Monday, April 13, 2020

BAASS interest in Australian and Chinese UFO investigations

"I have always been an advocate of open scientific research into the UFO/UAP mystery. So I hope that maybe we will eventually get a more transparent UFO/UAP investigation, even from government, private aerospace & science organisations, than the one dominated now by secret and restricted narratives. Getting to the heart of the UFO mystery will be benefited by such an open collaborative approach.  The secretive approach may soon be eclipsed by the sea change in serious open scientific research organisations and individuals, that has been accelerating in recent years, towards a more sensible examination of the UFO mystery."
This is a quote from my February 24, 2020 post:

In Search of an open science of UFOs and UAPs, not one bound by secrecy

While I've been taking an interest and occasionally participated in the attempts of many researchers to unravel the real story of the BAASS/ATTIP saga, my own advocacy of "an open science of UFOs and UAPs" has always meant I've looked at both BAASS and ATTIP as not good examples of "open science", in fact they are rather secretive. The efforts of researchers such as Keith Basterfield, Curt Collins, Roger Glassel and many others would be greatly assisted if both organisations had been more open and transparent.  That was not part of their agenda it seemed. The progress and evolution of a real UFO/UAP science would be benefited if it was part of their agenda. As some of these players moved on to vehicles like TTSA, caution seems appropriate, given that even TTSA are not very transparent. Instead of "jig-saw puzzles", "breadcrumbs" and fragments in a convoluted tale of clandestine investigations, we might have had an evolution of an open UFO/UAP science.  While there are notable exceptions and great attempts to do "open science" in this area, the secretive approach seems to dominate. When organisations like MUFON chase after relationships with secretive type organisations then open UFO science and UFO research will be threatened.

I had these sorts of issues in mind when in 2010 I had overtures from Robert Bigelow's BAASS organisation to assist them with UFO data from Australia and China:
Rumours and evidence had been flying around at the time that the BAASS/MUFON "marriage" was in trouble.  We know how that played out, so the caution I noted in my response should be understandable.  Given that Robert Bigelow seemed wedded to the commercial imperative as well, I thought it was reasonable to note the "financial renumeration" aspect. Researchers and civilian organisations were generally known to be working on limited or non-existent budgets, thus my comment here was I thought more reasonable. I was more concerned that this was going to be all one way and that feedback would be unlikely.
Here was my response:

I was expecting some sort of collegial response and perhaps some discussion on the issue of reciprocity, and perhaps even some suggesting on support for the work required to get the data together. However I guess my comments, particularly on transparency and sharing were not in line with what BAASS had in mind. 
So in the end that was it.  No response was received and that was the full extent of my relationship with BAASS.  
Did BAASS reach out to others in Australia and China?
As far as Australia was concerned I have asked Keith Basterfield and Paul Dean.  Neither were aware any such efforts.
With China I would not have expected to have been told of any direct BAASS overtures, particularly given that face-to-face dialogue often produced the best results. However I have not heard of any such overtures from my range of contacts.  I had not reached out to find out either.
As it turned out the BAASS funding from officialdom had ended and mass lay offs of BAASS personnel followed.  I have not tried to see if Robert Bigelow tried to undertake seperate enquiries.  Maybe we will see evidence of such efforts, if there were any, in the likes of Jacques Vallee's journals.  He told me he was working on the 20000 to 2009 volume. I hope that a volume for 2010 to 2019 might emerge but that might be too much to expect.
Well lets see what emerges.
If there are any parties that would like to contact me please do so at