Hiya Leslie, I'm at the point where I think the tail could be wagging the dog in the MUFON reporting system.
Bloggers and Examiner writers have as much incentive to file erroneous reports as the hoaxers and bored teenagers.
This 'dog abduction' sounds like BS. UFO takes his dog 'through a beam and dropped it backed down about a half hour later.' With stuff like that, it's a measure of how seriously the CMS is taken. As stories go, it's barely even creative!
I'm not criticising you for posting it (I enjoy Debris Field daily), or UDDC (for giving it oxygen), just grumbling in general!
I get nothing but complaints from people who are having UFO experiences (some even capturing nightly photos of unknown craft) that MUFON will not even send an investigator. Isn't that suppose to be their #1 job?
Aside from that, a week or so ago I received an email from them and apparently they are trying to get a TV show (or maybe have one) again. So anything they might try to drum up interest in them would not surprise me, not even faking reports.
I am sure you guys, Lesley and Kandinsky, are aware the motives and credibility of the MUFON system has been called into question for quite some time. It is not particularly unusual, for example, for MUFON field investigators to file reports of claimed extraordinary events.
Intentional deception or the result of people with overactive imaginations reading too much Filer's Files? I dunno, but the question indeed deserves reasonable consideration.
Thanks to both of you for your comments. I agree with Kandinsky about liking your blog, Lesley, and I understand your perspective about just quoting MUFON sources. After all, there is some kind of story (or stories) taking place under the MUFON umbrella, whatever those stories may ultimately prove to actually indicate.
As the editor of UDCC the above comments indeed may have merit (other than editors of blogs making it up) as I have noticed a seeming increase in the bizarre reports -which is WHAT I am reporting - the CHANGE of the nature of the reports.
Shooting the messagers won't help. The changes in the nature of the reports are either REAL or NOT real - and giving them the light of day is not the problem. I have no basis to believe either way. But, IF the nature of the beast is evolving once again - the latest reports are indeed a way to quantify such results.
The Lee's summit experiences come to mind as far as usefulness of the muFON system.
Now, all that said, I often highlight the absurd on UDCC - including the claims by the Exopolitics mouthpieces. It's part of the anagram of UFO Disclosure - Ludicrous Foes.
As the editor of UDCC the above comments indeed may have merit (other than editors of blogs making it up) as I have noticed a seeming increase in the bizarre reports -which is WHAT I am reporting (at least one aspect of why I cover the MUFON latest reports) - the CHANGE of the nature of the reports.
Shooting the messagers won't help. The changes in the nature of the reports are either REAL or NOT real - and giving them the light of day is not the problem. I have no basis to believe either way. But, IF the nature of the beast is evolving once again - the latest reports are indeed a way to quantify such results.
The Lee's summit experiences come to mind as far as usefulness of the muFON system.
Now, all that said, I often highlight the absurd on UDCC - including the claims by the Exopolitics mouthpieces. It's part of the anagram of UFO Disclosure - Ludicrous Foes.
No question however that the `lights in the sky' reports seem to be fading in comparison to more exotic reports.
As the editor of UDCC the above comments indeed may have merit (other than editors of blogs making it up) as I have noticed a seeming increase in the bizarre reports -which is WHAT I am reporting (at least one aspect of why I cover the MUFON latest reports) - the CHANGE of the nature of the reports.
Shooting the messagers won't help. The changes in the nature of the reports are either REAL or NOT real - and giving them the light of day is not the problem. I have no basis to believe either way. But, IF the nature of the beast is evolving once again - the latest reports are indeed a way to quantify such results.
The Lee's summit experiences come to mind as far as usefulness of the muFON system.
Now, all that said, I often highlight the absurd on UDCC - including the claims by the Exopolitics mouthpieces. It's part of the anagram of UFO Disclosure - Ludicrous Foes.
No question however that the `lights in the sky' reports seem to be fading in comparison to more exotic reports.
I don't think anyone was referring to you Rick. I was only referring to MUFON. Although, I suppose there could be writers at The Examiner who could have motives to fake reports - they do get a penny or whatever for each click on their page. :-) At least The Examiner finally fired Alfred Webre, so maybe they do have some sort of standards. :-D
Well, actually, one comment did refer to UDCC (not in a negative way really)- and I feel the comment deserved an honest reply.
A)That I, as someone who `reports' on the MUFON `reports' DO NOT make up reports to send in and then turn around and `report' them. B)That some of the reports are outlandish and I agree, sound like poor fiction. Of course, that is indeed a description of high strangeness too. C)That indeed, only using the `high strangeness reports' distorts the so called `real' UFO experiences that are reported that we are all comfortable with IE: lights in the sky reports. D)And finally, to verify that indeed some of the reports are most likely FICTION in every sense of the word. To me, part of the whole `UFO Disclosure' angrame `Ludicrous Foes'.
Lastly, WOW - thanks for that Alfred Webre news. As you know, I skewed him again just last week. That said, and while the `Exopolitics' folks may have their reasons for their `lies' about what the government has and doesn't have in the way of `alternative energies and aliens' - to me, even MORE nefarious is IF this Exopolitics group is a put on OF the government to make the whole idea seem NUTS.
That is hilarious. Frankly while I link to The Examiner on occasion - I find the pop-ups, pop-unders, and pop-overs to sometimes be beyond belief. I'd much rather get some of my ufo links from TDF. Your tongue in cheek mention of the Examiner have some standards after gettting rid of Webre was well received here. As you might be aware I recently ran a link for the UFO hall of shame again.
The thing I have never really liked about the Hall of Shame (especially that brief period where the paracast took over) is that they make no distinction between hoaxster/liars and people that are just a bit too woo-woo for most. For example, whether I agree with her or not - I don't think Shirley Maclaine deserves to be in The Hall of Shame, but a total liar like "Dr Reed" does. And yes, Webre may well believe what he is saying, but he is different from Maclaine and certain others that are only sharing their experiences and their thoughts about them. Webre shares other people's experiences that have no evidence and then attacks anyone that may question them. So it isn't that I think he should be there due to what may be sincere beliefs, but because of the way he handles anyone that questions those beliefs - that is shameful. :-)
@ Rick - there was no offence intended and no suggestion that you would post false reports to MUFON.
In the past 18 months, I've read a few Examiner articles that (when checked) misrepresented UFO videos and/or misidentified the sources of videos and claims. At the same time, many an article has been posted that drew heavily on MUFON reports.
When page clicks dictate income, it makes sense that the more eye-catching reports will take precedence. As such, is it a possibility that a writer might take it upon themselves to post a report on the CMS that would then make a pretty headline?
Historically, UFO reports have a high-tide/ low-tide frequency. This again could encourage someone to season the pot with an interesting report at MUFON.
For me, it's good to see Jack and Lesley share similar suspicions.
Thanks for voicing your perspectives. I appreciate reading the comments and would like to address some of Rick's opinions.
While I think you expressed some reasonable perspectives, Rick, I think the jury is still out on the possible purposes of misinforming the public. There are many potential reasons in addition to creating "ludicrous foes." None of such reasons carry any less likelihood than strategies are in place to discredit UFO witnesses in order to perpetuate an orchestrated cover-up of an alien presence. Actually, I can think of substantially more likely reasons, some of which have well documented precedence, for distributing disinformation. I concede your implications are of course a possibility, though, and I indeed agree it is very difficult to tell who works for who.
Rick wrote, "The Lee's summit experiences come to mind as far as usefulness of the muFON system." I think this could be competently debated.
I recall an absolutely extraordinary claim published August 11 by Roger Marsh, who many recognize as MUFON dorector of communications, at Examiner in which a MUFON FI reported and alleged to have sighted a 5-mile wide craft hovering over downtown Kansas City. Wow. That is a lot to chew on, but I suppose I can suspend judgment pending more substantiated data. That is, if more substantiated data is forthcoming. The post, titled, "UFO five miles wide: Series of odd events unfold in Missouri," may be viewed at:
In a semi-related post made in June and titled, "MUFON investigators report triangle UFOs and missing time," Marsh explained how the Missouri MUFON assistant state director and a STAR Team member claimed a turn into UFO Land while on there way to the Piedmont UFO Festival. Absolutely extraordinary claims and apparent coincidences. Wow again:
I admittedly have not done much follow up on these alleged experiences, but I do not interpret it to be helpful or a demonstration of "usefulness of the MUFON system," as you put it, Rick, when such claims are asserted with little or no explanations of how investigations unfolded or what such investigations revealed. From my vantage point, it could easily be interpreted as any number of things, none of which should be defined as helpful or responsible.
I hope things go well with your ventures, Rick, and thanks again to all for posting your perspectives. Thanks, Lesley, for providing me an opportunity to express my opinions.
It is indeed true that the MUFON reporting system is 100% unverifiable and certainly within the rhelm of being gamed. Indeed, UDCC's printing of the more extreme cases in a particular 20 sequence - could easily be played by several `friends' if not by one person alone. Perhaps the reports should NOT be anonymous - made with a full verifiable e-mail (so that the public or better yet the MSM could `respond' to such claims). Maybe that would FINALLY got SOMEONE to the scene of these supposedly `repeating orb phenomena' reports. Or, better yet, the ORB callers.
It would at least put `humans' behind the reports.
It is also true IMO that at least SOME of the KC area reports are indeed pure teenage horsemanure. And, `when the impossible happens' (a great book by the way) - IMO, if the event was even real to ONE person -- and I mean really real to one or maybe even a couple people --- IMO -- it is probably a `perception' event. That is NOT `in common consensus' REAL.
I know that sounds like gobbledigook. So be it.
Or, of course, reports like that are made by madmen. Or comic book fanatics perhaps....
Indeed, the fact that the reports are anonymous is one reason why UDCC doesn't even feature them more as they provide perhaps the best view into the High Strangeness phenomena that is `just to the side' of the whole UFO gig/saga.
IMO, as readers close to my blogs know, and what few other `paranormal folks' bother to consider - `things' are very involved in the `phenomenology' of space ----- especially `weird' things/spaces, that are not of the `common consensus'.
Also, Kandinsky, no offense taken. People and websites that cover the crappola of UFOlogy SHOULD be called to task to at least occasionally explain why. As I mention above, at least part of why I do my coverage is because I myself have experienced High Strangeness. I assure readers, it is a `slightly' different reality of a `slightly' differnt types of `spaces'.
It sounds boring. But, that is what I bring to the table in the effort by mankind to explain the Fortean events all of us love to read about.
I've enjoyed the discussion. And, appreciate Leslie's efforts always.
14 comments:
Hiya Leslie, I'm at the point where I think the tail could be wagging the dog in the MUFON reporting system.
Bloggers and Examiner writers have as much incentive to file erroneous reports as the hoaxers and bored teenagers.
This 'dog abduction' sounds like BS. UFO takes his dog 'through a beam and dropped it backed down about a half hour later.' With stuff like that, it's a measure of how seriously the CMS is taken. As stories go, it's barely even creative!
I'm not criticising you for posting it (I enjoy Debris Field daily), or UDDC (for giving it oxygen), just grumbling in general!
As many people know - I am not a fan of MUFON.
I get nothing but complaints from people who are having UFO experiences (some even capturing nightly photos of unknown craft) that MUFON will not even send an investigator. Isn't that suppose to be their #1 job?
Aside from that, a week or so ago I received an email from them and apparently they are trying to get a TV show (or maybe have one) again. So anything they might try to drum up interest in them would not surprise me, not even faking reports.
I am sure you guys, Lesley and Kandinsky, are aware the motives and credibility of the MUFON system has been called into question for quite some time. It is not particularly unusual, for example, for MUFON field investigators to file reports of claimed extraordinary events.
Intentional deception or the result of people with overactive imaginations reading too much Filer's Files? I dunno, but the question indeed deserves reasonable consideration.
Thanks to both of you for your comments. I agree with Kandinsky about liking your blog, Lesley, and I understand your perspective about just quoting MUFON sources. After all, there is some kind of story (or stories) taking place under the MUFON umbrella, whatever those stories may ultimately prove to actually indicate.
Hi Guys,
As the editor of UDCC the above comments indeed may have merit (other than editors of blogs making it up) as I have noticed a seeming increase in the bizarre reports -which is WHAT I am reporting - the CHANGE of the nature of the reports.
Shooting the messagers won't help. The changes in the nature of the reports are either REAL or NOT real - and giving them the light of day is not the problem. I have no basis to believe either way. But, IF the nature of the beast is evolving once again - the latest reports are indeed a way to quantify such results.
The Lee's summit experiences come to mind as far as usefulness of the muFON system.
Now, all that said, I often highlight the absurd on UDCC - including the claims by the Exopolitics mouthpieces. It's part of the anagram of UFO Disclosure - Ludicrous Foes.
Rick Phillips
Hi Guys,
As the editor of UDCC the above comments indeed may have merit (other than editors of blogs making it up) as I have noticed a seeming increase in the bizarre reports -which is WHAT I am reporting (at least one aspect of why I cover the MUFON latest reports) - the CHANGE of the nature of the reports.
Shooting the messagers won't help. The changes in the nature of the reports are either REAL or NOT real - and giving them the light of day is not the problem. I have no basis to believe either way. But, IF the nature of the beast is evolving once again - the latest reports are indeed a way to quantify such results.
The Lee's summit experiences come to mind as far as usefulness of the muFON system.
Now, all that said, I often highlight the absurd on UDCC - including the claims by the Exopolitics mouthpieces. It's part of the anagram of UFO Disclosure - Ludicrous Foes.
No question however that the `lights in the sky' reports seem to be fading in comparison to more exotic reports.
Rick Phillips
Hi Guys,
As the editor of UDCC the above comments indeed may have merit (other than editors of blogs making it up) as I have noticed a seeming increase in the bizarre reports -which is WHAT I am reporting (at least one aspect of why I cover the MUFON latest reports) - the CHANGE of the nature of the reports.
Shooting the messagers won't help. The changes in the nature of the reports are either REAL or NOT real - and giving them the light of day is not the problem. I have no basis to believe either way. But, IF the nature of the beast is evolving once again - the latest reports are indeed a way to quantify such results.
The Lee's summit experiences come to mind as far as usefulness of the muFON system.
Now, all that said, I often highlight the absurd on UDCC - including the claims by the Exopolitics mouthpieces. It's part of the anagram of UFO Disclosure - Ludicrous Foes.
No question however that the `lights in the sky' reports seem to be fading in comparison to more exotic reports.
Rick Phillips
I don't think anyone was referring to you Rick. I was only referring to MUFON. Although, I suppose there could be writers at The Examiner who could have motives to fake reports - they do get a penny or whatever for each click on their page. :-) At least The Examiner finally fired Alfred Webre, so maybe they do have some sort of standards. :-D
Well, actually, one comment did refer to UDCC (not in a negative way really)- and I feel the comment deserved an honest reply.
A)That I, as someone who `reports' on the MUFON `reports' DO NOT make up reports to send in and then turn around and `report' them.
B)That some of the reports are outlandish and I agree, sound like poor fiction. Of course, that is indeed a description of high strangeness too.
C)That indeed, only using the `high strangeness reports' distorts the so called `real' UFO experiences that are reported that we are all comfortable with IE: lights in the sky reports.
D)And finally, to verify that indeed some of the reports are most likely FICTION in every sense of the word. To me, part of the whole `UFO Disclosure' angrame `Ludicrous Foes'.
Lastly, WOW - thanks for that Alfred Webre news. As you know, I skewed him again just last week. That said, and while the `Exopolitics' folks may have their reasons for their `lies' about what the government has and doesn't have in the way of `alternative energies and aliens' - to me, even MORE nefarious is IF this Exopolitics group is a put on OF the government to make the whole idea seem NUTS.
Rick
Webre is calling for a boycott of The Examiner so I may try linking to it more often. :-D
http://www.ufodigest.com/article/call-consumer-boycott-examinercom
That is hilarious.
Frankly while I link to The Examiner on occasion - I find the pop-ups, pop-unders, and pop-overs to sometimes be beyond belief. I'd much rather get some of my ufo links from TDF.
Your tongue in cheek mention of the Examiner have some standards after gettting rid of Webre was well received here. As you might be aware I recently ran a link for the UFO hall of shame again.
Rick
The thing I have never really liked about the Hall of Shame (especially that brief period where the paracast took over) is that they make no distinction between hoaxster/liars and people that are just a bit too woo-woo for most. For example, whether I agree with her or not - I don't think Shirley Maclaine deserves to be in The Hall of Shame, but a total liar like "Dr Reed" does. And yes, Webre may well believe what he is saying, but he is different from Maclaine and certain others that are only sharing their experiences and their thoughts about them. Webre shares other people's experiences that have no evidence and then attacks anyone that may question them. So it isn't that I think he should be there due to what may be sincere beliefs, but because of the way he handles anyone that questions those beliefs - that is shameful. :-)
@ Rick - there was no offence intended and no suggestion that you would post false reports to MUFON.
In the past 18 months, I've read a few Examiner articles that (when checked) misrepresented UFO videos and/or misidentified the sources of videos and claims. At the same time, many an article has been posted that drew heavily on MUFON reports.
When page clicks dictate income, it makes sense that the more eye-catching reports will take precedence. As such, is it a possibility that a writer might take it upon themselves to post a report on the CMS that would then make a pretty headline?
Historically, UFO reports have a high-tide/ low-tide frequency. This again could encourage someone to season the pot with an interesting report at MUFON.
For me, it's good to see Jack and Lesley share similar suspicions.
Hi, all,
Thanks for voicing your perspectives. I appreciate reading the comments and would like to address some of Rick's opinions.
While I think you expressed some reasonable perspectives, Rick, I think the jury is still out on the possible purposes of misinforming the public. There are many potential reasons in addition to creating "ludicrous foes." None of such reasons carry any less likelihood than strategies are in place to discredit UFO witnesses in order to perpetuate an orchestrated cover-up of an alien presence. Actually, I can think of substantially more likely reasons, some of which have well documented precedence, for distributing disinformation. I concede your implications are of course a possibility, though, and I indeed agree it is very difficult to tell who works for who.
Rick wrote, "The Lee's summit experiences come to mind as far as usefulness of the muFON system." I think this could be competently debated.
I recall an absolutely extraordinary claim published August 11 by Roger Marsh, who many recognize as MUFON dorector of communications, at Examiner in which a MUFON FI reported and alleged to have sighted a 5-mile wide craft hovering over downtown Kansas City. Wow. That is a lot to chew on, but I suppose I can suspend judgment pending more substantiated data. That is, if more substantiated data is forthcoming. The post, titled, "UFO five miles wide: Series of odd events unfold in Missouri," may be viewed at:
http://www.examiner.com/ufo-in-national/ufo-five-miles-wide-series-of-odd-missouri-events
In a semi-related post made in June and titled, "MUFON investigators report triangle UFOs and missing time," Marsh explained how the Missouri MUFON assistant state director and a STAR Team member claimed a turn into UFO Land while on there way to the Piedmont UFO Festival. Absolutely extraordinary claims and apparent coincidences. Wow again:
http://www.examiner.com/ufo-in-national/ufo-five-miles-wide-series-of-odd-missouri-events
I admittedly have not done much follow up on these alleged experiences, but I do not interpret it to be helpful or a demonstration of "usefulness of the MUFON system," as you put it, Rick, when such claims are asserted with little or no explanations of how investigations unfolded or what such investigations revealed. From my vantage point, it could easily be interpreted as any number of things, none of which should be defined as helpful or responsible.
I hope things go well with your ventures, Rick, and thanks again to all for posting your perspectives. Thanks, Lesley, for providing me an opportunity to express my opinions.
Excellent points made by all here IMO.
It is indeed true that the MUFON reporting system is 100% unverifiable and certainly within the rhelm of being gamed. Indeed, UDCC's printing of the more extreme cases in a particular 20 sequence - could easily be played by several `friends' if not by one person alone. Perhaps the reports should NOT be anonymous - made with a full verifiable e-mail (so that the public or better yet the MSM could `respond' to such claims). Maybe that would FINALLY got SOMEONE to the scene of these supposedly `repeating orb phenomena' reports. Or, better yet, the ORB callers.
It would at least put `humans' behind the reports.
It is also true IMO that at least SOME of the KC area reports are indeed pure teenage horsemanure. And, `when the impossible happens' (a great book by the way) - IMO, if the event was even real to ONE person -- and I mean really real to one or maybe even a couple people --- IMO -- it is probably a `perception' event. That is NOT `in common consensus' REAL.
I know that sounds like gobbledigook. So be it.
Or, of course, reports like that are made by madmen. Or comic book fanatics perhaps....
Indeed, the fact that the reports are anonymous is one reason why UDCC doesn't even feature them more as they provide perhaps the best view into the High Strangeness phenomena that is `just to the side' of the whole UFO gig/saga.
IMO, as readers close to my blogs know, and what few other `paranormal folks' bother to consider - `things' are very involved in the `phenomenology' of space ----- especially `weird' things/spaces, that are not of the `common consensus'.
Also, Kandinsky, no offense taken. People and websites that cover the crappola of UFOlogy SHOULD be called to task to at least occasionally explain why. As I mention above, at least part of why I do my coverage is because I myself have experienced High Strangeness. I assure readers, it is a `slightly' different reality of a `slightly' differnt types of `spaces'.
It sounds boring. But, that is what I bring to the table in the effort by mankind to explain the Fortean events all of us love to read about.
I've enjoyed the discussion. And, appreciate Leslie's efforts always.
Rick
Post a Comment