Indeed. It is incredibly how such can proliferate. I mean, what happened to critical thinking and common sense? Believing in a Galactic Federation of Light (sounds like something one would come up with in the late 60/early 70's during an LSD trip) because some "channeler" says so? And then the faith in people like Greer and Hoagland et. al., people that have a very spotted history. Speaking of using some very effective blinds, just a pity they are put in the wrong way.
That said, there are a lot of scientists in the field of UFOlogy effectively, albeit not visibly so. They are astronomers, atmospheric scientists, astrophysicists etc. They work scientifically and rigorously on data they continuously obtain, some of which shows unknown events and phenomena. However, since they publish in peer reviewed scientific journals (where the populist field of UFOlogy very, very rarely goes) , they discuss with all options open and somehow have discovered and explained a lot of hitherto unknown natural phenomena. Or left the observations as of unknown origin until better models and/or more data can be obtained. But that is obviously not very appealing for a number of people, people for which the process of independent verification and falsification are completely unknown entities.
Until such a day when the populist field of UFOlogy will cease to be populist and embrace the process the scientific approach requires it will continue to be a joke and nothing can really be expected to come out of it in my honest opinion. It is so clouded in ulterior motives by some and a naiveté by others that it completely overshadows what really has to be done and thus locks the whole field down in "research tracks" that are really horses that have already been beaten to death, i.e. obviously leads nowhere.
Me neither. And quite frankly, there is no evidence whatsoever for ET. Only evidence for something was there, but nothing as pertaining to the origin (natural, man made, ET, Nessie, Ghosts, <insert apparition of own choice here>). I will remain skeptical with you.
Edited for typos.
Edited by badeskov, 09 August 2009 - 08:37 AM.