When I first became involved in UFOs back in 1992, I had no idea what I was
getting into. I say that from two standpoints.  From the first position,
there is definitely an Anomalistic Observational Phenomenon (AOP) that
desperately needs serious scientific study.  I have seen and photographed
numerous strange craft, the subject of my five other Internet websites.  I
have even had two classic abduction-type experiences, which were traumatic
and physically damaging to my body.  From the second position (standpoint),
I was not prepared to discover the breadth and depth of involvement of so
many amateurs and pseudo-professionals in what is
known as the UFO community.  This sad state of affairs evolved largely
through default out of intentional neglect by mainstream science.  Over the
past decade I have seen public interest in the UFO phenomenon grow to the
extent that Hollywood and Television have capitalized on this surge in
popularity in order to milk the public and advertisers out of billions of
dollars.  Interest in UFOs has increased to the point that this subject is
second only to Pornography on the Internet in its popularity, and that
should give you a good idea as to how most scientists regard research by
UFOlogists and conspiracy mongers.

I have watched as nobodies, self-trained in metaphysics and certainly not
trained in any scientific discipline come onto the scene as snake-oil
salesmen attempting to reap a harvest of money and/or fame from gullible
people through the sale of their books on government conspiracies, Alien
experiences (e.g. Communion and Silent Invasion), and UFO hype of every
kind.  Not all books on this subject fall into the category of a marketing
ploy.® Some represent honest accounts of personal experiences, such as;
Into the fringe & "by Dr. Karla Turner," and; Secret vows  "by Denise and
Bert Twiggs. Conference organizers for UFO and abduction
research have been equally unscrupulous in feeding the public poorly
researched and/or investigated aspects of these phenomena through their
selection of invited guests.  Wendell Stephens is a good example of someone
who is invited by many conference organizers, but his research is enormously
flawed and scientifically ineffectual; his books make great Sci Fi novels,
but not much more.  And his slide shows have so much questionable content
that he qualifies more as an entertainer than as a legitimate researcher.

There are some good investigators out there who have attempted to follow the
scientific method closely, such as Linda Moulton Howe, but even they have
been reluctant to publicly criticize other investigators who do not
demonstrate the same kind of focus she has on collecting valid scientific
data.  Perhaps part of the reason for this is that if they do criticize
others in ufology, they will not be invited to conferences, and then they
will not have an opportunity to be as effective in reaching other
researchers with their research results (it takes time and a lot of effort
to write and publish books).  In science all legitimate research is given
equal opportunity
for being heard at conferences (there is no bias or discrimination, just a
strict set of rules to follow), although the amount of time given to each of
many speakers necessarily must be limited (15 minutes at scientific
conferences compared to 60-90 minutes at UFO conferences). That difference
levels the playing field in science and helps to prevent some scientists
from becoming favorites or "Stars"; of the show.  The emphasis is on
disseminating and sharing information and not on entertainment and
popularity (ratings).

There is no established form of peer review within the UFO community, as
there is for mainstream science. This lack of professional critique and
discipline amongst believers has allowed all sorts of charlatans and hoaxers
to enter the field, from channelers and psychics to metaphysicians to
crop-circle makers to
pseudo-scientists such as Richard C. Hoagland.  Unchecked speculation is
rampant within this community, with the majority of people accepting a
controversial idea if there are books supporting that idea, or if there are
well-known lecturers who proclaim it to be true in a spectacular or
redundant manner.  Thus, the truth in UFOlogy is not the truth at all, but
whatever consensus opinion dictates - and that sometimes changes as
radically as the wind depending on occasional new revelations of dubious
origin such as the Santilli alien autopsy film.  It is this same type of
unscientific consensus opinion that led to the persecution of Copernicus and
Galileo.  It is this same type of concensus opinion that said the world was
flat or that man could not fly.

But what is most disturbing about the UFO community is the trend that has
emerged to blame any and all branches of the "government" for a perceived
Alien/UFO cover-up.  The U.S. military, in the interest of National
Security, has the duty to protect our sovereignty and the right to keep
certain secrets.  That's their
job.  The unmitigated and ridiculous attacks on the U.S. space program have
brought the conspiracy mongers dangerously close to causing a civil uprising
amongst scientists and engineers, who make up the vast majority of employees
at NASA and JPL: Hence the recent venting of steam on radio and the Internet
between Robert A.M. Stephens (a NASA contractor) and Art Bell and his
cohorts.

When I first became involved in researching and investigating AOP in the
field, there were very few scientists actively involved in studying AOP.
Some scientists and medical professionals have made their presence known,
such as Dr. J. Allen Hynek and Dr. Steven Greer (m.d.), but for the most
part the majority of mainstream scientists avoid this subject with a
passion.  I would not have become so involved if I had not been able to
collect so much raw data in the field between 1992 and 1997.  But even that
is not enough to convince most of my skeptical colleagues in science that I
am onto something important.  Now, because of more than a decade of growing
public interest and pronouncements by leading psychiatrists, such as Dr.
John Mack, that
people who report seeing UFOs are not psychotic, UFOlogy is viewed today
more as a religion or cult by mainstream scientists.  It still is viewed as
a psychosis by some scientists, but not to the same degree. Because of this
change in attitude, there is not as great a stigma associated with taking an
interest in the subject.  With a shift in attitude and a preponderance of
anecdotal data, which continues to grow through
daily sightings, slowly more mainstream scientists are becoming tolerant of
colleagues who study this phenomenon.  And with that tolerance a few more
brave scientists are taking a serious interest in the subject - but through
the eyes of a scientist.

Another factor which has helped to involve more scientists is the interest
by NASA in exploring the planets using robotic probes.® As we have
become more technologically capable of engineering probes that can be sent
great distances in space, the idea that ET could do the same (given that
other intelligent life exists out there) has become even more popular than
in the past.  Good and well-founded theory in science must precede formal
investigation, because humans are so prone to belief and subsequent
prejudice.  Our own advancements have made the concept of a SETV (Search for
ExtraTerrestrial Visitors) strategy acceptible to some scientists within the
NASA centers. But these visitations need not involve any biological entites.
They
could be exclusively very advanced mechanical probes capable of analyzing
Earth and sending back information to their home world.  Robotic exploratory
probes from interstellar space are much more acceptable to scientists, given
our limited understanding of possible extraterrestrial life forms, than are
full blown "Take me to your
leader" EBEs (especially ones who speak fluent English or who look like us).

There is also the problem of biological agents of disease, which make
contact between ExtraTerrestrial Life (ETL) and humans a potentially lethal
factor. That is why NASA has been so concerned about bringing back samples
from Mars, which might contain an unknown form of life that could destroy us
and/or other forms of life on Earth.  Planetary protection and
back-contamination of Earth's ecosystems by ETL are very serious concerns.
The failure of UFO researchers and abduction researchers to take the
biological disease factor seriously (for example, the proposition that
hybrid programs could actually exist between ET and humans: Secret Life by
Dr. David Jacobs) is yet another reason for the professional rift between
science and UFOlogy, which has grown rather than diminished with popular
interest in ExtraTerrestrial Intelligence (ETI).

Because of the above reasons, and because I am now working with accredited
scientists and engineers in the aerospace industry, I have chosen to remove
my very speculative thesis called the Cydonia II Report.  I have kept only
that portion which references scientific data on magnetic anomalies.  Until
NASA or some other
agency can put a team of scientists on Mars in order to validate or disprove
the Cydonia Face "hypothesis", any speculation on my part for a similar set
of features on Earth cannot be proven.  Logic is not proof.  Logic only
leads to thesis.  If an archaeological site is discovered on Earth via
aerial photographs or satellite images, no archaeologist in their right mind
would make the types of conclusions Hoagland et al. have made regarding the
Cydonia Complex on Mars without first taking an expedition there to verify
what they believe they see in the images.  Because such an expedition to
Mars is perhaps decades away at best, there is no reason why I should
contribute to (and therefore fuel) the kinds of indefensible speculation and
irresponsible
prognostication that currently exist in books and on the Internet regarding
ET visitation.  Therefore, I have removed my Cydonia II Report until more
valid scientific data can be obtained, which clearly supports such a
controversial hypothesis.  Remember, science is not just the process of
discovering new information; it is a process by which theories must be
subjected to attempts at falsification in order to test their veracity.  And
for much of what UFOlogy has put forth as evidence of ET visitation to date,
falsification is a push-over, due in part to flawed logic and the use of
questionable (i.e. unverifiable) sources of information, such as anecdotes,
telepathy, and hypnosis.

For all these reasons, that is why I have changed this website and do not
think there is a conspiracy to cover up information regarding ETI by NASA or
its contractors.

Bruce Cornet, Ph.D.

http://www.abcfield.force9.co.uk/b_cornet/Vol_2/index.html