Unconfirmed Flying Stories.

Greetings. The onus is on the claimant to provide proof to validate their claims. That is the way it works, unless you are a member of the UFO subculture. According to UFO people, the onus is on the researcher to disprove the validity of a person's story. 

The history of the UFO phenomenon makes for a fascinating examination, with multiple nooks and crannies which lead to lesser-known cases, interesting people, and overlooked situations. One aspect of the genre's long and storied history becomes readily apparent after only a short time: unconfirmed and unsubstantiated claims are made all the time, and no proof ever surfaces to validate them, yet such stories are believed. It has always been this way, and it always will.

The late Leonard H. Stringfield (1920-1994) forged a long career of UFO investigations, self-publishing a series of "Status Reports" that focused on alleged crash retrievals. Mr. Stringfield served as a public relations advisor for the National Investigations Committee on Aerial Phenomena back in the late 1950's, and was an "Early Warning Coordinator" for the infamous Condon Committee between 1967 and 1969. Mr. Stringfield's "Status Reports" contained stories from alleged witnesses concerning crash retrieval events, with very few of the alleged witnesses being first-hand in nature. In addition, and this is the focus of this particular writing, Mr. Stringfield did not provide any names or specific details which would allow for an investigation of the alleged witnesses. No specific details, nothing of any substance, just stories. 

Mr. Stringfield is held in high regard by many in the UFO subculture, which speaks volumes about their willingness to accept unconfirmed information. Would any attorney accept information from unidentified sources? Would any scientist accept data from such unknown sources? Would any of us blindly accept information from total strangers on the street? In a word, no. So why is the standard so different when it comes to the UFO topic? Why are so many in the UFO subculture, including researchers, so unwilling to question the information contained within Mr. Stringfield's "Status Reports?" I cannot and will not speculate about the situation as it pertains to personal motivations, but I do have some thoughts about the situation. 

When specific details like dates, names, and qualifications are not provided, it is virtually impossible to conduct an investigation into the alleged individual, the alleged witness. It can be incredibly difficult to confirm the actual existence of the witness, much less their involvement in their claimed events. Its akin to allowing a masked person the opportunity to give testimony in a criminal trial, with neither side knowing who the masked person is, both sides being unable to vet the person, or their testimony. Such an scenario would never take place in a court of law, yet in the UFO subculture, such troubling issues are of no importance, none whatsoever. If information about UFOs is out there, no pun intended, then it will be believed and wholeheartedly embraced. 

Without a vetting process having been undertaken, how can any such unconfirmed and unsubstantiated information be considered reliable? Should any such information be taken at face value by researchers? Absolutely not, for the acceptance of such information is professionally sloppy and incredibly irresponsible, regardless of the field of study.  

Thank you for your time and consideration.