Ufology

[louisa]

Timothy Good certainly can't be accused of believing every UFO story that he hears! The eye witness accounts in his books are ones that he personally has verified to the best of his ability.

If he were to publish all the UFO stories that he hears then he would have published hundreds of books!

[Jonathan H]

In gambling there are two kinds of people, 'smarts' and 'marks'.

I would like to believe Good is an endearingly naive mark, rather than a smart cynically making a living off some people's gullibility and unfulfilled religious needs.

[louisa]

If you were ever to meet Timothy Good you would realise just how genuine he is. He believes wholeheartedly in his subject and he and I have exchange many emails on this.

It might be worth your while having a look at some of his YouTube interviews then you can see for yourself.

He knows a lot more about the subject than you or I will ever know.

[Jonathan H]

No, I'm afraid Good doesn't.

He knows almost nothing about the real story of U.F.O.'s. But he believes a great deal about it, and you can only do that from a position of willful ignorance because of the need to.

But I would like to think he is a mark, for whilst it is not much it is not nothing either.

If I can recommend a great, great book on the subject:

'Watch the Skies' (1994) by Curtis Peebles

[louisa]

You seem to be making a lot of assumptions.

I have no idea what this 'mark' is that you keep referring to. Is it a 'Jonathan-ism'?

[Jonathan H]

What Good peddles is demonstrably false rubbish, which -- as a toxic, by-product -- feeds the beast of extreme right-wing paranoia/propaganda; that all governments are evil, secretive, and at war with their own citizens.

A 'mark' is a person who is so gullible they can be taken to the cleaners in, say, a card game.

[louisa]

OMG! Some people are very angry. Maybe you protest too much?

Luckily I believe in logic.

[Jonathan H]

So do I, that's why I reject Good's works.

[Phil H]

Louisa [to Jonathan]: You seem to be making a lot of assumptions.

Louisa [earlier response to me]: Well I think they must be capable because they have covered it up.

I think you may be making a lot of assumptions, Louisa!!

Sorry not to have responded before, I have been away.

Kensei: you wrote:

IF there has been a huge coverup by governments of alien presence on Earth, recovered UFOs, back-engineered technology, etc., I would hardly refer to it as "highly successful." If it had been that, no one would be talking about it.

I don't follow your logic. People like Sitchen and von Daniken write books even though there is no basis for their views? Dan brown puts lots of ideas together and creates FICTION.

It has also been argued that the UFO "leaks" are a "red-herring" to distract the public from other issues (perhaps related0 that are sensitive, and (as you yourself suggest) the poor quality of the UFO material may be designed to undermine the credibility of the subject as a whole (but earthborn high tech rather than alien).

Instead, the fact that books and films and t.v. specials have spelled out practically every detail of what governments are alleged to be up to in places like Area 51 to the point where it's become part of pop culture would seem to indicate that the coverup has been one of the worst attempts at secret-keeping ever attempted.

Yet the most highly publicised source on Area 51 (Bob Lazar) is a palpable fraud.

[Jonathan H]

'Majestic-12'

Speaking of fraud that's how 'Roswell' was actually born.

The mediocre officer Jesse Marcel merged his embittered memory of his weather balloon humiliation of 1947, with the Aztec saucer crash hoax of 1950 in Frank Scully's 'Behind the Flying Saucers' arriving at his 'How I Won Waterloo' tale by the late 70's (tellingly the son claims that he and his father, who both handled the 'alien' material never spoke of it, even with each other, until UFO 'researchers' got a hold of the tale).

http://www.skepdic.com/aztec.html

Then in 1987 the 'researcher' Tim Good was completely sucked in -- partly because he wanted to be -- by the 'Majestic-12' document forgeries.

A very good site demolishing the so-called 'Roswell Incident' is by the brilliant and lucid Timothy Printy:

http://home.comcast.net/~tprinty/UFO/mj12.htm

Especially, Chapter 12: 'The Elves and the Shoemaker'

[kensei]

Kensei: you wrote:

IF there has been a huge coverup by governments of alien presence on Earth, recovered UFOs, back-engineered technology, etc., I would hardly refer to it as "highly successful." If it had been that, no one would be talking about it.

I don't follow your logic. People like Sitchen and von Daniken write books even though there is no basis for their views? Dan brown puts lots of ideas together and creates FICTION.

Instead, the fact that books and films and t.v. specials have spelled out practically every detail of what governments are alleged to be up to in places like Area 51 to the point where it's become part of pop culture would seem to indicate that the coverup has been one of the worst attempts at secret-keeping ever attempted.

Yet the most highly publicised source on Area 51 (Bob Lazar) is a palpable fraud.

Phil,

Let me respond first to the names you mention. I am quite bored with Sitchin. It's my understanding that when people would ask him to point out exactly where in the Sumerian tablets he was getting his information he would only say, "It's all in my books," and that when an English language translation of the tablets was recently published it was found that not only were his interpretations incorrect, but the things he said he'd been interpreting weren't even in there. He was made out to be a genius but he seems instead to have just imagined it all. With Von Daniken, he covers such a wide swath of material I think he runs the gamut from wild speculation on one end to "Hmmm, this one thing here just might have something to it" on the other. In other words I think there might be just a few kernels of genuine interest in his work scattered here and there, like cases where you have to ask "Just how did ancient people lift those rock slabs that weigh a gazillion tons each?" Not that that means E.T.s have to have been involved, just that there might exist a genuine mystery of some kind. I also think that Von Daniken is not a scam artist but that he absolutely believes everything he says. Lying and just being wrong are not the same thing but simply two different ways of saying things that aren't true. With Bob Lazar, as a disclaimer I will say that I have not studied him in any great depth but have heard several interviews with him in which he responded to his criticisms and said that the reason there is so little record of him in the places he claims to have worked and studied is that the government had those records wiped once he was tagged as a whistleblower. And yes, that is a completely unprovable claim, but I do recall just from memory that his name was found in a phone directory for one of the places he said he worked, as if that was something the government missed. I'm not defending him, I'm just saying that's what I've heard. If you have greater knowledge of him that amounts to proof he is a fraud I will defer to it, but "strong evidence" and "absolute proof" are two different things. I will admit that Lazar's old friend John Lear seems to be someone who has been the target of the many "inside sources" he claims to have who have obviously been telling him tall tale after tall tale, then laughing their heads off when he believes it all and goes public with it. He goes so far as to insist that every planet in our solar system is populated and that Venus- dramatically close to the sun- is actually a teeming green world filled with life and that all photos of it have been doctored to make it look barren. He and Lazar may have stood together observing weird lights over Area 51, but his claims far surpass Lazar's in strangeness.

Dan Brown? I get your analogy but he really has no place in a discussion of UFOs.

Finally, you said you didn't follow my logic, so perhaps I didn't do a good enough job in explaining it. I do believe that aliens visit the Earth and that certain elements within governments are aware of it, and that on some level they work to keep it secret because it would simply cause too much chaos. That is far from saying that every government official in every country knows, just certain factions. And when the subject is talked about, skeptics always say something to the effect of, "There is no way that something that huge could have been kept secret for so long, because secrets leak out and someone would have talked." And I always say that that is absolutely correct. Secrets have leaked out and people have talked, and if they hadn't the thing wouldn't even exist as a topic for the mainstream to be talking about. A truly successful coverup of anything would mean that absolutely no one who is not directly involved in it would ever even think of it. That's my logic. I don't know how much better I can explain it. It doesn't offer any kind of proof of anything, it just points out that that oft-repeated argument against "conspiracy theories" is a faulty one.

[Phil H]

Kensei

I cannot question your personal beliefs and your whole post above is quite simply that - a statement of what you believe.

You miss my point on Sitchin and von Daniken - whether they are broing or not, the fact remains that they have published manybooks without any clear basis. If they can do it, then "ufolgists" can too - simply writing a book based on a view is standard practice and when Dan Brown does it, its is called FICTION.

Dab Brown draws on a whole bookshelf of stuff published since "Holy Blood and Holy Grail". Lincoln Lee and Baigent claimed that their research was based on material in the French National Archives, and on a mystery about the Abbe Sauniere at Rennes Le Chateau.

The documents relating to the Prieure de Sion are now known to be the work of a modern forger, the Rennes mystery a blantant confidence trick, and Sauniere's mystrerious wealth, the result of ilegally selling masses.

I contend that ufology probably bases itself on similar (though perhaps different in detail) "sources", that ufologists are often wilfully lacking in rigour in their interrogation of sources, their scrutiny of documents and evidence and their willingness to accept dubious sources (see Roswell).

With Bob Lazar... several interviews with him in which he responded to his criticisms and said that the reason there is so little record of him in the places he claims to have worked and studied is that the government had those records wiped once he was tagged as a whistleblower.

Every year book, every copy, all university records? Come on!! It is for HIM to back up his claims, and negative evidence WILL NOT DO. If I were to claim I have a degree from Yale or MIT would I not be expected to provide documentary evidence, not let others try to prove it?

I will admit that Lazar's old friend John Lear ... and Lazar may have stood together observing weird lights over Area 51, but his claims far surpass Lazar's in strangeness.

A man is known by his friends, they say!!

I do believe that aliens visit the Earth and that certain elements within governments are aware of it, and that on some level they work to keep it secret because it would simply cause too much chaos.

But without evidence, that is simply belief. There is NO EVIDENCE of a cover-up. There is even LESS evidence (i.e. none) of a cover-up of UFOs/aliens than of the JFK assassination.

That is far from saying that every government official in every country knows, just certain factions.

Each country is different, but as a UK civil servant, I know from experience just how difficult it is to maintain a "joined-up" stance. Many areas of Government would have to know about this - police, Army, airforce, etc etc.

Secrets have leaked out and people have talked, and if they hadn't the thing wouldn't even exist as a topic for the mainstream to be talking about.

I disagree. I challenge you to cite one example of a "leak" that is sustainable to even minimal scrutiny and examination. As I have already said people discuss the non-existent all the time. If you believe this then you must surely accept medieval angels as REAL or as aliens in some other form. Do you accept David Icke's views about rule of the earth by aliens? Both examples would fit your definition of proof of conspiracy. In your last bolded citation above.

... it just points out that that oft-repeated argument against "conspiracy theories" is a faulty one.

If you wish to believe that, that is your right, but I see it as a very frail and rather questioannble approach.

Phil

[louisa]

My questions are a lot more basic:

Why would hundreds of airline pilots risk their jobs, their pensions, and being ridiculed by describing encounters with alient craft? Why also, would military personnel?

Don't tell me that they are ALL mistaken or in it for the money, because that's obviously not true.

I agree that most sightings can be accounted for by quite mundane terrestrial means.

Let's say, for argument's sake, that there have been a million sightings of UFOs since time began. If only ONE PER CENT of these sightings are genuine, then that one per cent shows that: Yes we have been/are being visited by creatures from other worlds.

[Scorpio]

My questions are a lot more basic:

Why would hundreds of airline pilots risk their jobs, their pensions, and being ridiculed by describing encounters with alient craft? Why also, would military personnel?

Don't tell me that they are ALL mistaken or in it for the money, because that's obviously not true.

I agree that most sightings can be accounted for by quite mundane terrestrial means.

Let's say, for argument's sake, that there have been a million sightings of UFOs since time began. If only ONE PER CENT of these sightings are genuine, then that one per cent shows that: Yes we have been/are being visited by creatures from other worlds.

I would not consider all terrestrial explanations to be mundane.
If a professional pilot reported bright lights hovering at 30,000 ft above the atlantic ocean, then i would firstly consider an experimental craft with a super conducter in it. My theory is testable at least.

[Phil H]

Seeing things, and what you see, are two different things.

In other words, there is no guarantee that what you perceive - or think you see - is actually what is happening.

For instance, ancient sailors did not understand St Elmo's fire and made up their own supernatural explanations. Today, over the oceans there may still be meterological phenomena that are little understood.

As has been said on many occasions, an UNIDENTIFIED FLYING OBJECT is just that - it need not be alien, and the latter should be our last, not our first, interpretation. Unless, of course, we still live in a world of superstition.

Phil