I suspended publishing 2 and 3 since after 8 months or so not a single copy has sold,
But....
Saturday, 13 July 2019
KATHLEEN MARDEN: The MUFON Experiencer Survey: What it tells us about co...
"...We did not have the large amounts of money that were available to people like the Budd Hopkins and John Mack and David Jacobs had through Robert Bigelow"
BOOM!
Suddenly we realise WHY it was important for Hopkins and Mack to get the right results. We KNOW Hopkins "stacked the deck" to get the right results. Was this because that would be necessary to convince Bigelow to continue the much needed funding? This has always been a very common problem with research groups at universities and private bodies who receive financial backing but they are expected to yield results to justify the financial backing.
We need to also remember that "published their work in peer review journals such as the MUFON Journal" is not peer review. The data has to be presented and that includes full transcripts, taped interviews, video taped interviews and all unedited. Everything has to be available and "I cut 20 minutes from the tape here as it was not really necessary" is a real cause for concern.
Every time I asked those involved or those associated with this line of work how it was being financed I was told "out of their own pocket". Right up until 2017 that was the response. In 2018 we suddenly hear that the Bigelow Foundation was a money source -a very secretive body who churn out Non Disclosure Agreements by the crate. It should have been made very clear from the moment these researchers approach for or are offered funding by Bigelow or any source that they are being funded.
Why is Bigelow not funding The Centre for UFO Studies in its decades long work...because it operates openly and exchanges data openly?
The Bigelow connection in this "abduction research" lowers its credibility even more.
Using 'results' from this research should be considered risky -Bigelow has been accused of playing smoke and mirrors far too often re. UFOs.
BOOM!
Suddenly we realise WHY it was important for Hopkins and Mack to get the right results. We KNOW Hopkins "stacked the deck" to get the right results. Was this because that would be necessary to convince Bigelow to continue the much needed funding? This has always been a very common problem with research groups at universities and private bodies who receive financial backing but they are expected to yield results to justify the financial backing.
We need to also remember that "published their work in peer review journals such as the MUFON Journal" is not peer review. The data has to be presented and that includes full transcripts, taped interviews, video taped interviews and all unedited. Everything has to be available and "I cut 20 minutes from the tape here as it was not really necessary" is a real cause for concern.
Every time I asked those involved or those associated with this line of work how it was being financed I was told "out of their own pocket". Right up until 2017 that was the response. In 2018 we suddenly hear that the Bigelow Foundation was a money source -a very secretive body who churn out Non Disclosure Agreements by the crate. It should have been made very clear from the moment these researchers approach for or are offered funding by Bigelow or any source that they are being funded.
Why is Bigelow not funding The Centre for UFO Studies in its decades long work...because it operates openly and exchanges data openly?
The Bigelow connection in this "abduction research" lowers its credibility even more.
Using 'results' from this research should be considered risky -Bigelow has been accused of playing smoke and mirrors far too often re. UFOs.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)