UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2002 > Jun > Jun 3

Re: Death of Ufology - Hebert

From: Amy Hebert <yellowrose129@attbi.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2002 19:17:08 -0500
Fwd Date: Mon, 03 Jun 2002 22:52:52 -0400
Subject: Re: Death of Ufology - Hebert


 >From: Wendy Connors <FadedDiscs@comcast.net>
 >To: UFO Updates <UFOUpdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Subject: Death of Ufology
 >Date: Sun, 02 Jun 2002 00:21:21 -0600

 >Ufology is in a state of self denial. For most intents and
 >purposes it appears to be a dead issue. Why is this? Because it
 >is practiced by few and infiltrated by the many, who fail to
 >realize the importance of the phenomena as a scientific endeavor
 >worthy of respect and appreciation for its unique nomenclature
 >of a mystery needing clear explanation.

Excellent review, Wendy! If I may, I'd like to add a few comments.

Ufology _is_ dead. It could never be called a science simply
because the lack of objectivity was always clearly stated right
there in the name of this field of study - 'UFO-logy'.

We do not study UFOs. We, as researchers and investigators, do
not have one of these objects in hand to study and analyse.
Therefore, we can only study _sighting reports_ and claimed
_images_ (photographs, videos, drawings), landing traces, etc. -
  circumstantial evidence - of these objects rather than the
actual objects themselves. (Like it or not, this is the truth of
the matter.)

Unlike other sciences that, by and large, have more direct
access to the focus of their studies, the objects we study only
exist (according to the objectivity of science) in eye witness
reports and images in photographs, videos, etc. Paleontologists
have actual fossils - in hand- they can study. Anthropologists
have artifacts and remains - in hand - they can study. Even
astronomers have their stars and planets every night - though
not in hand - that they can study.

All we have are representations of what MIGHT exist but no
actual physical evidence (or consentual scientific evidence) to
prove UFO's exist at all. (We could go on and on discussing
whether the government has crashed saucers and/or aliens,
whether photographs constitute physical evidence or not, whether
_all_ sciences are based on the study of physical evidence or
theoretical, etc., etc. but let's focus on this one aspect for a
while, please.)

How can we call ourselves "Ufologists" or name Ufology
as a science when we cannot even study the focus of our
attentions in any direct, systematic, scientific manner? And
if we claim to study UFO's, is that what we are, in fact,
actually studying? How do we know these objects are
UFO's and not IFO's or something else? How do we know
they even fit the definition of an "object"?

So you see, we doom our studies to bias from the beginning by
LABELING the field and focus of our studies with inaccurate,
unscientific and subjective nomenclature.

I use to study what I thought were UFO's. Now I study reports of
UFO's, witnesses who claim to have seen UFOs, photographs, video
images, IFOs (as they may relate to UFO sightings), man-made
technologies, psychology, and many other aspects that may relate
to the study of the variables involved.

I do not call myself a "Ufologist" because I do not study UFOs.
I research reports, images and data related to the study of
_potential_ objects of unknown origins and the study of a
larger, complex phenomenon that surrounds these reported objects
using what's called a "multidisciplinary approach".

Before I applied a multidisciplinary approach to the study of
phenomena, I BELIEVED UFOs and aliens existed. I could rant on
and on about the evidence that had convinced me that UFOs were
real and there were aliens in some of them. Afterall, I'd seen 7
UFO's myself (and they were incredible sightings).

I started out as an abductions researcher. I _believed_ people
were being abducted by beings of unknown origins (at least I
didn't call them "aliens"). Then I saw something behind my house
that forced me to stop _believing_ and start using my head and
the research skills and _objectivity_ that I had learned in
college. What I saw and one question the guy (he claimed to be
with the "OSI") asked snapped me out of that belief system. He
said, with dramatic emphasis on impression, "What do you _think_
you saw back there?"

Well, to make a long story short, I _thought_ I saw a UFO (or a
puddy-tat?).

But after I hung up the phone, I realized anything using
camouflage- as this thing was doing - is also perpetrating a
deception. From that moment on I began questioning everything
and believing... nothing. This is where Ufology ends and science
begins.

I have no need to prove UFOs or aliens exist. Since 'UFO' means
'unidentified flying object', of course they exist. Anything
that flies and is unidentified to even one person is,
theoretically, a UFO. Since 'alien' means a being that is not
human (or from over the border) and/or from another planet, it
is likely that 'aliens' exist somewhere in such a vast universe.
Research must first be oriented to discovering the nature of a
phenomenon and defining what it is or is not before it can be
proven to exist or not exist.

I not only base my research on a study of objects sighted either
on land, in the air, in space or in water that lack immediate
identification and/or explanation but also on possible
correlations between these objects and identified objects.
Before I can study an unknown, I must first find one.

Just because a flying object cannot be identified according to
current standards of what constitutes "conventional aircraft"
does not mean it cannot be man-made or attributed to other
variables. Repeatedly I have come across declarations that an
object "cannot" be man-made and is, therefore, a genuine (or
"true") UFO in dozens of cases I have reviewed (often in reports
by prominent researchers and investigators). How can one know it
is not man-made if we do not have access to all the information
about man-made or "conventional" aircraft? To rule out any
possibility is to automatically bias a study and limit analyses.

<snip>

 >Ufology, as a scientific area of study and research, fails on
 >other levels as well. It fails to evolve by the normal processes
 >as other sciences have accomplished.

Yes, Ufology, as a science, has failed (for reasons I have
stated above). However, the study of these objects and the
phenomena that surround them is evolving right before our eyes.
The very fact that we recognize the shortcomings and need for a
more scientific (albeit adapted) approach indicates change in
process. This field of study cannot evolve by the "normal
processes" accomplished by other sciences because...it has yet
to become a science and the focus of our research does not fit
the "normal" definitions inherent in other sciences.

 >Another level upon which Ufology as a science fails, is not
 >preparing its history as the foundation to prepare the birth of
 >the science for teaching it to those who would desire
 >contributing in a meaningful way, now and in the future. All
 >recognized sciences today initially began from a perceived
 >paranormal perspective, but evolved through education to the
 >level of legitimacy.

I would like to take this moment, Wendy, to express my deepest
admiration for your efforts to create an archive based on data
related to UFO phenomena. An archive containing case studies is
one of the most valuable contributions that can be made to any
field of study. You have done an outstanding job!

 >First would be the belief by the majority that Ufology
 >encompasses all areas of the paranormal. It does not. Rods, crop
 >circles, most alien abductions, spook lights, bigfoot, gnomes,
 >fairies, channeling, crystal gazing, HAARP, Chemtrails, etc. are
 >not parts of the science commonly referred to as Ufology. Any
 >attempt to associate these with Ufology is an egregous
 >intellectual error.

Exactly!

 >Secondly, science and academics have taken a hard look at the
 >data concerning the UFO issue and found it lacking scientific
 >merit. This is totally false. There has never been an applied,
 >unbiased, long-term, funded research effort regarding the hard
 >data and documentation by any area of legitimate sciences in
 >regards to the issue. The phenomenon has been declared null and
 >void erroneously. Any scientist that argues from this position
 >is literally incompetent to speak to the issue and does their
 >own science an injustice.

I couldn't agree with you more. The closest we have to a more
forensic approach comes from NIDS but this is not a recognized
field of science.

 >Third. Earth is being visited and manipulated by aliens. There
 >is absolutely no hard evidence or data to prove this and it
 >remains only a hypothesis. However, enough hard data has been
 >accumulated to prove that the existence of unknown aerial
 >objects, of apparent manufacture, do exist and appear under
 >intelligent control within the atmospheres of the earth and
 >within near space and have been observed by competent observers.
 >To say that these objects and the intelligence behind them are
 >from inner or outer space has not been confirmed. The basic fact
 >is that nobody knows yet where these objects derive, who or what
 >is behind their manufacture and operation, nor the purpose for
 >their appearance.

Amen.

 >Fourth, that there is a deliberate cover-up by the U.S. military
 >and government regarding UFOs, including silencing and
 >intimidation, has not been proven nor documented by hard data.
 >Documentation clearly shows that the USAF and the U.S.
 >government has a considerable track record of ineptness in
 >handling the UFO question and has failed to approach the issue
 >with proper analysis.

Just as conclusions about UFO's may be premature, so can the
conclusions about why the military and government respond as
they do. Reasons for their behaviors may come to light as we
continue to learn and evolve. ;>

 >Fifth. The Roswell incident was the result of a Mogul balloon
 >mishap is not conclusive and the overall evidence of it being
 >such is based upon faulty reasoning and manipulation of the
 >data. Further, there is absolutely no hard documentation at this
 >time to support the recovery of either crashed UFOs or aliens.
 >However, circumstantial evidence exists in enough abundance to
 >assume that the recovery of a crashed UFO and occupant(s)
 >remains in the realm of possiblity than probability.

Anything is possible and this case will probably never be closed
except to those with closed minds. However, do we really need to
spend quite so much time on this one case when there are so many
other cases, past and present, that may be equally important.

 >Sixth is that the news media deliberately attempts to avoid
 >reporting solid observations of UFOs and UFO cases. In actuality
 >the organized news media is no longer a local and national
 >public watchdog of the people. It has become a conglomerate of
 >corporations that answers to advertisers and shareholders and is
 >therefore no longer capable of unbiased reporting.

The media is not reliable nor much use in research. We do,
however, have a great resource for communication that is often
taken for granted...the internet. Even with all the bogus
material and hype, the internet has brought more research into
the public arena and provides an excellent tool for finding and
using information.

 >Seventh. Ufology has deteriorated to the level of impotence and
 >there is nothing to be learned from the study and research of
 >the field in general and earlier investigated cases. This
 >concept is ludicrous. More documentation, data and solid
 >research has been accomplished in the last decade than in the
 >prior five decades. Old case investigations are not carved in
 >stone. As new documentation and research is brought to light,
 >additions or subtractions to such cases are made and the data
 >for these cases are clarified.

Old cases are _not_ carved in stone. So true! My research over
the past 6 years has forced me to study old cases with new
perceptions and information and has revealed details I never
knew existed. As new information comes to light, old cases can
take on whole new meanings. When bias blinds us, we filter the
truth through tainted perceptions. One person's old clothes can
be another person's "new" clothes.

 >These are just a few of the glaring fallacies within the field
 >of Ufology. The quagmire current Ufology finds itself is based
 >upon many issues, most of which cannot be rectified on an
 >individual basis. Rectifcation comes over a long period of time
 >through the efforts of those dedicated to the science of Ufology
 >by their research and eventual edification of the general public
 >by the method of teaching the history and research methodologies
 >and being honest with the documentation, data and hypotheses
 >presented.

I wholeheartedly agree with what you have said, Wendy. However,
I do not see "Ufology" as a science. We need to first define
exactly what it would be if it where a science and define what
we would then do, as scientists devoted to this field of study.
We cannot study just UFO's. We must study many fields of
information in order to better understand what's going on.

Until we can define what it is we are trying to study, we cannot
declare a science. If we label them "UFO's", we commit the first
sin of bias and prejudice. And if we claim to study UFO's, we
are not using a multidisciplinary approach.

How do you define a field of study that is based on such a broad
and complex subject?

What is it we study?
Who are we?
And, what do we do?


A. Hebert




[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |

UFO UpDates Main Index

UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp


Archive programming by Glenn Campbell at Glenn-Campbell.com