UFO Faux Journalism

I'm not a journalist. I write about stuff I find interesting.

Journalism is a profession consisting of skilled investigators and reporters. Many are educated in its disciplines, although its protocols are often undermined by hobbyists. I think calling myself a journalist would devalue the work invested and dues paid by those who earned the title through years of college and employment. I just like to conduct research and then write about my findings, and I have been fortunate enough to be able to spend some time pursuing the pastime. The UFO subculture blurred the lines between not only professional journalists and amateur reporters, but also

By Jack brewer The UFO Trail 5-10-22

between journalists and what are more accurately described as UFO promoters. It's been happening and morphing for decades. Such promoters become enmeshed with their subjects of interest and even seem offended at times if they are not discussed as primary parts of the stories.

In recent years and months in (what we might generously call) ufology, numerous self-styled journalists cropped up to assist the usual UFO promoters in making an absolute mess of anything that may have ever held any resemblance to objective reporting. This happens through a combination of shortcomings. Make no mistake, the sometimes sincere yet unequipped self-styled journos are manipulated in some instances. They lack the skills and tools they need to navigate increasingly complex situations. This can result in folding to the noise of the crowd and those who push them hardest. They typically have minimal mentorship and what little they get is often low quality.

In other circumstances they're more willingly coerced, hoovering up and disseminating talking points they're given by what they perceive to be movers and shakers. Some simply don't care about accuracy and have any number of ulterior motives, ranging from believing ends justify means regarding their beloved Disclosure to their quest for heightened community status that results from "attaboys" gifted from those movers and shakers. If you're thinking that sounds a lot like a cult, you're right. It should also be noted there are actual journalists who often don't fare a whole lot better when caught between UFO storytellers, deadlines, and their needs to get work published. A lot of rationalizing goes on.

I do not consider myself a journalist. I do however, respect and observe standards recognized by the professional research community. I try my best to remain in the framework of those standards, citing sources as applicable and obtaining comment as I think adds value to my offerings. This has guided me through some 12 years of blogging and two self-published nonfiction books.

For what my opinion may or may not be worth, I think the two dynamics described below are primary reasons current UFO "journalists" are following in the long tradition of failure forged before them. These dynamics are not new to the genre by any means, but various aspects of technology and current day circumstances indeed further aggravate the dysfunction. UFO reporters fail to produce quality work when:

- They mistakenly try to be friends with the subjects of their interviews and research, and

- Online screennames and concealed identities create an environment in which they don't know who they are talking to from one interaction to the next.

We will explore these two dynamics further below.

Fraternizing

Some UFO writers and podcasters get the idea that building a following must be contingent on being well liked. This goes hand in hand with wanting access to inside info and juicy gossip; it only seems to stand to reason you'll get more news tips and eyes on your work if people like you.

Unfortunately for them, this may well be the easiest type of person to manipulate. I often wonder if they're aware they transitioned from reporting to acting as someone's mouthpiece, and if they identify a particular point in time it happened.

Some of the manipulators are much more skilled than your average bear at transferring their talking points into someone else's platform. They may approach writers and podcasters in overly friendly manners, making it challenging to hold boundaries. They may then express disappointment and suggest they were hurt by the way a writer framed their statements or how a show host described their actions.

Is that gaslighting? You bet your ass it's gaslighting. They'll have you apologizing for accurately quoting them if you let them.

Another tool in their bag is dumping "off the record" remarks all over your inbox when you specifically requested comment for inclusion in a blogpost or book. In at least some instances, this is a direct attempt to influence your framing of a story without taking public responsibility for their statements: They are trying to persuade you to champion a cause but do not go on record for the simple reason they cannot prove the legitimacy of the tale they're selling. They want you to take the heat for it and be left babbling about how you can't tell anyone how you know it's true.

To the less experienced, I recommend bringing such exchanges back to focusing on comments to be published, and the sooner the better. You are outright being enrolled as an emotional support person or confidant without your permission, and in direct contradiction to the role in which you defined and presented yourself, a writer impersonally seeking comment for publication.

It is simple manipulation. Recognize it, label it, and act accordingly.

Research and investigations should prioritize accuracy. We should seek to support or refute a given point. It's not personal. Keep it that way.

Sockpuppets

Online discourse, research communities, and virtually every other aspect of internet interactions in the UFO subculture is in a state of dysfunctional paralysis. A leading reason is we simply do not know who we're talking to from one interaction to the next. This virtually cripples podcast hosts who rely heavily on social media for interacting with potential guests, as well as researchers who make themselves available for a variety of purposes.

Let's say Podcaster A invites you to their show to discuss your take on the UFO research climate. Sounds pretty good, right? Well, how do you know they're not one of those anonymous trolls that posted an inappropriate and vulgar photoshop of someone's profile pic? And how sure are you they're not one of those people sending you unsolicited direct messages, asking you what you think about 'this' or 'that' about one person or issue or another? And why do people that just want to discuss this or that have to hide who they are?

If you consider yourself a researcher and you're not willing to post your identity at an online venue, maybe you shouldn't be dabbling at that venue. Maybe it's more than you bargained for and you should give that more consideration. What does someone honestly think yet another anonymous voice can functionally contribute to this mess in a research capacity? If they feel their employment, community status, or similar circumstance prohibits them from sharing who they are, there's a pretty good chance they shouldn't be mixing it up with spooks and sociopaths who congregate to UFO websites in the first place.

Moreover, screennames and hidden identities stand in direct contradiction to the very research process certain individuals and venues claim to pursue. In my personal experience, I considered publishing my real name to be part of making the decision to launch this blog in 2010. I did not see how I could undertake the things I intended to do without offering such a show of good faith. There are exceptions to what I have described here, but they are not the rule, and they certainly do not apply to people operating god only knows how many accounts to hide behind across multiple websites. We should all be sincere enough to differentiate between the spirit of rules and their intentional misuse and exploitation.

The bottom line is aspects of the UFO research community have largely paralyzed themselves again, as has always been the case. The means and technologies evolve, but self-styled reporters frequently find ways to waste time and attention instead of presenting meaningful material. That's no coincidence. It's likely in some instances by design and intentional manipulation, often to distract you from the fact promises of forthcoming revelations and claims of paradigm-shifting knowledge remain so utterly unfulfilled and empty.

Continue Reading ►

See Also:

	Wanted: Flying Saucer Journalist – Pay is Great – Benefits Even Better
	The Mainstream Media’s Lonely UFO Blog is Dead – Long Live 'Life in Jonestown!'
	Hocking Loogies at UFO Journalism

REPORT YOUR UFO EXPERIENCE

"The Study of UFOs ... Often Presents in Deceptive, Elusive, and Ambiguous Terms"

Discerning Truth

Misinformation needs no introduction. You've seen it around, and a lot of it piggybacks on fringe subject matter. Sensationalism is a staple of the UFO genre. It can be argued that has to be accepted as the case before meaningful discussion becomes possible. I asked a few writers and podcasters familiar with UFOs and similar subject matter if they would share some thoughts on how we explore such topics without getting overwhelmed in false information. How do we know what's true and what's not? How do we keep an open mind without making ourselves vulnerable to lies, opportunists, and cult-like thinking?

By Jack Brewer The UFO Trail 2-9-21

Sarah Scoles is a science journalist and writer of many articles published at outlets such as WIRED Science and Popular Science. She is the author of the books Making Contact: Jill Tarter and the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence and They Are Already Here: UFO Culture and Why We See Saucers. Sarah replied in response to my request for a contribution for this blog post:

Continue Reading ►

See Also:

	UFO Critical Thinking 101
	Good By Ufology, Hello Truth
	MUFON, Science and Deception

REPORT YOUR UFO EXPERIENCE

Science and UFOs: Part 2 — Occam’s Rusty Razor (Redux)

As noted in Part 1, the late Dr. James E. McDonald—who held the title “Senior Physicist, Institute of Atmospheric Physics” at the University of Arizona—also holds the distinction of being one of the very few scientists to actually study the UFO phenomenon. In a prepared statement before the U.S. Congress’ House Committee on Science and Astronautics, delivered on July 29, 1968, McDonald said this:

By Robert Hastings www.ufohastings.com 3-23-12 / 2020

“From time to time in the history of science, situations have arisen in which a problem of ultimately enormous importance went begging for adequate attention simply because that problem appeared to involve phenomena so far outside the current bounds of scientific knowledge that it was not even regarded as a legitimate subject of serious scientific concern. That is precisely the situation in which the UFO problem now lies. One of the principal results of my own recent intensive study of the UFO enigma is this: I have become convinced that the scientific community, not only in this country but throughout the world, has been casually ignoring as nonsense a matter of extraordinary scientific importance.”¹

McDonald arrived at that opinion after several authorized visits to the U.S. Air Force’s UFO Project Blue Book to review its files. Indignant at what he discovered, he wrote, “There are hundreds of good cases in the Air Force files that should have led to top-level scientific scrutiny of [UFOs] years ago, yet these cases have been swept under the rug in a most disturbing way by Project Blue Book investigators and their consultants.”²

McDonald’s full statement before Congress may be found in the U.S. Congressional Record, as well as on the Internet. While acknowledging that the overwhelming majority of UFO sightings undoubtedly had prosaic explanations, and that a great many questions about the phenomenon remained unanswered, McDonald succinctly summarized his conclusions regarding the most credible of the unexplained cases: “My own present opinion, based on two years of careful study, is that UFOs are probably extraterrestrial devices engaged in something that might very tentatively be termed ‘surveillance.’”³

 Frequently, UFO skeptics—scientists and laypersons alike—invoke Occam’s Razor to support their position that there are far more likely, prosaic explanations for the UFO phenomenon than the extraterrestrial spaceship theory. Unlike McDonald, these persons have never studied UFOs and are, therefore, offering uninformed opinions—whether they choose to recognize this fact or not.

In essence, the principle of Occam’s Razor states that, all things being equal, the simplest explanation for an unexplained phenomenon is probably the correct one. In other words, conventional explanations—natural or man-made phenomena—undoubtedly account for all UFO sightings.

But is the basic premise of simplicity-as-truth always valid, or is it flawed? Consider, for example, gravity. The explanation for it offered by Isaac Newton—whereby physical objects possess an attractive property, proportional to their mass, that draws them toward one another—appears simple, straightforward, and fits the observable facts. Indeed, the English scientist’s revolutionary theory, experimentally validated, provided an explanation of gravity which endured unchallenged for over two hundred years. Then along came Albert Einstein.

In the early 20th Century, Einstein created his own, one-man scientific revolution by introducing the twin theories of Special and General Relativity. Among other things, General Relativity postulates that space and time are an inextricably interconnected entity which is distorted, or curved, by the presence of physical objects. In fact, said Einstein, gravity is actually a function of curved space-time. Hence, Newton’s apple did not fall to the ground because of the attractive property of the Earth. Rather, the Earth created a curved depression in space-time and the apple merely took the path of least resistance by sliding down into it. Oh, by the way, Einstein also found that gravity bends light.

One un-simple aspect of Special Relativity is the dilation of time, whereby it moves faster or slower, depending on whether it is being measured on a stationary or moving timepiece. Moreover, says Einstein, moving objects actually shorten in length in the direction they are traveling. And, last but not least, matter and energy are variations of the same thing and, sometimes, a handful of matter can release enough energy to destroy a city.

All of this is simple stuff, right? Old Occam would get it, wouldn’t he? Well, maybe not.

After an extensive evaluation of experimental data, science now considers Einstein’s explanation of gravity to be the correct one. But is it the simplest one, as Occam’s Razor dictates it should be? Is it less complicated, more reasonable and straightforward than Newton’s?

No, it is not. In fact, the bizarre, mind-bending, often paradoxical principles advanced by the two relativistic theories still elude the intellectual grasp of most of humanity one hundred years after they were published. Nevertheless, physicists have long considered Einstein’s ideas to be perceptive and accurate assessments of cosmological order and function. That said, those ideas certainly can not—by any stretch of the imagination—be described as simple, common sense answers to important questions.

If the concepts advanced by Einstein’s theories do not effectively challenge the simplicity-as-truth premise of Occam’s Razor, or sufficiently affront common sense, then consider what the other pillar of 20th Century science, the Theory of Quantum Mechanics, proposes.

One tenet, called the Uncertainty Principle, asserts that the more we know about a particle’s location in space, the less we can know about its velocity. Conversely, the more we know about any given particle’s velocity—by measuring it—the less we can know about its location. Another Quantum principle states that certain attributes of particles, including position, velocity, direction of movement, and spin, can not even be defined until they are observed. Before that moment, any given particle exists in what is termed a “superposition of states.” In other words, its very nature can not be said to exist until it has first been examined. Finally, Quantum Theory maintains that light—composed of waves of photons—exists as a “wave-particle duality”, in which it is neither one nor the other but nevertheless exhibits certain properties of both.

Physicists Gary and Kenny Felder write:

Quantum mechanics says that…the photon really, genuinely, and importantly, does not have a specific location until we measure one. [This] doesn’t seem to make sense. But another school of thought says, why should it make sense? After all, humans evolved in a world of ‘normal’ objects, and we developed a facility called ‘intuition’ that helped us survive in that world, by helping us predict the effects of our actions. That physical intuition was, and is, a great asset. But perhaps it shouldn’t be too surprising that it becomes a liability when we try to apply it to areas that we didn’t evolve for. Quantum mechanical laws generally only have measurable effects when applied to things that are too small to see, so we never evolved an understanding of them, so they seem bizarre. In fact, at roughly the same time that quantum mechanics first began to suggest that very small things defy our intuition, Einstein was proposing his special theory of relativity which shows that very fast things defy our intuition; and then his general theory of relativity, which concerns the odd behavior of very big things.⁴

In other words, taking into account both Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, much of what early 21st Century scientists consider to be factual, that is, “real”, is not simple or straightforward at all. In fact, it’s downright counter-intuitive. Despite this state of affairs, the vast majority of UFO skeptics have yet to consider the possibility that alien visitation might also occur in a counter-intuitive manner, for example, by the utilization of higher-dimensional space—hyperspace—to effectively by-pass Einstein’s light-speed limitation. If ever there was a counter-intuitive theory, hyperspace is it. Nevertheless this concept is rapidly gaining support among theorists whose work involves deciphering cosmic architecture and operation.

So, instead of acknowledging the general lack of simplicity and, in fact, the predominance of counter-intuitive high-strangeness inherent in our current paradigm, UFO skeptics and debunkers ironically resort to quoting Occam’s Law as if it were an unassailable pillar of wisdom, applicable to all questions involving UFOs.

As noted above, with rare exceptions, these persons have undertaken no research on the UFO phenomenon and, therefore, their reaction to the UFO topic is almost always a smoke screen—recognized or not—to hide the fact that they have not done their homework, and have no idea what they are talking about. Ostensibly, this type of evasive and disingenuous behavior would be abhorrent someone who strives to be scientific—meaning basing one’s opinions on the evidence—nevertheless, it is continuously and pervasively exhibited by UFO skeptics, laypersons and professional scientists alike.

Granted, simplistic sloganeering—Long Live Occam!—does require far less effort than actually doing research, but does it bring one any closer to the facts? One is tempted to conclude that by not investigating the UFO phenomenon—prior to making unequivocal pronouncements about it—many skeptics are attempting to avoid the potential threat to their own worldview, which might arise should they actually research the subject and unexpectedly discover that things are not as previously assumed.

Yup, whether one is intellectually timid, or just plain pompous, it’s simply much easier and safer to presuppose that some things, like aliens visiting Earth, can not possibly be true. Clearly, practicing science by slogan has the added benefit of not having to step outside one’s comfort zone.

Observations Trump Assumptions

Furthermore, there exists another fundamental flaw with Occam’s Razor: The integrity of the assumptions underlying the premise of what is “simple” or “likely”. As regards UFO sightings, a skeptic will assert that an atmospheric mirage or exotic military aircraft is the simpler, more likely explanation for what appeared to the observer to be an alien spaceship. But these “explanations” almost always have less to do with the specific aspects of the sighting itself—the observed phenomenon—than they do with what the skeptic presumes to be the remote prospect of interplanetary travel. Since the probability of such a thing is near zero, the reasoning goes, so is the likelihood that an alien spaceship was actually sighted by a human observer.

In other words, this approach to “analyzing” UFO sightings has far less to do with observation than it does with preconceived notions, dressed-up as rational skepticism. Consequently, the simplest-explanation strategy as applied to UFO sightings is almost always fallacious because, although the debunkers would have you believe otherwise, an unacknowledged, subjective point-of-view usually taints the basic premise of their argument.

The important point here is that this presumption, flawed or not, is the basis for the skeptic’s assessment of the event, rather than the facts of the case themselves.

Moreover, as researcher Joe Nyman astutely notes, “Scientists, when confronted with the unexplainable, will often appeal to Occam’s Razor, or the Principle of Parsimony, to reduce the level of exotic explanation, but often overlook the next step, that the simpler explanation is really a hypothesis that must be tested. If the simpler hypothesis does not fit the facts, it too must be discarded.”⁵

Although this necessary testing is almost never undertaken, most UFO skeptics are nevertheless inclined to believe that their merely having offered an alternate explanation for a given sighting is sufficient. Although that “simpler” proposal is completely unproved, their confident demeanor suggests that they truly believe that they have all but solved the case.

Dr. Robert Kirshner of Harvard’s Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory has also questioned the presumed wisdom underlying the simple-is-correct premise when investigating or, at least, making pronouncements about reality. Commenting upon the approach of those astronomers and cosmologists who are tempted to summarize the nature of universe in one straightforward, elegant theory, Kirshner cautions, “...the aesthetic approach, the simplest thing that you can think of, is not always a guide to the truth. Sometimes, you just have to go look—and you discover that the universe is actually much richer and more complicated than your imagination. In fact, it’s always more complicated than you imagined.”⁶

Clearly, Occam’s Razor—as a definitive, irrefutable guide for gauging the nature of unexplained phenomena, including UFOs—leaves a lot to be desired.

I sent my book’s “Occam’s Rusty Razor” excerpt to Dr. Henry H. Bauer, Professor Emeritus of Chemistry, Science Studies and Dean Emeritus of Arts and Sciences, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, for his critique. Bauer had previously submitted an abstract to the 24th Annual Meeting of the Society for Scientific Exploration (SSE) titled “The Two-Edged Sword of Skepticism: Occam’s Razor and Occam’s Lobotomy”. He offered these comments:

I find nothing major to quarrel with. I agree thoroughly with these strong points: That the data should be determinative; that the Razor should be a hypothesis, maybe a first guess, but no more than that; that judging what is “simple” depends on prior knowledge, on “common sense”, which changes over time; that our common sense is formed by experience of events at the human scale. One might emphasize that with the much-maligned saying that ‘There’s the known unknown and also the unknown unknown, [which is] totally unforeseeable.’⁷

My own, 39-year UFO research career is summarized in my 600-page book UFOs and Nukes: Extraordinary Encounters at Nuclear Weapons Sites, which is available here. (Unless you want to pay scalper-rates for it on Amazon.) On September 27, 2010, I co-hosted the UFOs and Nukes press conference at the National Press Club in Washington D.C. which CNN streamed live:

As I readily acknowledged in my book, my research material does not qualify as scientific data. The testimony offered by my ex-military sources is simply anecdotal evidence, often reluctantly revealed, by dozens of highly-reliable individuals whose professional responsibilities had inadvertently and unexpectedly placed them in a position to experience the UFO phenomenon within an environment inaccessible to most persons. Those who have not worked with nuclear weapons—which is to say the vast majority of us—have obviously had no opportunity to witness UFO activity in such a highly-restricted setting.

Therefore, it seems to me, whether one is a scientist or a layperson, we should all at least listen to what these persons have to say. To automatically dismiss their now-numerous, detailed accounts of UFO encounters at nuclear weapons sites as mere fantasies, or fabrications, is to suggest that those who held the fate of the entire planet in their hands during the Cold War were dangerously demented or otherwise untrustworthy. Surely, this was not the case.

References:

1. McDonald, Dr. James E. “Prepared Statement before the House Committee on Science and Astronautics”, July 29, 1968
2. [Tucson] Daily Citizen, March 1, 1967
3. McDonald, Dr. James E. “Prepared Statement before the House Committee on Science and Astronautics”, July 29, 1968
4. Felder, Gary and Kenny. “Quantum Mechanics: The Young Double-Slit Experiment”, self-published, 1998
5. Nyman, Joseph, MUFON UFO Journal, issue information temporarily unavailable
6. Dr. Robert Kirshner to Robert Hastings, confirmation of quotation in personal communication, June 2, 2008
7. Dr. Henry Bauer to Robert Hastings, R., personal communication, March 10, 2012

VISIT ROBERT'S SITE ►

See Also:

Science and UFOs: Part 1 — The Condon Committee Con Job

Remembering Dr. James E. McDonald

Scientists and UFOs

REPORT YOUR UFO EXPERIENCE

UFO Critical Thinking 101

We're often just not all on the same page when it comes to discussing UFOs. It might help if some of us interested in the subject read a little more material (or any material) on topics such as standards of evidence. It can get really tough to keep rational perspective if front loaded with tales of Core Stories and secret sources. This writer highly encourages integration of healthy skepticism into attempts to form opinions and beliefs, such as perhaps reading an article on critical thinking at least once out of every dozen or so clicks on a sensational UFO story link. So I wrote one! Please read on.

By Jack Brewer The UFO Trail 8-27-20

There are some widely recognized critical thinking questions to ask when we consider a person's point as presented in an article or during a social media discussion. A few of them: 

What are the issue and conclusion?

What reasons are offered?

What are the assumptions?

Are there logical fallacies in the reasoning?

The answers to such questions should help us form reliable assessments of how much weight we should give the story. For instance, if a writer does not seem to state a pretty clear issue and conclusion, we're off to a really bad start! I jest, but there are actually a concerning number of articles on UFOs and paranormal topics that seem to meander and wind much more than they state particular purposes.  

If they seem to be fairly clear and systematic about their point, it is reasonable to question how they arrived at it. The more direct the route, the better. It's generally agreed that conclusions based on the least number of hypothetical scenarios have the strongest foundations. Another way to look at that is to say if their argument is based on hypotheticals, then it's an opinion, and you're entitled to hold an opposing one. Burden of proof is always on the claimant.

Sometimes we make assumptions when we don't even realize it. Assumptions are often mistaken as facts, but a few easy fact-checking techniques can quickly clarify. Sources should be provided for assertions, and they should be verifiable. Chains of custody of documents and similar such evidence should be readily available. If statements of assertions are attributed to other sources, then those sources should have verification of their claims and chains of custody for their evidence. While someone may thoroughly believe fragmented memories are indicative of alien abduction, it is, of course, an assumption based on many hypotheticals (as mentioned above).

Logical fallacies are patterns of reasoning rendered invalid due to flaws in their logical structure. These are bad. You don't want to find your latest book purchase full of 'em! A common logical fallacy is Ad Hominem, which is attacking the personal character of an individual rather than directly countering specific points of their work or argument.

Another is Appeal to Authority, which is the other side of the coin from Ad Hominem. That's when a point is submitted based solely on the reputation of the source, with no regard given to verifying its authenticity. Just because the FDA said it, that does not exempt the statement from reasonable fact-checking. Same with PhDs about a vortex on a ranch in Utah (see above about lines of reasoning and number of hypotheticals required).

All of this leads us to the significance of standards of evidence. It's no wonder we can't agree on conclusions if we can't agree on the relevance of the information used to form them!

Whether or not we agree to respect standards of evidence universally recognized by the professional research community, it is important to understand them. While we may be willing to entertain some of the more maverick and creative ways of exploring subjects of interest, we should know how far we might be veering from the established template. This allows us deeper understanding of why our ideas and research may be dismissed. It is also important to realize that if UFO researchers want to be embraced by mainstream science, which has been a battle cry for 70 years, they have responsibilities to at the least understand, if not conform to, scientific protocols and standards. Otherwise, don't complain your Pentagon boss isn't interested in your project.     

Like many people, I was interested in UFOs and related topics in part because I considered myself open minded. I thought there were things I might be willing to entertain that more rigid and dogmatic people would not. In hindsight, I think many of my beliefs about UFOs were formed in error, largely based upon incorrect information presented by those who package and traffic it.

When exploring and discussing such material, nobody likes to be minimized and called stupid. We are all at different points in our UFO awakenings, and those of us who are sincere should be allowed the necessary room to grow. Mistakes happen. Misinformed opinions happen. Personal experiences are open to interpretation.

However, we should remain aware we can learn from both sides of the desk. If we want people to be tolerant of our beliefs and better understand why we embrace them, then we too can better inform ourselves why such people reject certain sources of evidence or hold it in low regard. It works both ways.

It is through the process of effectively dissecting the collective UFO body of material in which we come to more stable terms with our beliefs, our hopes, and our fears. We learn about the world we inhabit and, ultimately, ourselves. I sincerely hope you find this blog a useful tool.

Continue Reading ►

See Also:

'Public Trust in Media Objectivity Surrounding TTSA Continues to Plummet'

MUFON, Science and Deception

Goodbye Ufology, Hello Truth

REPORT YOUR UFO EXPERIENCE

UFOs / UAP and The Hot Mess at the New York Times

After listening to Kean and Blumenthal on how hard they had to work to get articles in the NYT, I am completely unimpressed by the latest two articles. First, whatever was said in the articles caused many of the UFO crowd to go wild saying the Pentagon has admitted they had crashed ET saucers, Lazar is vindicated, the Roswell incident was confirmed. None of the above were exactly in the article. Speculation overran what was written. If the article was not so sloppily written perhaps other newspapers and radical UFO fans would not be so encouraged to jump off the deep end.

By Jan Aldrich The UFO Chronicles 8-3-20

The retraction on the Harry Reid quote was the first crack. Then, Reid issued a much more conservative statement.

Eric Davis is on record as opposed to Lazar’s story.

Davis is identified as a consultant to the Pentagon.  What actually was missing are several important details. Was he a current consultant? Was he a consultant on UFO?  Did he really say there were crashed saucers known to the Pentagon?

Being a subcontractor on a government contract does not mean someone is a contractor to the Pentagon. Being on the contractor's employment rolls does not mean someone is a contractor. Maybe a fine point, but necessary in this discussion.

While the authors said elsewhere that they were in contact with the NYT Washington bureau. They couldn't identify what committees Eric Davis testified in front of, but I think the Washington bureau may not have been able to find out what was said at the hearings. They, however, probably could confirm what committees took Davis’ testimony.

Former Deputy Asst. Def Sec for Intelligence, Chris Mellon said rather that Davis gave out leads and sources of potential information.

Finally, the follow-up article on the UFO beliefs is ironic as it quotes Margaret Mead. I don't think they knew that Mead advocated serious study of UFOs after another well-known anthropologist and former OSS operative, Dr. Carlton Coon joined NICAP.  In our scanning of the CUFOS files we have not yet encountered correspondence with Mead or Coon.

The articles were not news items.  There was adequate time to vet the articles unlike breaking news.

See Also:

New York Times Reporter Ralph Blumenthal Addresses 'Off World Craft' – INTERVIEW

UFO Gatekeepers: You Shall Not Pass

Do We Believe in UFOs? – Wrong Question

Pentagon’s UFO Unit Will Make Some Findings Public

Senate's Request For a Public Report On UFOs – 'It's Impossible to Overstate The Magnitude of This ... Directive'

Luis Elizondo Responds to The Senate’s Vote on UFOs – VIDEO

US Navy ‘UFO Task Force’ Exists, and Senator Rubio Wants Its Data

Unprecedented Public Report On UFOs Requested From Senate Intel Committee

The US Navy Has a 'UFO Task Force,' As Confirmed By The Senate Intelligence Committee

US Senate Committee Aims To Regulate UFO Information

The Senate Intelligence Committee Votes On Public Analysis of UFOs

REPORT YOUR UFO EXPERIENCE

New York Times Reporter Ralph Blumenthal Addresses 'Off World Craft' – INTERVIEW

UFO Researcher and New York Times reporter Ralph Blumenthal joins Mark to talk about an article he recently wrote about some eye raising disclosures from the US Military regarding weird lights in the sky and possibly "Off world craft"

By Mark Towhey News Talk Radio 1010 8-2-20

[...]




See Also:

UFO Gatekeepers: You Shall Not Pass

Do We Believe in UFOs? – Wrong Question

Pentagon’s UFO Unit Will Make Some Findings Public

Senate's Request For a Public Report On UFOs – 'It's Impossible to Overstate The Magnitude of This ... Directive'

Luis Elizondo Responds to The Senate’s Vote on UFOs – VIDEO

US Navy ‘UFO Task Force’ Exists, and Senator Rubio Wants Its Data

Unprecedented Public Report On UFOs Requested From Senate Intel Committee

The US Navy Has a 'UFO Task Force,' As Confirmed By The Senate Intelligence Committee

US Senate Committee Aims To Regulate UFO Information

The Senate Intelligence Committee Votes On Public Analysis of UFOs

REPORT YOUR UFO EXPERIENCE

UFO Gatekeepers: You Shall Not Pass

The recent sensational New York Times’ headline thrilled readers across the world: No Longer in Shadows, Pentagon’s U.F.O. Unit Will Make Some Findings Public. I am not going to discuss the details of the article or the Time’s subsequent corrections or the buzz generated in UFO circles of imminent disclosure. Instead, I want to focus, as I have for the last ten years on the human side of the UFO subject, and specifically on those who play a role in pushing the UFO narrative through the mass media. In this latest sensation -

By James Carrion The UFO Chronicles 7-29-20

Leslie Kean and Ralph Blumenthal who also broke the Times’ 2017 AATIP story, follow up on their tic-tac, paddywack, give a Navy dogfight a bone story to the now even more sensational retrieval of off-world vehicles.

 If my multi-decade experience with the UFO subject has taught me any one core truth, it boils down to the following observation. The modern-day UFO subject has been dominated for the last seven plus decades by humans deceiving humans and because the deceivers are affiliated with domestic or foreign government agencies, what truly lies at the core of the UFO phenomenon cannot be unequivocally ascertained until the role of those agencies is brought fully to light. A tall glass to fill indeed.

I am not talking about the MIB, or MJ-12, or the IPU, all mythical or made-into-myth organizations that have no basis in reality. I am referring to, at least on our side of the pond, our run-of-the-mill agencies like the CIA, the DIA, and in years pass the AFOSI. Now it is the ONI – the Office of Naval Intelligence – that is taking the central role in this hall of mirrors.

We are enticed to believe that soon, some of the ONI’s UFO findings will be shared with the public, although I am not holding my breath for clarity but just further muddying of  the UFO waters,  likely generating more questions than answers. I anticipate the “findings” will be piecemeal-ed out in a very controlled manner using the same human mouthpieces that have been serving their intended purposes from 2017 until the present day. It won’t just be Kean and Blumenthal but also Mellon, Elizondo, de Longe, and Silva, who will act in there already pre-established roles as “gatekeepers”. Those who came before them like Knapp and Moulton-Howe have long since served their purpose of pushing false narratives like the Skinwalker Ranch. New gatekeeper blood has emerged but the myths they are helping to build have at their base the dung hill of deceptions past.

Gatekeepers

You may remember the iconic movie scene from the Lord of the Rings, The Fellowship of the Ring where the wizard Gandalf prevents the demon Balrog from crossing the bridge; slamming down his magical staff while uttering the words, “You shall Not Pass!” The bridge crumbles and the Balrog falls into the chasm. UFO truth seekers who shun the sensational and instead critically explore and research facts are just as doomed to cross the UFO bridge of enlightenment, stopped from further progress by the sponsored gatekeepers of the UFO narrative.

Playing an analogous role to Gandalf in UFO world are the UFO mouthpieces who release and promote their sensational UFO news stories, oftentimes fed by an inside source.  Ego-driven by their “chosen” status and preconceived beliefs, they are more than eager to regurgitate the sensational allegations, irrespective of glaring red flags. Facts and journalistic integrity often time take second place to getting the story out. The UFO narratives that make it into the mass media flow directly from deceivers through these gatekeepers and alternative narratives simply cannot compete. Conspiracy and sensationalism sell and anything mundane simply falls away into the deep black void.

Gatekeepers most likely are not cognizant they are being taken for a ride, although I would venture some do and simply don’t care. Others are just plain old naïve and truly believe they are the conduits to imminent disclosure. Some may think they can role play their way to the inner circle of UFO enlightenment when in fact they never make it over the bridge themselves. Some may even be cognizant of their roles and the masters they ultimately serve.

 Critical thinkers will see it as just the same ole nonsense of imminent disclosure they have been hearing about for years. Jack Brewer discusses the same in his recent blog article UFO Debris, Disclosure, and Congressional Investigations. If you think Senator Marco Rubio is a visionary for pushing for Congressional briefings, then take the time to read this 1988 document. Congress has had an interest in UFOs since Kenneth Arnold kicked off the modern-day UFO era in 1947. Since that time, neither the most ardent UFO believers who scream  Cosmic Watergate nor the official agencies that had UFO investigation oversight until 1969, have been able to muster sufficient concrete evidence to interest the scientific community or to grab the short attention span of politicians. Congressional inquiries have gone nowhere.

And are we supposed to believe that by the time the Air Force stopped investigating UFOs in 1969, that the Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI) was asleep at the UFO wheel for decades? If the ONI wants to truly brief the public, they can start by explaining what the hell they have been doing with UFO intelligence since 1947.

UFO Gatekeepers come and go, but what always eludes us is the plain and simple UFO truth. Instead it is obfuscated, muddied, built on deceptions and minutely orchestrated by those who control the narrative for selfish reasons. The same old gatekeepers show up time and time again in UFO circles, monopolizing the news cycle; propped up to media roles, their sensational voices drowning out logic and reason. Did you catch Linda Moulton Howe’s cameo on the History Channel’s The Secret of Skinwalker Ranch?

When they have outlived their usefulness, UFO Gatekeepers are sidelined, and new young guns take their place. The sooner you accept that UFO disclosure is a fallacy, the less disappointment and frustration you will endure when the ONI’s findings do not live up to your expectations. But if you insist on skipping and hopping your way across the bridge to UFO enlightenment – just remember that like all who desired the same before you and were denied - You Too Shall Not Pass.

VISIT JAMES' WEB-SITE ►

See Also:

Do We Believe in UFOs? – Wrong Question

Pentagon’s UFO Unit Will Make Some Findings Public

Senate's Request For a Public Report On UFOs – 'It's Impossible to Overstate The Magnitude of This ... Directive'

Luis Elizondo Responds to The Senate’s Vote on UFOs – VIDEO

US Navy ‘UFO Task Force’ Exists, and Senator Rubio Wants Its Data

Unprecedented Public Report On UFOs Requested From Senate Intel Committee

The US Navy Has a 'UFO Task Force,' As Confirmed By The Senate Intelligence Committee

US Senate Committee Aims To Regulate UFO Information

The Senate Intelligence Committee Votes On Public Analysis of UFOs

REPORT YOUR UFO EXPERIENCE

UFO Research Integrity

Logic suggests explanations requiring the least number of hypothetical scenarios are often most feasible. Smart money goes with the most likely, least complex models when ranking possibilities. In UFO circles we frequently lose sight of most likely explanations. Part of the reason may be because so much time is devoted to imagining the extraordinary. We tend to gravitate towards believing what we hear the most, no matter how often it may be properly framed as supposition. It's difficult to keep things in perspective when a 15-second disclaimer is followed

By Jack Brewer The UFO Trail 6-15-20

by an hour of podcast speculation. Squeaky wheels get oil, even when delivered through sources such as fictional movies and television shows.

We often suspect the existence of hidden agendas - conspiracies, if you will - within the UFO genre because it can be so difficult to accept select researchers and organizations are as incompetent and credulous as they appear. Did the Roswell Slides promoters truly think that mummified Native American was a crash-landed visitor from the stars? Did Dr. Steven Greer really think that Atacama skeleton was an alien and did he and Dr. Garry Nolan honestly not understand the ethical concerns that would arise over their handling of it? Did Robert Bigelow and a team of consultants think there was scientific merit in hiring "security guards" to reportedly play with alleged voice phenomena and conduct similar occult practices? (That last scenario was apparently funded by your tax dollars.)

Could they have all sincerely had such poor judgement? Such reasonable questions abound.

The infamous Roswell Slides telltale placard

We might consider that, from a perspective of assessing research integrity, answers to the above questions don't really make that much difference. The integrity of research is weakened when investigators fail to respect and adhere to universally recognized protocols and codes of ethics. No matter what their agendas, their research is not reliable if they must incorporate numerous hypothetical scenarios into forming their arguments. We really don't need to know what personally motivated David Jacobs and if he is as obliviously incompetent as he seems in order to accurately identify his ethics failings and resulting poor quality of research. This means we don't learn anything of value, at least not about alleged paranormal experiences, from such material, and we are at high risk of absorbing and exposing others to incorrect information. Meanwhile, people are harmed and justifiably offended in the process of such examples as named thus far.

Paul Carr is a spacecraft systems engineer who facilitates several science-friendly podcasts. In response to request for comment on research integrity, Carr replied that he considers virtues of UFO research to include patience, humility, integrity and skepticism. Carr directs Aerial Phenomena Investigations (API), a UFO research group with a track record of commitments to evidence-based investigation and ethical treatment of UFO witnesses. He says the two go hand in hand.

"UFO research primarily deals with human memories," Carr stated, "and it has become clear to us at API that while the ethical treatment of witnesses and an open, honest, and careful approach to collecting and analyzing data are not the same thing, they are both members of a healthy body of research practice. Whatever threatens to corrupt one also threatens the other. Willful abuse of facts and fallacious reasoning readily metastasizes into abuses of innocent persons. This isn't something that just happens to organizations. It is a choice they make.

"It's not that we won't make mistakes - we will. It's what you do and how you change after a mistake is made that is the best marker of integrity."

Perhaps Robert Bigelow and his various teams assembled over the years have been unjustly saddled with conspiracy theories. It is possible they are simply as credulous as they seem to want us to believe.

Substantial resources were poured into a Utah ranch. Claims of extraordinary creatures, portals to other dimensions, and various sensational happenings, the vast majority of which purportedly defied any kind of significant documentation, became the stuff of legends. Maybe the involved credentialed researchers sincerely do not understand the inherent problems in expecting others to embrace their unverified claims. Maybe they are truly that blinded by belief.

The Typhoid Mary-like innocence of claimed ignorance meets large problems when issues of fully informed consent arise. This was not only the case at the Skinwalker Ranch, as former security guards expressed concerns over their apparent unwitting involvement in state-funded research, but was a key component of the infamous Carpenter Affair as well.

Maybe John Carpenter, Robert Bigelow, John Alexander, John Schuessler and others were truly oblivious to the ethical minefield of covertly supplying Bigelow's National Institute for Discovery Science (NIDS) with information discussed between therapist and clients. Data and recordings of hypnosis sessions from some 140 case files were obtained for about 100 bucks apiece. Maybe some of the people involved in facilitating and concealing the transaction just didn't see publicly addressing the circumstances and voicing objections as feasible options. Obviously not, given their stances of mostly silence and aversion to questions.

Perhaps some of them honestly believed the potential research gains outweighed the liabilities and betrayals. Maybe they honestly misunderstood and vastly overestimated the minimal scientific value of a collection of hypnosis-induced accounts of alien abduction. Such missteps are magnified when the parties claim to be conducting scientific study, as was the case.

Such scenarios, regardless of motive and intent, border dangerously on mad scientist territory. Codes of ethics are designed, in part, to deter researchers afflicted with delusions of self-importance from sacrificing human welfare during an incorrectly perceived pursuit of historic breakthroughs. This widely eludes much of the UFO genre and particularly its pro-hypnosis segment. Virtually anything appears deemed worth the cost of chasing an alien abduction carrot which has consistently remained out of reach.

"The importance of ethics in research integrity is that it creates the ground level from which all of your work is built," explained Dr. Christopher Cogswell, who holds a PhD in Chemical Engineering and co-hosts a popular podcast which explores fringe topics from reasoned perspectives. "If the ground isn't stable, then everything else you generate or say becomes built on a shaky foundation, which can easily be toppled by the first critical look at your methods and history. It is OK to be wrong or make a mistake, we are all human. But to continue despite evidence of mismanagement, error, or unethical practice makes your entire body of work suspect and tinged with that lens."

We could carry our line of considerations to its chronological next steps, the Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program (AATIP) and the resulting To The Stars Academy (TTSA). Maybe intelligence professionals such as Luis Elizondo and Christopher Mellon are simply overly enthusiastic about the UFO topic and don't understand the problematic nature of trying to turn film clips into proof of the extraordinary. Perhaps Elizondo was simply too inexperienced at UFO investigation to adequately assess an extremely questionable case he and the seemingly ultra credulous Tom DeLonge highlighted on cable television. Maybe there's just an overwhelming amount of UFO history for Elizondo to learn, and maybe it simply never occurred to him to secure receipts that could answer questions about his background before he went to TTSA and started making claims he was apparently unprepared to adequately address if questioned.

Maybe shelling out 35 grand for Art's Parts will prove brilliant. Perhaps the group's collection of alleged metal alloys, UAP fragments, or whatever the current going designation is will lead to paradigm-shifting discoveries. And, if not, maybe it all happened for no other reasons than none of the TTSA personnel knew any better.

An obvious problem with AATIP is it consisted of Robert Bigelow and some of his perpetual cast members. This is not necessarily a negative thing in itself, but from a perspective of integrity of research, it is only prudent to question the effectiveness of the work of investigators who spent decades apparently more dedicated to belief than time-tested protocols. That's the case, anyway, if we are to believe their past indiscretions, as already described, resulted entirely from simple error. Again, it doesn't matter from an integrity of research standpoint whether they are incompetent or have ulterior motives when the outcome chronically produces nothing of significant scientific value.

As may have been the case with issues surrounding the security personnel at Skinwalker and the exploited hypnosis subjects of John Carpenter, perhaps it was poor understandings and lack of foresight that contributed to the Bigelow-facilitated covert funneling of DIA funds into MUFON. Maybe Bigelow, Schuessler, and none of the involved parties realized the problematic nature of an intelligence agency funding a 501(c)(3) UFO organization while concealing the fact from the rest of its governing board members and the public at large.

Some of the boys in the Remote Viewing band. And NIDS.
And Skinwalker. And BAASS. And AATIP. And TTSA.

This isn't about people who may possibly be influenced by false memories or misidentify an exotic aircraft. We're not discussing individuals who experience some kind of event(s) they don't understand and go in search of answers. We're talking about credentialed scientists and professional intelligence personnel who in some cases subscribe to irresponsibly unsupported beliefs and flawed research methodologies, sometimes while under the commission of United States government grant funds.

It seems more than clear to this writer that, if we give all these people the benefit of the doubt and take them at their implied word, we should fully expect to scrutinize their opinions at length and have their research claims painstakingly verified before fully accepting them. Such investigators apparently, at best, suffer from recurring episodes of rather astoundingly poor judgement.

The good news is we don't have to rely on personalities and popularity as tools for assessing research. Its merit or lack thereof should be self-evident.

The fact will always remain that should some yet to be proven assertions turn out to be correct, they're indeed not established yet. Just because the future may show something to be accurate, that does not in any way mean you should currently exempt it from reasonable fact-checking. That's how we find out if it's true.

It is important we know the difference between facts and claims asserted by investigators, hold them accountable, and commit ourselves to respecting ethical standards and best practices as recognized by the professional research community. Integrity of UFO research, and ultimately what people believe is flying around up there, depend on it.

Continue Reading ►

See Also:

The UFO Reporters

The Pentagon UFO Program Saga: Lack of Professional Research Protocols and Standards of Evidence

Former Skinwalker Personnel Suspect They Were Unwitting Research Subjects

REPORT YOUR UFO EXPERIENCE