UFO Conjectures

Friday, December 30, 2016

The lack of forensics (research and everything else) in Ufology

I’m reading and enjoying Albert Rosales’ Humanoid Encounters, 1930 to 1949, but note that the accounts (often coming from credible ufology groups and people: UFO Casebook, Michael Swords, Bill Chalker, Chris Aubeck, Jerome Clark, et al.) come from remembrances, not interviews or news reports from the time of the episodes recounted.
We all know how memory usually confabulates events, even as soon as a few hours away from the remembered events.

Moreover, it seems to me that many of the episodes are suffused with “sexual elements” indicating that what is reported as a humanoid encounter is actually a brush with a traumatic sexual molestation.

An exposé by my friend, Jeffrey Moussaieff Masson, whose access to the Freud archives, in London, found that Freud mollified his research into child molestations in the late 1800s by family members, changing the molestations into wish fulfillments by the children involved rather than actual molestations or abuse in order to not repel doctors and psychiatrists to psychoanalysis.
Child molestations became taboo, accordingly.

My point is that sexual molestation is not only traumatic but often disguised by those abused, to allow them a kind of repression in order to handle the remembered events in later life.

This is what many of the Rosales encounters appear to be.

And some modern accents (the use of UFO or little gray beings) in the reported Rosales tales stem from the UFO literature of today.

But what about other iconic UFO reports?

There is the absence of diary accounts by Roswell citizens or photographs of the alleged military hub-bub during the supposed 1947 Roswell incident.

That is, many persons in society in the Roswell time-frame kept diaries of their daily activities and happenings, and just as many had Kodak Brownie cameras they used to capture interesting or unusual events.
Apparently Roswellians did neither as no diary or photos were found (or sought) by UFO researchers in their inept investigations of the purported flying disk crash near Roswell.

Moreover, where were the town’s newspaper reporters and their cameras? No photos of the remembered military presence? Journalistic dereliction?

UFO researchers and ufologists rarely (or never) drill down into the context of a UFO sighting, past or present.

None have addressed the questions I’ve asked here.

That is why ufology is dismissed by mainstream science and legitimate news media.

It’s a farce.



  • Good New Year!

    I think our memory isn´t very trustworthy. And that´s why ufology or should I say "ufology" (I mean it´s not a science), ufology is almost impossible to investigate because we can´t repeat the experiences at laboratorio (or anywhere), there are theories yes and ideas (the famous Hessdalen lights are being investigated if I´m right but probably they´re "just" some electric phenomenona) but how to repeat an UFO experience? Yes, with drugs/sensory deprivation/electromagnetic rays/whatever but what does that tell us about the "real" ufos (=those that people really experience)?
    And yes, that´s why UFOs are dismissed by mainstream science, not (necessarily) because it´s stupid/childish/makes you a crank but because you just can´t investigate the bloody thing scientifically (not just collecting anecdotal evidence).


    By Blogger Jerry Cornelius, at Saturday, December 31, 2016  

  • Rich,

    I completely forgot to mention that Jeffrey Moussaieff Masson (great if he´s your friend!) has shook me up two times. First when I read the Freud book you mentioned, about the Freud´s rejection of seduction theory, I was a teenager and it was kind of a completely new idea to me that adult experts could disagree with each others, and wow...). And a couple of years ago I read his Against Therapy and even if I didn´t agree I must agree he made good points, very good points.

    Sorry when I´m once agin going off topic...


    By Blogger Jerry Cornelius, at Saturday, December 31, 2016  

  • Excellent article on the lack of proper research protocols in the UFO field.

    The late Dr. J. Allen Hynek and still-living Dr. Jacques Vallee are perhaps the only two scientists who used proper research methods when investigating UFO incidents. They gathered as many first-hand accounts as they could to compile their databases and worked from those. To my knowledge neither of them used hypnosis or other dubious methods to investigate reports. But that does not necessarily mean that their research was without flaws. Like any other scientists, they have made their share of mistakes.

    What I would like to see from investigators is more context-sensitive research as you suggest and quit making assumptions that what they are looking at are reports of alien spacecraft. There is little in the actual reports over the past several centuries to suggest that.

    What most reliable UFO reports describe are merely strange lights in the sky that behave oddly. All tales of aliens and abductions may in fact be hallucinations caused by those same lights.

    By Blogger rroffel, at Monday, January 02, 2017  

  • rroffel:

    You and I are on the same page it seems.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Monday, January 02, 2017  

  • Hi Rich,
    Your comments puzzle me as the theme of your post was an objective of my book "Hair of the Alien - DNA and other forensic evidence of alien abduction" (2005). I pursued a forensic focus not in the Khoury case investigation but also in other cases like Vicki Klein, and in her case testimony was secured from Harry Turner of the Joint Intelligence Organisation ( in a private capacity but contemporaneously) and he shared them with me. I followed up in a detailed fashioned all the leads and contacts etc I could. The Gundiah example was researched pretty quickly by myself and Diane Harrison and we actively avoided the media. In that case our forensic and detailed investigations led to us concluding the case was suspect. Not so with the Khoury investigation. The Vicki Klein was rather complex and I keep and open mind. To argue that no researchers apply a forensic approach is just plain wrong. As I have not sighted the books you are extrapolating from I cannot judge the level of correct documentation or attribution when I have been cited as a source. Regards, Bill Chalker

    By Blogger Bill Chalker, at Tuesday, January 03, 2017  

  • Bill...

    My reference to you and others, in an aside, was to show that many of Albert Rosales' contributors of UFO events for his books are credible sources.

    My slur about a lack of forensics in ufology is a generalization, not opprobrium directed at you (or anyone in particular).

    I know (as do others) that you pursue UFO events seriously as a researcher/investigator.

    But in ufology, generally, as I often point out, no one drills down into the minutiae of UFO that I term forensic material.

    There is a study and work done on UFO episodes but those always end short of digging into factors that might confirm or deny the actuality of a UFO sighting or encounter.

    UFO researchers hit a wall and then conclude their research, because it's too costly or time-consuming to proceed.

    It's a flaw in ufological research.

    In science, (archaeology, cosmology, medicine, physics, et cetera, et cetera) the pursuit of truth and/or facts is daunting and ufologists don't have the energy or zeal for such real investigation or scrutiny.

    That a few of the seeming events you cite, remain unresolved, makes my point.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Tuesday, January 03, 2017  

Post a Comment

<< Home