• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Who's Worth Following In The UFO-Scene These Days?

Zeke Newbold

Zeke Newbold

Carbon based biped.
Joined
Apr 18, 2015
Messages
1,249
I've drifted a bit out of touch with the UFO scene lately. (NB I dislike the term `ufology`, thinking it to be premature and pretentious).

It would appear to have become very enmeshed in conspiracy theories and Ancient Astronaut related thinking of late (the former irritates me, the latter I don't mind, but would require more evidence of).

So who are the reliable spokespersons out there ?

Yeah, yeah, I know one shouldn't need to `follow` people, and that one should form one's own opinions, and so on. Still though, the UFO scene is a movement of sorts, and all movements need their spokespeople. Also, most of us mortals haven't the time (or inclination ?) to go scouring through each and every UFO report and theory.

Had you asked me this question, say, twenty years ago I would have said, with very little hesitation, Jacques Vallee. That guy, however, seems to be in semi-retirement now.

The rest just seem to be jaded, like Jenny Randles.

`Fortean Times's` David Clark seems to be too glibly dismissive to me: he reduces everything to a `media phenomena` (as no doubt befits a journalism lecturer). Also you get the impression that he can't be quoted as saying anything too dramatic sounding - as he will have to face an auditorium of nineteen year olds the next morning!

Then there are the Americans: Brett Lueder is very well informed, but gives time to, for example, the idea that Venus may be inhabited. Then Scott Waring: a guy that sees alien structures dotted about all over the solar system.

We are left with Nick Pope. I know that some people think he talks his `former M.O.D` credentials up too much, but that's a small price to pay for the fact that he's a very level headed commentator. His position vis-a-vis the UFO scene reminds me of George Orwell in relation to the British left of his time: supportive, but critical of its excesses and sillyness.

He's a bit of a treasure I'd say, but are there any more ?
 
Having seen the Mirage Men film, it's clear he thinks the majority of UFO related stuff is aided & fuelled by disinformation from security services as a cover for new technology, drones etc developed by the military & black budget projects.
 
I read one of Nick Pope's books back when he was a big thing, and I don't think there was a single original thought or original piece of research in it. It's also slightly annoying when he keeps cropping up on those overdramatic American UFO documentaries introduced as "The Real Life Fox Mulder". Wasn't his job mostly just being a filing clerk?

The whole UFO scene of today seems to have got bogged down in labyrinthine conspiracies about aliens living in the hollow moon or hybrid breeding programmes involving millions of abductees, rather than focusing on investigating and interpreting individual cases. Personally I'm a little bored with the whole thing.
 
Tim Good used to be ok, but don't think he has written anything original for years and years.

The others I sort of follow are all from the US I'm afraid, apart from Nick Redfern - British but living in the US.

Kevin Randle

Greg Bishop

Richard Dolan

I'd like to include Stanton Friedman, but I don't think he's done anything original for years ether!

They all have various 'hobby horses' and/or books, etc. to promote.

Is Jenny Randles still active in the field?

BBrain
 
Someone calling themselves "Nick Pope" was a member on this MB a few years ago, but never posted anything. I always wondered if it was the real bloke, and was he put off posting by what was said about him?
 
Wasnt it in to 90s when Nick Pope emerged as a "leading light" on the UFO subject. If i recall, his early books just covered what others had wrote about beforehand. Ive never deemed him of any use to the subject.
 
I must admit it's a while since I heard of Nick, did he ever get another job?
 
Some good leads there, especially from Bakelite.

I realise now that I omitted to mention Leslie Keane. This was a bit remis of me because it was her book - just called `UFOs` (2006, I think)- which reignited my interest in the matter a few years ago.

Dear me, we do seem to have a downer on ol' Popie-boy, don't we ? I take people as I find them: his posts (on the UFO-Digest site, for example) are anything but idiotic. Just going from those alone I'd say he's one of the sanest voices in the business. Perhaps he is guilty of a few gaffes, and may not be fully in control of his own publicity machine. I was not, however, much impressed by the `demolition job` posted by Ebaracum. There's a lot of back-biting in this scene and it is one thing about it that puts many people off. This particular type of back biting seemed to be partly fuelled by conspiracism too - another big turn off.

As regard to sea gulls: just because one interpretation of a picture is more mundane than another, it is a non sequitur to therefore assume that it must be the correct one.Some see a structured craft, some seagulls - neither view has proof, even if the latter may be more probable.

I read a book by David Clarke a year or so ago. it was OK - a bit ho hum. It comes down to this: either you believe there is a core phenomena at work, or you don't. David Clarke clearly doesn't - and simply doesn't bring anything new to the table.

It looks as though his latest will simply be a repeat of the establishment-friendly book on UFOs brought out by Times journalist Brian Appleyard a few years ago: the sort of chin stroking cultural critique that keeps the coffee house intellegentsia - who never like to express anything so vulgar as a belief in anything - happy.

Clarke is having his cake and eating it: he still trades on the excitement that the subject generates, but sheepishly calls it `nostalgia`. I'd have more respect for him if he delivered a full crash-bang-whallop debunking of the whole phenomena - a la Philip Klass - but that would probably be less lucrative.

Anyway, not to be guilty of the back-biting that I alluded to above, let me add that I'm sure he's a jolly decent chap, and clearly knows his stuff in terms of journalism.
 
Oh, I quite liked that book Brian Appleyard brought out about UFOs. Although you could kind of tell he was pretty new to the subject, and his line of thought wasn't as original as he probably thought it was.

Meow :)

Plenty of History Channel UFO documentaries over on Youtube where Nick Pope will pop up as a talking head introduced as something like "The British Governments' top UFO investigator!".

IIRC, Jacques Vallee retired from the UFO circus to become a rather successful venture capitalist focusing on new technologies. All back engineered from Roswell, no doubt... ;)
 
graylien said:
Plenty of History Channel UFO documentaries over on Youtube where Nick Pope will pop up as a talking head introduced as something like "The British Governments' top UFO investigator!".
Click to expand...
Wasn't he the only British Government UFO investigator?
 
Mr Nicholas Pope Esquire.

Guys, guys - just what has this young man done to deserve so much opprobrium?

His MOD connections? (Well, we all have our day jobs). Being a bit Public school? (I kind of get that, but it's a little petty) His `real life Mulder` hype ? (Do none of you know anything about how promotional PR operates in relation to publishing and broadcasting ?) The fact that he's made something out of himself from relatively little ? (That's something to be respected in my books) The fact that he once mistook a (probable) seagull for a UFO ? (C'mon, we've all been there !) Or is it just the fact that he continues to believe in UFOs ? (He's not alone in that, and those that don't are welcome to take up golf).

As for not saying anything original: he's mostly a populariser, and there's room for that. Otherwise many of his contributions are original in bringing a bit of balance and perspective into the subject.

NB I have not read any of his books: these remarks are based on his current on-line posts and (relatively) recent radio appearances.
 
Zeke Newbold said:
Mr Nicholas Pope Esquire.

Guys, guys - just what has this young man done to deserve so much opprobrium?
Click to expand...
I don't think people hate him as such, it's just that for many years, whenever there was a documentary about UFOs or an event, they'd wheel him out to make a few comments. It's possible that everybody became a bit tired by it all.
 
I recently read "Unconventional Flying Objects: A Scientific Analysis" by Paul Hill, a retired NASA engineer and was impressed. He saw a UFO in his youth and through his adult life spent his spare time collecting reports, developing theories about UFO propulsion, and writing this book, which he didn't publish until his retirement from NASA for obvious reasons. He spends zero time trying to convince anyone of the reality of the phenomenon or debating where those guys are from but proceeds from the assumption that there is an unknown advanced technology flying around and theorizing about how it works. Based on known physics with the unknown physics clearly delineated. I thought quite well done.
 
There are two ways of looking at Hill's work. If the UFOs he studied did produce the effects they appeared to do, then unknown physical processes would be required. The other way of looking at the same data is that the effects supposed to be produced by the UFOs he studied are physically impossible, so there were mistakes made when the observations were made. It seems almost certain that the second answer is the correct one.
 
Indisputably true. Like I said, he proceeds from the assumption that there is an unknown technology at work, most likely because of his own personal experience.

EDIT: indisputably true that either unknown processes are required or the observations were erroneous. But I don't concur that the second answer is almost certainly correct. I straddle the fence precisely 50-50, fence rail lodged deeply up crack.
 
Last edited:
The Paul Hill book you mention puts me in mind of a little number called `The Spaceships of Ezeikel` which came out in the mid-seventies. This was also penned by a NASA engineer - Joseph Blumrich - and while he was still working as one, I believe.
He proceeded from the assumption that the Prophet had seen an extraterrestrial vehicle - and then bounded forth to make an intricate tally between the Bible's account of ol' Zeke's vision and an an exisiting blueprint of some sort of landing shuttle that he or someone had designed. (Somehow or other our alien Gods had hit on precisely the same design!)

I read it when I was about ten and even at that age thought it was a bit egregious. (And I was into Brinsley Le Poer Trench !)
Engineers, eh? What shall we do with them ?
 
Brinsley Le Poer Trench was a Lord who kept trying to get UFOs discussed in the Houses of Parliament, wasn't he? Didn't work out that well.
 
I read a few of his books when I was a kid.
I seem to remember him being involved with the Theosophists.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top