I Hate UFO’s

I hate UFOs. I hate them utterly now. Its because of several reasons, and I believe that we can’t escape them because they affect all of us in the UFOlogy field.

The people associated with UFOs are so varied and have wildly different levels of believability you have to research them all. I’m not going to name people, but when you can’t vett your people you have a problem. But others in the field are so awesome I have to listen to them even if I have to download a crazy podcast. This is a problem that we face. We have to have people who wouldn’t normally associate themselves with the field in scientific studies that will bolster our cases. For example, the O’Hare UFO event in 2006 was witnessed by over 300 people. It shut down the airport for several hours and accounts and footage of the event hasn’t surfaced yet. I would like to assume that out of those 300 people we had one person who is respectable enough to step forward. And if that person was a scientist that could confirm or deny the report of a UFO in a respectable manner, all the better.

The other problem with the people in the field are the witnesses themselves. I’m a UFO witness and I’ve shared my account before. But I’m so unsure of what exactly happened that I don’t talk about it anymore. And if I doubt myself, how can we trust any memories? I know that we tend to trust people like police officers, military personel, and teachers more than a man down on the river. But whose to say that any of them are able to remember it or be more truthful than the others? We can’t, and we have to vett everyone. Eh, that’s not a bad plan, but we also lose time and money doing so.

So, the people involved are a huge problem. How do we fix this? Data. We collect the data and keep it in an open source where we can filter results by thousands of factors.

Imagine a database where if we wanted to research the top colours worn on the day of a UFO or alien encounter we can. Or air temperature, or other variables at the snap of a finger. MUFON isn’t searchable like that, private collections of data certainly aren’t either.

The data collected is another issue. In the last 15ish years we have reports of lights. That’s fucking it? No real concrete landing evidence? No interesting ship designs? Just a bunch of different coloured lights bouncing around the skies?


The data from UFO encounters needs to be studied by anyone who wants to look at it. And the data needs to be in-depth about everything from the sighting to emotional states of witnesses before, during, and after. We need more data than what we get.
We can’t capture a UFO as civilians, so until we do, we need data. Searchable, quantifiable data in our hands. Minutes after the report goes live on the network. And the other thing is the occupants, or lack of interactions. I’ve noted elsewhere that the occupants were so varied and interesting… but they’re boring now. Grays. Grays. Grays.

Thanks Whitley.


But my biggest issue with UFOs are them. The ufo stereo type has evolved and changed over the last 50 years to be anything from a flying coffee can to balls of light. The biggest change is from nuts and bolt designs to light ships powered by love.

While the phenomenon can change, the underlying message is that as our opinions and knowledge change, they do too. They always seem to be one or two steps beyond our current tech and they change right before we make a leap in technology.

And I can’t tell you if they are nuts and bolts or if they’re light ships. In my own sighting it looked like a red light surrounding a physical craft.

And that pisses me off. We don’t know a damn thing. About the crafts, occupants, or anything really. And we have so many people telling us what they are. Or who they are. And not one of us has a theory that we can definitely say is the truth, and not have it evolve or outright change eventually. We have our thoughts, but we also fall back on classical thoughts on UFOs when we can’t decipher new data.

And I think if I’m to pay attention to UFOs any time soon seriously I need
A) people I’m not going to write off the moment I see them.

B) Data. Data that anyone can search and promote findings in an unbiased manner online or publications. Data that tells us something more than an anecdote does.

C) UFOs being better categorized by people, and solid theories and ideas on how we can test hypothosis’ of researchers.


Share This:


  1. Graham says:

    I LOVE UFO’s!!

    I may even love them for most of the same reasons you hate them. Thanks for the post by the way, it sure got my attention.

    I like your idea of the open source data collection and mining. Wouldn’t that be nice and maybe we are not far from that. But will it really help with finding any answers? Some would say we have enough data already to at least open things up and that won’t happen. And that brings me to my main point, why are most of us so dead set on finding the answers. I am in a phase right now with UFOlogy where I don’t really care so much to find out what is really going on. I have become more interested in people’s experiences and watching the ridicule factor slip away from our culture. There is evidence of a very very strange phenomenon going on…. so strange we can’t begin to comprehend. And yet we, even in this field, continue to discount certain parts of the phenomenon like abductions or channeling, or even the consciousness aspect in general because there isn’t hard evidence or data. Or just because it seems just too damn weird.

    I feel that the answers are sooo varied that we will never really understand it. O’hare is a good example for your blog. Why did it not go further than it did? It would be interesting to see O’hare, Stephenville, or Hudson Valley happen today and how different the outcome or affects would be.

    Looking forward to more of your posts.

  2. People keep bringing the idea of a UFOpedia of sorts, and I think it’s a great idea –but then reality kicks in & your 1st questions is: Who’s gonna be in charge of it?

    “It can be crowdsourced!” some would quickly reply; but one of the main problems with UFOlogy as a movement, community or whatever you wanna call it, is that it’s incredibly difficult to have a mass of ICONOCLASTS to agree on something –herding cats sounds was easier.

    BUT… we need to remain optimist. If someone started doing something like that I’d gladly jump on board to lend whatever help I could.

    1. Chuck says:

      I set up a mediawiki site a while back that is basically just a blank wiki. I started putting in some placeholders for names and places. I started to think about the best way to categorize things. I didn’t do anything with the front page.

      If anyone wants to use this skeleton to start organizing data, I would be glad to admin the wiki and make sure we have backups, etc. If other people get involved I’d be glad to be a part of discussion on the best organization for the data.

      I haven’t done any formatting, and I’m no expert on making wiki pages look good. But it is all just css that can be applied. I think the most important thing is to begin to get data in there.

      I’m personally a UFO agnostic. I’m a big tent guy. I like to look at all the data and then make up my mind on something. I’m just as inclined to go with a Vallee/McKenna viewpoint one day and then get interested in the Nuts and Bolts stuff the next. I found the Dolan interview on Clelland’s site recently to be interesting. I like Clelland’s take on stuff. I really wouldn’t want to not include any information about UFOs (or related subjects) no matter how “goofy” or out there. Maybe there could be a “viewpoints” area on the wiki pages where folks can chime in on why they think particular data isn’t reliable, etc.


      Chuck (teagueblue)

      Here is the main url:


      Here are all the current pages:

      Here are all the current categories:


      1. D-ron says:

        this seems like a cool idea, im going to investigate a little further tonight. THanks CHuck!

Leave a Reply

Scroll to top
Social Media Auto Publish Powered By : XYZScripts.com