UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 1999 > Jan > Jan 15

The State of Ufology Today

From: Gary Alevy <galevy@pipeline.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 20:15:06 -0500
Fwd Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 17:46:56 -0500
Subject: The State of Ufology Today



>From: George Filer <Majorstar@AOL.COM>
>Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1999 19:08:34 EST
>Fwd Date: Sat, 09 Jan 1999 22:32:20 -0500
>Subject: Filer's Files 99-#1 MUFON Skywatch Investigations

>Filer's Files #1-1999,  MUFON Skywatch Investigations
>George A. Filer,  MUFON Eastern Director,  Happy New Year
>January  8, 1998,   Majorstar@aol.com  (609) 654-0020

>UFOs SUDDENLY DISAPPEAR FOR THE HOLIDAYS:

Every once in a while something appears on this List that is so,
well, amazing (sic) that it cries out for commentary.  Such an
item was the January, 1999, edition of _Filer's Files_, written
by the Eastern Director of MUFON, George A. Filer.  That is,
this missive beggars description, though I am going to try.  Can
it be that the coming end of the millenium has addled the brains
of otherwise steady people?  Maybe.  Or perhaps what we see
below is simply more of the same wheel-spinning that MUFON is
famous for.

My comments after the quoted sections >.

>UFOs SUDDENLY DISAPPEAR FOR THE HOLIDAYS:

>Sightings seemed to disappear in the days before Christmas and
>into the New Year.  Apparently even UFO pilots like to home for
>the holidays.

Or perhaps the human reporters have done the same thing?

>We can speculate they are off for the holidays or over Iraq.

Maybe visiting war zones IS their idea of a holiday! Perhaps
they enjoy watching the natives at play!

>The sudden lack of reports may indicate people are too busy to
>notice UFOs or report them.

What a concept, i.e., the ufonauts don't report themselves!
Please direct them to the Bureau of Alien Registration.

>UFOs may have simply disappeared from our skies as they also
>seemed to do last year at this time.  This apparent absence of
>UFOs may be an indicator to understanding the UFO phenomenon.

Or, an indicator of an incredible obtuseness.

>My files indicate that December has been a comparatively slow
>month over several decades.

You know, I just can't IMAGINE why this should be, can you?

>I feel more than fifty percent of the sightings can be explained
>as aerial misidentifications, natural phenomenon, various types
>of secret military aircraft and the like.

I am amazed at your abilities, after decades in the field.

>There continues a steady stream of reports throughout most of
>the year.

Well, yes, this is most certainly so and worthy of comment.

>It seems that the reporting of these misidentifications should
>continue, even if the real UFOs departed.

The "real" UFOs!  Got them pinned down, do you?!  And I rather
imagine if the "real" UFOs stopped coming around we'd see an end
to the other reports as well, after a decent interval.

>In the few days before Christmas, the only UFO reports I
>received were an Utah report and observations of a large
>V-shaped craft over Bagdad, Iraq during US and UK bombing raids.
>These raids were apparently conducted without contacting Russia
>resulting in the serious cooling of international relations
>between Russia and
>the US that could lead us back to the Cold War.  CNN television
>carried live shots of the bombing and strange V-shaped craft
>above the city.  These reports infer the US military may be
>using
>holographic technology or other sophisticated hardware to
>confuse Iraqi antiaircraft gunners.

What kind of "strange V-shaped craft" for God's sake!  This is
potential big news, unlike most of what is published here.
Let's get after those "V-shaped objects" -- they might be the
sources for Larry Flint's information!

>In reviewing 1998, Georgia had more UFO reports than any other
>state.  Early in the year the reports were centered mostly in
>the La Grange area of Western Georgia.  The bulk of the sighting
>reports then moved towards and north of the Atlanta area.  New
>Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania and Ohio followed with the most
>reports in the Eastern part of the US.  California, Colorado and
>Arizona sent me the second largest group of reports.

>Numerous reports are sent to the National Reporting Center,
>MUFON, ISUR, Skywatch, TASK, etc.  We attempt to verify these
>reports as best as possible and many reports we receive are
>never published.  The reader should be aware that verification of the
>reports is expensive and time consuming problem.

Now, just how are there reports "verified?"  And just what do
these "verifications" purport to "prove" to anyone?

>MUFON investigators like myself are not paid or reimbursed for
>numerous phone calls, travel, and time expended to verify the
>reports.

Now, that says a whole lot about something, doesn't it?  That
is, the "verification" process is self-funded, by the verifiers,
who are just ordinary citizens.  Impressive, to say the least.

>I have learned from experience that the Air Force, police and
>other organizations will seldom officially verify the presence
>of a UFO.

Let's see, hasn't this been the case since about 1947?  That is,
isn't THIS the problem -- the REAL reason we're getting nowhere
with all these "reports" and "verifications?"  I think so. And
just why is this so?  Don't want to go there, eh?

>Unofficially, we have received verifications after getting to
>know the officials on a friendly basis.

But, of course, you can't use their names or rank and they will
deny everything when the crunch comes!  And, anyway, don't we
have all kinds of written and verbal statements by various local
officials (even police and military) "verifying" UFOs?  I think
so.  But what has happened as a result, hmm?  Very little, yes?

>Many conscientious people who report UFOs do not want their real
>name known and hide or refuse to respond to our attempts to
>contact them.

I'm shocked but then I just fell of the turnip truck yesterday!
Gee, you'd think that by now the citizenry of the USA would be
over this, wouldn't you?  This is a serious handicap, isn't it?
I mean, if we could get ANOTHER 100,000 sighting reports from
the >people who won't now sign their names, well, that WOULD
cinch the case, would it not?

>I admit that I have occasionally been fooled by people hoaxing
>UFO reports.  Fortunately the number of hoaxes is very small.

God, I'm glad of that or we'd all be in trouble!  That is, it
sure seems like the hoaxers often do quite well with the UFO
organizations, at least for a while!  Then, later, when things
blow up, well, how does that affect their credibility?

>I report the siting if it seems authentic.

Is that "siting" or "sighting?"  Inquiring minds want to know!

>We attempt to have investigators follow up the reports.  Often
>those people with the best sightings are very reluctant to be
>interviewed.  They often do not want UFO investigators coming to
>their homes or giving out their names.  I think this is
>understandable.  Even under the best conditions it is difficult
>to have a meaningful follow up investigation.  We have MUFON
>investigators driving hundreds of miles to meet with a witness
>who fails to show.  Sometimes they refuse to fill out the papers
>or sign their name.

And what do you have if they DO sign their name?  Just another
sighting to add to the thousands of others filed away in dusty
files -- since the 1950s, for heaven's sake!  So what!

>I wish to thank those investigators who have driven the miles,
>spent their time and written the reports.  One investigation
>done correctly can take days.  MUFON and most UFO organizations are
>strictly volunteer with no pay.  Expenses are not paid, and a
>great deal of time and effort is spent.  The investigators
>deserve a medal, a thank you, and a well done.  They are the
>heroes of this field.

And, it seems to me, dumber than dirt.  Why spend any more time
and money on this activity?  What does it gain you!  Don't you
know that Richard Hall's house is near unto bursting with file
cabinet after file cabinet of UFO reports, all just as
"verified" as the latest thing MUFON is doing!  What in heaven's
name will piling up more of THESE do to move things along?

>During 1998, we had a series of hoaxers who claimed to have
>inside government information and secrets concerning UFOs.

Do tell!  We never had THIS happen before, did we?  Only about
every other week!  And no one EVER falls for it, do they?  At
least, no one among the "leaders," right?

>They seldom are long time researchers or investigators.

But sometimes they are such!?  Which ones?  When?

>They suddenly appear making wild claims and erroneous reports.

So, why don't you just ignore them?  I mean, that's what I'd do.

>Hasn't it ever occurred to you guys that every minute and dollar
>you spend chasing these hoaxes is a dollar and a minute you do
>NOT have to spend chasing more of those valuable sighting
>reports.  Ooops!  I think I see the problem!]

>Unfortunately, it is expensive and very time consuming to weed
>out hoaxers.

Why!  Who cares?  Why waste you time on them -- unless even YOU
folks secretly know you're getting nowhere with your normal,
day-to-day activities.

>They cause serious harm to the field and I often wonder if they
>are hired or compelled to cause trouble and confusion.

Well, there's an interesting idea, one that would require a
little investigation into areas today's ufological "leaders" are
loath to go.  But it might lead to some actual PROGRESS, might
it not?  But on second thought, NAAAH, it's worthless.

>I fail to understand their motivation.

You need to read more of Kal Korff's stuff; get into the know.

>Little if any of their information has been proved to be valid.

But then again, some of its has panned out, hasn't it?  Which
might lead ME to look really hard at these "hoaxes" as perhaps
not being what they seem on the surface, at least in part.

>They create confusion and hurt serious researchers.

How?  Why can't you folks just sail on, ignoring them?

>Often they have information that seems accurate at first, but
>later is determined to be false.

Hmm. How do they pull this off if they're just "hoaxers"? Could
it be that some of them are actually more than they seem and
that this fact might shed some interesting light on UFO history
and on some of it's various personalities?  But, NAAAH, it's
worthless.

>Often they will later admit lying despite their previous claims
>of being a NASA contractor, on the National Security Council,
>working inside NORAD and the like.

No kidding!  The NERVE of some people!

>Anyone who claims to possess startling UFO information should be
>able to provide at a minimum there military or government
>records, ID cards, college transcripts and similar evidence to
>prove their backgrounds and employment.

First, a Clarkism: "there" should be "their."  And, of course, I
agree -- all of these people should be vetted. . .as should all
the OTHER people in this field who have positions from which
they may pontificate!  Why stop with the new guys, huh?

>Those people who possess insider documents and information
>should be willing to produce these documents to respected
>organizations such as MUFON, CUFOS, or the Fund for UFO Research.

Well, I agree.  I'd trust ALL of those "respected" organizations
with secret stuff, since from the very beginning UFO
organizations have had numerous and obvious associations with
our "intelligence community."  But I don't think any of that
means anything, do you?  NAAAH!  Could it be that the
historically documented presence of representatives of the
intelligence community in those organizations might be just to
intercept those leaking insider documents and information?  I
mean if we can't trust all of the former/present intelligence
members who belong to these organizations, then who can one
trust!

>Ufology cannot expect to gain trust, if people without cred-
>entials are acknowledged without question.

I agree with this, and apply it to EVERYONE in the field!

>I strongly advise the reader to seriously question any claims of
>alien data, inside government knowledge, classifications above
>Top Secret and similar unsubstantiated UFO data.

I agree entirely!  Yes, sir, all of that can hardly be of any
importance compared to the piling up of the 100,000th UFO
sighting by a school teacher on an interstate highway on a
Tuesday afternoon.  And, anyway, how could a "government secret"
ever be "verified" by one of our verifiers, hmm?

>I have not reported on the release of new MJ-12 documents in
>these files, because I am not convinced they are genuine.

Is anyone?

>How would one person be able to steal these highly classified
>documents from the government?

I don't know. . .HAARP methods?

>There are guards, safes and controls to prevent this from
>happening.

Yet many government documents HAVE been stolen, hmm?  And who
could imagine that just today "intelligence officials" are
quoted in the New York Times that a naval intelligence analyst
stole a "roomful" of highly classified documents! Just what is
your interest in maintaining the fictions that these documents
can't and haven't been stolen?

>In many little ways the documents are vague and seem to contain
>errors.  For example, the documents infer they were written in
>1951.  The documents then refer to the Chief of Chaplains as a
>Major General Luther Miller who retired in 1949.  This is a
>small, but significant error.

No doubt sufficient to destroy the whole corpus!  And how
interesting that hoaxers who have gone to immense trouble and
know so much about the inner workings of certain government
agencies. . .could make such a simple mistake!

>Government documents generally contain more specific and
>detailed information.  They are written by a team of people
>representing various offices.  These documents seem to be written
>by one or only a few persons.  The new MJ-12 documents simply
>do not feel right to me, so I withhold judgment on their legitimacy.

Well, this is a detailed and specific critique, isn't it! But
I'll withhold judgement on that.

>Later, in these files there is further analysis of photographs
>taken by Dr. J. Bond Johnson in General Ramey's office of the
>Roswell crash debris.  This is old news but we now have new
>technology that may help prove what happened.

Or maybe not, hm?  That is, what would it take to "prove"
something about those photos to a true skeptic?  I think a lot
more than "computer enhancement!"  As for "old news," that's
what ufology is all about, all the time, that and "new"
sightings!

>There is a legitimate record of the film kept in storage at the
>University of Texas and Dr. Johnson.  The analysis may lead to
>an unsatisfactory conclusion, but at least we know the photographs
>are authentic.  Many abductees and military personnel have
>reported seeing similar strange symbols on board alien craft.
>In fact, some of the latest technology is similar to certain
>aspects of the debris.  You are invited to help and judge for yourself.
>Therefore, I will continue to cover this story.

Well, thanks, since you are my Silver Standard in ufologists!

>To those who desire to learn the truth about UFOs, I encourage
>you to read information from the respected leaders in the field
>such as Richard H. Hall's "Perspectives" column.  It's published
>monthly in the "MUFON UFO Journal."

Ah, yes, my Gold Standard for ufologists IS Mr. Hall!

>For example Richard states:
>The Art Bell piece [published in the November 1998, issue of the
>"MUFON UFO Journal"] makes me think about how the sociological
>aspects of the UFO movement distract from the physical science
>aspects.

Mr. Hall is a well-respected physical scientist with a huge
budget for instrumented scientific analysis of high flying UFOs!

>News media gleefully report on the colorful personalities, the
>more paranoid the better, but where is their reporting on the
>potentially important airline pilot sightings of the past few
>years?

So what if they WERE reported -- are they any different from
10,000 other sightings by airline pilots since 1947?

>Obviously, Bell is viewed by the media as representative of the
>UFO field, even as guru for ufologists.  Well, count me out.
>Let's stick to facts, logic, and science.

Ah, yes, but that's HALL'S "facts, logic and science!"

>Thanks to Bob Soetebier and the December '98 MUFON Journal, p18.

Thanks, indeed!

Gary Alevy

[ 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