Impressionistic Ufology? Or Forensic Ufology?

Ufology is a bifurcated thing: neither science nor (complete) folly.

The attempts to make “ufology” legitimate, in any sense, have failed miserably.

But that’s because those who’ve adopted the sobriquet, ufology, are fools or scientific wannabes.

While there are a number of UFO buffs who take UFOs seriously, only a handful have adopted a rigorous demeanor in their effort(s) to understand the elusive phenomenon.

Kevin Randle takes a forensic approach to Roswell, but only Roswell: his “white whale.”

Isaac Koi takes a categorization of UFOs which is useful in its way, for others who take, or should, a forensic look at the phenomenon.

Project 1947 has approached (and still does?) the historicity of UFOs.

And some UFO skeptics (like Robert Sheaffer) have taken a forensic shovel to some UFO cases.

But overall, UFOs have received an impressionistic approach pretty much, such as here and at other blogs, none really drilling down to the nitty-gritty of UFO cases.

 And then there is the slipshod dismissal of UFOs altogether, like that of our friend Zoam Chomsky, who dismisses, with invective, UFOs because he doesn’t have the time or inclination to nail down what he sees as the absurdity of UFO reports.

But the need for forensic ufology is a little late, I’m afraid.

UFOs have not had and do not have, at this late stage of the game, the staying power of cultural artifacts or historical and anthropological instances, nor even the ongoing interest in religious myths (such as the Jesus/Christ accounts).

Old cases have missed their time for forensics, Roswell among them, and new cases (sightings) do not have the cachet to invite rigorous study, let along forensics.

I wish it were otherwise, but it isn’t, and those of us still enamored of the topic and phenomenon have got to recognize that reality…..or else we shall be considered demented, or worse.

RR