Nope, I am not the exception, regardless of what you may think. I can think of a number of people and UFO groups (particularly in the UK) who have sent letters to newspapers when there was a report in a particular area, or where they were looking into an old case and it DID bring people forward who were involved.

Your “red flag” comment is nonsenical given that I’m not the excpetion. You can only possibly make such an “exception” statement if you have polled every single ufologist and they said it had never worked for them.

It certainly has worked and so I’m not the excpetion.

Re peer review: ironically, my files are probably the ones that are wide open for inspection whether or not I want them to be. And I told you why that was: that when I left the UK for the US, I could not afford to ship my UFO files over the Atlantic, and so of the files that were not destroyed, the rest were handed over to various UFO groups.

Those groups (such as the Staffordshire UFO Group and others) had my originals and certainly had (and still have) the chance to review those files in peer review style.

“Put any make believe story in the paper and people will appear out of nowhere to back it up.”

“So what? The fact that someone might make something up doesn’t detract from the fact that there are countless solid cases with credible witnesses too, so your point is utterly irrelevant”

That was not my point. The point is that “backup” is irrelevant to the truth unless that backup leads to actual physical evidence you can hold in your hand. That has never happened in the UFO community. There is just as much “backup” for known make believe storytales as there are for allegedly real UFO events.

“No, I’m not saying I’m the exception”

Of course you are not saying you are the exception, I am saying you are the exception. That is because you are the exception. Being the exception raises a red flag that needs to be investigated further to see why you are the exception.

On Sep 15th, 2007, Greg Bishop posted an article on this website about Fundamentalist_Skeptics_Not_In_The_Majority. Greg goes on to give a link to The Society For Scientific Exploration, which is composed of scientists with mucho grande cojones and with grants who are willing to study and publish on paranormal topics. Where does that leave your “scientists have no balls” theory?

You seem to think that peer review is an editorial comment or an opinion. Peer review is not when someone interviews the local population to see what they think of you or your theories, peer review is where your work is subjected to review from other experts in your field of study for feedback and to find flaws in the work presented. Most people avoid this step as much as possible because they are afraid of someone finding fault in their work. Many discoveries have been through rigorous testing only to meet their fate at peer review. If you do not value peer review, you do not value science and its pursuit of truth. It is one of the most critically important parts of scientific reasoning and one you avoid.

This will probably be the last post for this thread (unless you get the last word in, which is okay by me), so I want to say what I feel, which is I feel this dialog was useful and productive. Most paranormal enthusiasts are not as engaging as you are in the face of criticism, which makes you an exception — and not the red flag kind of exception. You are not a scientist so I cannot expect you to act like one, but you do have a true scientists desire for the pursuit of truth. I think that is more important than anything else, and if you were to change your methods and your attitude towards certain things, you could do a tremendous service to the paranormal community. I am not talking about your ability to conduct research, but your ability to go out and find a story and report it. The problem is not the reporting aspect, but finding the right story at the right time in the right place using the right methodology. If there is anything out there, you are in the best position to find it for us.

You say: “Put any make believe story in the paper and people will appear out of nowhere to back it up.”

So what? The fact that someone might make something up doesn’t detract from the fact that there are countless solid cases with credible witnesses too, so your point is utterly irrelevant.

You say:

“You say that you are the exception in your approach. There is no evidence of that but I did not want to be argumentative. The fact remains that none of your cases have been solved — the UFO mystery is still a UFO mystery, even for you. And what about the witnesses that come forward long after the incident? I am not buying into it; it is suspect of them to do so.”

No, I’m not saying I’m the exception. I’m not some egotistical moron who thinks I am somehow an exception to everyone else. I have merely said that I have had success getting solid, credible people to come forward when I have highlighted some of these older and previously unseen cases.

Sage, you are actually the one who said: “You know, there is no point in discussing this any further. If you say it has worked for you, then as far as I am concerned it has worked for you…but only for you. There are no records of it working for anybody else though, which I find…interesting.”

You made me the exception in your words above. I merely said I had success in getting people to come forward, corroborate etc.

You quote me as saying: “What I don’t care about at all is what someone in ufology thinks of me if they disagree with me.”

Then you say: “You keep missing the point here. This is not about you, it is about UFOlogy. That and the fact that no one within UFOlogy cares a wit how UFOlogy is presented. With attitudes like that, no one within UFOlogy has the right to complain that UFOlogy gets no respect. Can they treat it with disdain and aloofness and then expect someone else with a grant and a reputation to step in and do their homework for them? Of course not, so what is happening in UFOlogy today is exactly what should be happening — it is being ignored by the scientific community (except maybe for some psychologists).”

No, of course it’s not about me (again egos should have no place in ufology), and yes it is about ufology.

However, you specifically asked me about peer review, and do I personally care about that etc, and so I answered from my own perspective. If you don’t want an answer that has a personal perspective, then don’t make it a personal question.

Lest you forget, you said: “But do you care what others think of your ‘research’? Not in the slightest? I care because peer review is feedback and a reality check.”

Thus, I answered from a personal angle re why I personally don’t care because that’s how you phrased it.

I am not a spokesperson for the collective ufo community, and that same community - I’m certain - is comprised of people whose views probably vary wildly to mine in many cases, and in others may be similar. But if I’m asked a question and it touches on me, I’ll answer it in that fashion.

As I said, we’ll never agree on the scientist angle and ufology. You conclude it’s due to how we present ourselves. I say it’s their fear of reputations, losing grants etc. We’re just going to go around in circles on this and endlessly repeat ourselves.

Plus, as I have said, I do not believe that ufology is the “nuts and bolts” mystery that it is perceived to be by many ufologists. And it largely defies scientific exploration anyway as a result of its nature. Have a look at my bio on the homepage and you’ll see how I began my involvement in ufology as someone who adhered to the theories of Keyhoe, Stringfield etc, but how that changed quite some time ago, to where I think the answers are likely to be found today.

Most scientists wouldn’t go down this alternative path at all, I’m pretty sure, once it was presented to them.

I am not looking so much for proof as I am looking for honesty. Is it remotely possible that your experience was all in your mind? Afterall, you have absolutely no evidence that what you allegedly experienced actually occurred. So why can it not be possible that the evidence you have (or do not have) is speaking the truth and telling you/us that nothing happened like you thought it did? I am not saying, “Do not consider the possibility that it was real”, but to also consider the possibility that it was imaginary or a hoax or a self-delusion.

“There are countless examples of authors writing books on UFOs or journalists writing articles on the subject and having people come forward who know something about the relevant cases, or who were involved in them”

That is correct, but that was not what I was talking about. Put any make believe story in the paper and people will appear out of nowhere to back it up.

Case in point: the Shaver Mystery. In the 1940’s, Richard Shaver invented a make believe story about people living within a hollow Earth. Lots of people responded as backup for Shaver’s fairytale. They deluded themselves into believing him. So what did all that backup accomplish? Absolutely nothing. It did not solve the mystery; it did not expose the falsehood of it; it did not add to the mystery. They were copycat witnesses, looking for attention and possibly their five minutes of fame or fortune.

Another case in point: Roswell. Roswell was dead; long forgotten; nobody cared about it…until a famous person made Roswell famous. All of a sudden, hundreds of people came forward to tell their side of the Roswell storytale, after remaining in hiding and absolutely silent for so long. Of course not a single person came forward with some proof that Roswell every really happened. It was all storytales and no evidence. Now that Roswell is slowly dying out along with the alleged witnesses, the storytale remains just as vague and contradictory and unsolvable as it did when it was first told.

Why would witnesses choose to remain silent until a story started making the headlines? I have seen the anonymous witnesses in UFOlogy but that means nothing, because I have seen their types come out of the woodwork before, just as soon as they see that their side of the storytale is generating enough interest so that they might have a chance at their five minutes of fame or fortune.

You say that you are the exception in your approach. There is no evidence of that but I did not want to be argumentative. The fact remains that none of your cases have been solved — the UFO mystery is still a UFO mystery, even for you. And what about the witnesses that come forward long after the incident? I am not buying into it; it is suspect of them to do so.

“What I don’t care about at all is what someone in ufology thinks of me if they disagree with me”

You keep missing the point here. This is not about you, it is about UFOlogy. That and the fact that no one within UFOlogy cares a wit how UFOlogy is presented. With attitudes like that, no one within UFOlogy has the right to complain that UFOlogy gets no respect. Can they treat it with disdain and aloofness and then expect someone else with a grant and a reputation to step in and do their homework for them? Of course not, so what is happening in UFOlogy today is exactly what should be happening — it is being ignored by the scientific community (except maybe for some psychologists).

You say:

“You know, there is no point in discussing this any further. If you say it has worked for you, then as far as I am concerned it has worked for you…but only for you. There are no records of it working for anybody else though, which I find…interesting.”

What??!!! You can’t be serious?! There are countless examples of authors writing books on UFOs or journalists writing articles on the subject and having people come forward who know something about the relevant cases, or who were involved in them.

You are really saying that I am the “only” person in the entire history of ufology who has ever written about a UFO case to where it has led someone else who was involved in that case to come forward and provide back-up?!

Look at Roswell: there may be a great deal of debate and disagreement re what did or did not happen at Roswell; and yes there have been fakers and fantasists who have inserted themselves into the story; however, a number of old guys who worked at the Roswell base came forward as a result of publicity afforded the case in print - something which made them feel comfortable about speaking.

I don’t know if you have ever written a book or an article, but I can tell you that having people come forward who have read the article or book, and who may have had involvement in a significant UFO event that is cited within the article or book, and that may have implicated a sizeable body of people, is not at all uncommon.

We’ll continue to disagree on the issues of (a) me recording emotional data from the witnesses; and (b) the issue of involvement/non-involvement on the part of scientists, and neither of us is going to budge.

Re interviews and peer review: yes I have. I mentioned in a post some time ago re how I could not afford to ship my UFO collection to the US when I moved here from the UK in 2001, so parts of it were sold, some material was donated to UFO groups, and what was left over I destroyed.

But quite a bit of my interview material was handed over to local groups (old audio tapes etc). Several extensive tapes were given, for example, to the British-based Staffordshire UFO Group.

I have no reason not to do that, providing the witness is ok with it of course.

Re the issue of caring (or not): I specifically pointed out that what I don’t care about is what people think of me if they disagree with me.

I care passionately about the subject, and I care a lot about sharing data with like-minded people who will hopefully be interested in the material I publish (such as the people who come to this blog).

What I don’t care about at all is what someone in ufology thinks of me if they disagree with me. It’s irrelevant and not worth losing sleep over.

To me, it makes perfect sense to not spend time caring or worrying if some ufologist on the other side of the country, or the other side of the world, diagrees with me.

Being in ufology requires a thick skin; and getting all upset and worried about what people think of me has no place in my life.

If people think I have done something worthwhile research-wise, then I’m pleased to have been able to share something with them that they can absorb in a positive fashion.

If they think I’m wrong, or I was lied to by a source, or they think I’m just going down the wrong path in terms of what lies at the heart of the UFO puzzle, then they are free to think that.

To be honest, it boils down to the fact that, for the most part, I simply can’t be bothered to care about what the skeptics think, because life is too short to worry about them; and I’m too busy trying to share data with those that realize there is a genuine mystery to be solved.

“In the 1952 cases I referred to: yes (and that goes for numerous other cases too)”

You know, there is no point in discussing this any further. If you say it has worked for you, then as far as I am concerned it has worked for you…but only for you. There are no records of it working for anybody else though, which I find…interesting.

“Tell us what is so important about people’s emotions…”
“As I said, I feel…”

Then that is all you need to say. You feel. There is no rational reason behind recording emotions in a “serious” report, you just feel like it. All I wanted to say is that what you feel or what I feel or what other’s say they feel is not something to take seriously because it is not science but journalism. I know the difference between the two and I just wanted to point it out.

“Wrong. Dead wrong. No back-pedalling”

You are partially right, but you are still dead wrong because of your views on this. You made the unsubstantiated assertion about scientists “not having the balls to stand up and not worry about reputations”, which I proved was fallacious with two examples. Do not stereotype all scientists with a label and boxing them up in a negative light just because they do not support your causes. They are people just like you and me and there are scientists that do not care about grants or reputations and are willing to risk everything, just like anybody else in any other paid or unpaid profession. Yet even THOSE scientists with balls who do not care about grants or reputation do not have any desire to investigate the UFO phenomenon. Why? Because they are trained to be smart enough to know that there is nothing to investigate where nothing has been proven to exist in the first place. How can they investigate something you cannot even prove exists outside of your imagination? There are no statistics or facts to back up your assertion about scientists “not having the balls to stand up and not worry about reputations”. It is a poor excuse and an urban myth invented and perpetuated by the UFO community.

“I ask them to relate their accounts, I don’t interrupt. End of story”

Not end of story. Have you ever subjected your UFO interrogation or reporting methods to peer review? For example, transcripts or recordings of you during your interviewing processes? Linda Moulton Howe does this (to her credit) and to me it is very obvious that she leads her witnesses…have you ever read her web page? Have you ever read Whitley Streiber’s web page? It looks and reads to me more like a grocery store tabloid then a “cutting edge news” site. Ask them if they care. I know you do not care, so who is going to care? With all these people who are so interested in getting out the word of the paranormal and UFOs, yet none of them caring how it gets out there or how it is presented, should the people reading it care? And these same people wonder why UFOlogy will never make any progress? I do not wonder, I know exactly why UFOlogy will never make any progress.

yeah, thought you were gonna ignore me, and i was only speaking to my ‘peers’ anyway…
but hey…
been through this before, so , may as well make my 243rd move…

you din’t ‘actually read’ my post , did ya? (some scientist u r!)

maybe you should try it agin??

but let’s see what i’ve read from you lately…

sage quote : Like I said before, there are lots of scientists willing to look into UFOs, regardless of whether they would be ridiculed or not.

me : Name 3.

oh,sorry, you mean >sage quote : But you got to at least give them a bone and until there is some evidence — the merest wisp of evidence — that ET piloted flying saucers exist, do not expect them to come sniffing around. It is not worth anybody’s time.

changing the subject? u do understand the Subject? > IT IS UFOs: ‘unidentified flying objects’
something seen in the sky that really ‘makes no sense’ according to what we know about ‘things flying in our skies’….

jus like the OP from NR- where’s ET?

how many ways must this be said or written? Neither the OP by Nick or i or anyone on THIS thread
has mentioned anything beyond a UFO….but you wanna insist totally from yr mind-set that a UFO ‘must be piloted’?-by an ET?…..let’stalk about assumptions.

((i sez to my peers…Like all of a sudden now it’s gotta be a” flight manual” from the Sombrero Galaxy!
….childishly taunting anyone from “The Committee for Scientific Investigations”))

Let me make this perfectly clear > u, ‘ i already know’…..HA!
(show me the ‘i believe’ quote-git it? !)

hey sage, you have yet to ‘prove’ to me that you understand my OP…and i invite U to the X-conference this weekend to play a game of Chess! (beat me in 17 moves mutherfugger, i want an Ale!)

But let me say this (to my ‘peers’), analyze what’s being said here, check out ‘the Logic’….

u’ll learn sumfin…..a ‘bag of tricks’ from someone sufferin’ from an ‘ego hoax’…. a Sage! HA!

bottom line > “ignore-ance” from the ’sciencetist’ again!!

((Sic All!))

mr. mouse!
( i am not a child!)