Showing posts with label Researchers. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Researchers. Show all posts

Tuesday, October 14, 2014

Does Australia Need Official UFO Researchers?

Bookmark and Share

UFO Sculpture, Lower Light in South Australia
A roadside UFO sculpture, Lower Light in South Australia (landy6 - ABC Open contributor)

Does Australia Need Official UFO Researchers?


By Eloise Fuss
www.abc.net.au
10-13-14


A South Australian UFO researcher says a dedicated civilian group needs to be established to investigate and report mysterious sightings in our skies.

     Long time UFO researcher, Keith Basterfield, said the Australian Air Force archived more than 10,000 UFO observations before they halted these records in 1990.

A number of keen groups and individuals around the country have continued to unofficially collect UFO data, but Mr Basterfield wants to see these reports brought together on a national level.

"There are a number of people who have done this for many years and are quite good at it, but what we're lacking is a national level perspective of what's being reported."

With much mystery still surrounding these unidentified flying objects, Mr Basterfield hoped a more cohesive collection of sighting information could help lead to explanations.

"I want to know if there's anything more to the whole subject beyond the 95 per cent that could be explained, and the small possibility of rare phenomena that science still doesn't understand," Mr Basterfield said.

SA's reported sightings range from 50 years ago when numerous unidentified flying objects were seen above the Woomera Rocket Range in the state's outback, to more recent reports from a regional farming community. . . .

Wednesday, June 27, 2012

Demands on UFO Researchers by the Media and Groups


Bookmark and Share

Demands on UFO Researchers by the Media and Groups

By Dennis Balthaser
www.truthseekeratroswell.com
7-1-12

     I have in previous editorials vented about my feelings toward the media and how they report events related to the subject of UFO’s, and in particular their expectations from researchers. I’ve discussed these issues with other researchers I have worked with over the years, and we all seem to be of the same opinion. I don’t expect this editorial will cause any changes in the media’s method of operation, but for those reading this that believe we researchers make a lot of money for doing conferences and radio and TV interviews, I’ll present some examples of that false belief.

Perhaps due to the economy or the information available via the Internet, many groups, (several MUFON chapters included that I’ve dealt with recently), are anxious to ask researchers to speak to their group, but when it comes time to discuss an honorarium or travel and lodging expenses for the researcher, the discussion becomes stalemated and the researcher is not invited since they are not willing, or don’t have the finances to pay for the speakers expenses. I am appreciative to those groups that I have lectured to about my research that were willing to pay my expenses to get there. In those cases covering my expenses was my only motive, as I’ve never done this research for profit, continuing to believe that sharing the research is important, and it should be compensated at least for the many years it has taken to obtain the information.

Basically what it comes down to is the fact that the media, and many groups want the information that we researchers have obtained over the past 20 to 30 years at our own expense and time, for free. I know of very few other organizations that expect their speakers to share their information for free as we UFO researchers have had to do for years.

The TV documentaries you see on TV about UFO’s are on the air for two reasons; (ratings and profits), and many times they distort the information we shared during the filming with a crew that knows nothing about the subject. So we’re at the mercy of some editor back in New York or Los Angeles. (Researchers do not have the opportunity to review what will be aired prior to it being broadcast.) I have never received any compensation for the hours of filming I did with any film crews that I’ve been involved with. Brad Meltzer’s “Decoded” series on the History channel was an exception, i.e. the information I shared with the crew was depicted as I presented it in the final product, and the crew had done their homework before the interview with me. A National Geographic Network show several years ago was the opposite, when they filmed me for 6 hours, using my vehicle to get around, and the show aired as a total distortion of the information I shared. Stanton Friedman was also involved in that show and we both informed National Geographic about our displeasure with the results.

Recently I was busy working around the house one morning, when I received a call from a radio producer with a German radio station that was in Roswell, wondering if I could do a 10 or 15-minute interview with their show host that morning. That threw up the first red flag for me. I was expected to drop everything I was doing and share my 25 years of research about an event that happened 65 years ago in a 10-minute interview. I told her I was busy at the time but could arrange to meet her after lunch about 1. She said, “that wasn’t good, could I do it later, so we agreed that I would meet her at 2.”

After lunch I cleaned up, and waited for her to call. She didn’t call until an hour and 45 minutes after our agreed time, and told me, “She was not going to be able to interview me as they were going back to Santa Fe that afternoon.” I informed her that this was the very reason I was disgusted with the media. We researchers are expected to drop whatever we’re doing for their benefit, so they can interview us about one of the most important events in history and do it in 10 or 15 minutes according to their schedule, with no reimbursement for the wasted time I had. Even though I didn’t personally meet this interviewer, I would wager that she had no knowledge of the Roswell incident, and as with many others that want to do interviews and know nothing about the subject, it probably would not have been a good interview.

It becomes extremely frustrating when these type things happen time and time again. I would like to see other researchers take a stand about what has transpired far too long, when it comes to asking for our years of hard work for free, and entirely for their benefit.

Live radio is fun, and can be done with an hour or two interview by telephone or Skype connections. There are no editors to distort what you’re sharing with the host and his, (or her) audience, and is usually done in the comfort of your own home, requiring no additional expense for the researcher other than a little of his time. Those radio hosts that have done their homework on the subject are always the best interviews.

A typical one hour TV documentary is actually only about 40-45-minutes in length. The remaining time is commercials and that income is going somewhere, obviously not to the researcher being interviewed.

On the conference and seminar organizers, it’s a shame that many good serious researchers are not invited because the group can’t pay minimal expenses to bring in the speakers. If I book a lecture and come close to breaking even on the expenses, I’m pleased, as I feel I have been able to share some research with them that perhaps they haven’t heard before.

Several of you reading this are probably thinking I shouldn’t do it if I’m unhappy about the way we researchers are treated, and yes, TV, radio and conferences are exposure for our information, but it doesn’t pay for supplies, travel, and many other expenses we have had in doing the research for many years. Being a UFO researcher is not a profession that will make you rich, and many may think because you are on TV, do lectures or sell books you make a lot of money---you don’t. Therefore it is essential to understand that many of us do this research out of a devotion to obtaining the truth, and are willing to share it with many media outlets. Those outlets need to understand what was involved by that researcher they’re interviewing to obtain the knowledge he or she has been sharing for years, that make the media’s programs interesting.

Will anything change in the future to fairly recognize what these researchers have accomplished over the years? Probably not, but I felt a need to share a few of my experiences with you, that others have also experienced. It’s disappointing at times, and extremely frustrating, but searching for the truth is too important to ignore. Hopefully in the future researchers will be given the recognition they so badly deserve.

Monday, April 14, 2008

Researchers Verses Investigators

Flying Saucer Photo Inspection
By Don Ledger
4-12-08

Don Ledger (Sml B)     Something I find troubling these days is the dearth of reactors to investigations of the UFO phenomenon. There are many reactors but few actual investigators of fresh cases here, cases where you get a report of an incident then investigate within the limits of you professional ability and experience. A few of these cases can-to a limited extent-be investigated on a near to second hand basis during a review of the case but with actual interaction or e-review of the witnesses, but the case suffers for it obviously due to the time element.

Various mailing lists and forums have many reactors. Some of them are good friends of mine or at least long standing acquaintances. There are others who have spent years in the field and have earned their stripes and now find themselves defending cases against those who weren't there and have little insight into such cases having read and formed an opinion without actually getting [or having gotten] their hands dirty in a case reading only cold documents.

Emotion is left out of the equation. More on this below.

Sometimes you are second on the scene to a case where the witness waits months or years before reporting it to you, but again the case suffers due the time element and the trail going cold even though it might be a good sighting.

As an example: An Air Canada 747 pilot contacted me in August, 5 years ago and related to me his experience in 1988 while flying south of Seoul, Korea of having a large cylindrical object flying at their 10 o'clock, same altitude about a half mile distant. He, the First Officer and the Flight Engineer saw the thing. He called me from overseas one afternoon to tell me about it. He said that he thought about this incident everyday since then and was glad that he finally had someone he could tell about it.

My value then was a shoulder to cry on and a way for the witness to vet himself and not be laughed at, ridiculed or be told he was crazy. For myself it was another pilot report that could be added to an overflowing database.

Witnesses contacting me years after the event has happened to me dozens of times over the last 20 years. Of these I give value to only to the witness who stumbled across my name and laid out his or her experience to me on a personal basis-not seeking publicity. Or if it was on one of the lists the witness again contacted me directly about a case being discussed and revealed details to me but again did not want to be publicly associated with the case.

I see little hands on investigation of cases displayed by many of those who offer opinions on this list. I doubt if 98 percent have ever investigated a case as the second on the scene but rather are a reader of the report. This is a third level [or layer] away from the actual case. This can be healthy mind you as it tends to re-investigate a case but still without the direct input of the witnesses or if they do investigate the original witness[es] they risk being derided by the 4th level for assigning value to old memories.

Old memories are only valueless when they are of the mundane and the ordinary. I'm not going to get into my reasons for saying this because it is a subject all on its own. But I say so from personal experience.

Blog sites abound that offer little other than opinion [no proof or the lack thereof] which have little value associated with them. Some receive legitimacy that they don't deserve because of their standing in said community but they are in the final analyses, just one person's opinion/impression after having read a report. "I read it on so and so's Blog site." So what? This is akin to saying 'I read it in the paper so it must be true'.

If typewritten reports were considered the final answer to a case then we could cut the cost the legal system. The police could stay in the office and investigate witnesses or suspects via email. We could do away with the witness stand in the court room and have the witnesses interviewed by email. Why is it, do you suppose, that the police go knocking on doors when they are looking for answers? Why is it that they take people downtown and interview them in small rooms? Why do lawyers confront witnesses in front of a room full of people instead of just reading their testimony into the record? Why do they do this if witness testimony is valueless?

I'll tell you why, because each of the above wants to look the witness in the eyes, wants to note body language. In court the lawyers want the jury-and the judge-to see the emotional [there's that word again] reactions of the witness and make a judgement. You can't do that reading a report and then come to a reasoned conclusion of a case. If you could then there would be no need of public court. Legal minds would sit around a table and shift through documents and make a decision of quilt or innocence on the strength of the written evidence without emotion entering into it. That too, of course, would hang to some degree on the writing skills of those writing the reports. But Crimes of Passion would be hard to sort out around a table. Visit court and watch cases where there is a high emotional quotient-rape cases and murder cases, child molestation cases, sexual abuse and wife beatings, etc. Emotion is rampant.

When I presented Shag Harbour in Atlantic City in February, I had the opportunity to listen to a presentation about the book Captured by Stanton T. Friedman and Kathleen Marden. Kathy was presenting. She played tapes of Betty and Barney Hill while they were "under". I had met Betty on several occasions, talked with her. It was hard to believe the raw emotion pouring out of this woman through the sound system in the room with the gentle little creature that I had spoken with. Reading of the events that intruded on her and Barney's life was interesting. Listening to it was disturbing and effective.

_That's_ the value of live testimony over cold documents. I've had witnesses break down during an interview, weep or get extremely distraught.* Taking that out of any CE-2 plus case is to the detriment of the case.

Revisiting old cases and just arguing the merits contained in the documents without the witnesses's emotional impact lessens the value of the document in my estimation.

There are some incidents that have been looked at on this list that have added value to the data to that case. The Heflin case went beyond the documents and revisited shadows, the value of the photos, the lay of the land, Heflin's career and even the possibility of the "object" being a model train wheel. This was a case where more modern methods were employed to examine the photograph [Polaroid] and determine its authenticity. It did not have the luxury of first hand investigation but it had value and was not just one's knee jerk reaction to a document as is often the case and I'm as guilty as the next person in that regard.

If as many people on this list and other lists spent the time in the field investigating new cases as they do researching old documents we might get somewhere. But getting out there takes time and money where sitting in front of a computer is much easier.

I like the older cases as well because the further back you go there tends to be an innocence not seen today, even with those we believe have hindered the process. But I have seen nothing to indicate the slowing down of reports. Local reports still come to me but more go to the high profile sites such as NUFORC and Brian Vike. The latter are difficult to investigate because the witnesses names are withheld.