his earlier work---the stuff which led to Missing Time. One may still decide that all of it was bunkum, but that is a different and much greater research project to examine.

    As to whether Budd was genuine: I've been present when his feelings about what he felt was going on made tears burst out. Budd Hopkins may have been chasing phantoms, but his heart was deeply engaged in that chase.

  4. Professor, I appreciate hearing your p.o.v. on the Hopkins 'Witnessed' subject. You had the perspective of being a friend as well as an investigator. This is always appreciated!

    ~ Susan

  5. I agree with Susan. I'd also like to add that the comments are refreshingly balanced and non-contentious.

    I felt that the past debate/discussion around Hopkins brought out aspects of ufology that were unpleasant and partisan. Thinking about it, one of the reasons I was drawn to the Big Study was the collegiate atmosphere. In my opinion, it's one of a handful of sites to demonstrate how easy it can be to focus on the topic and not be sidetracked by prejudices.

  6. I have tried very hard to go against the stream of personality smearing and wise-azzed cheap shots and thoughtlessness that pervades both our field of anomalies and the undisciplined internet. It is not as easy as it may seem. I have had to be "hard" on disrespectful posters who think they have unlimited rights to be immature or ignorant jerks. That was only done to preserve the civilized nature of the site for you guys who just would like to engage in a walk through wonders here. It also helps that I'm really old. Age should have impressed one with the clarity that you've made more mistakes than twenty younger people, so get over yourself. I want to sit on the bank of Nature's Anomalies River and pleasantly watch the amazing things swim by. I think that you guys do too.



Blog Archive