The pathetic state of ufology
Copyright 2018, InterAmerica, Inc.
My posting here a few days ago, asking Should we wrap up
Roswell, Socorro, et cetera now? was a jab at those who think we
should….my piece was ironical.
But many thought I was advocating that we give up the ghost
on those iconic UFO events or sightings. It was just the opposite.
As I wrote, those sightings (incidents) remain unexplained,
even though they have been addressed more than adequately by credible
researchers/authors: Randle and Maccabee (about the key Arnold sighting).
I know it’s tough for most UFO buffs to get my obtuse humor
and oblique thinking, but there it is.
And it’s not just me who is misunderstood. Even the concise,
clear Kevin Randle and/or my pal Nick Redfern flummox readers causing them
(Randle/Redfern, et al.) to explain, repeatedly, what their writings
mean.
The world is fraught with ignorant people, and the UFO
community is replete with some.
To insist that some UFO sightings, usually past, fecund
sightings, be consigned to the trash bin goes to the heart of ignorance.
Historians and academics continue to seek answers to
long-lived mysteries or unanswered elements in events.
I could cite a litany of unexplained or interesting morsels
from history, religion, science, et cetera that whet the curiosity of
brilliant men and women who want answers to things that haunt the human
imagination.
But it’s not just the dumping of iconic flying saucer cases
that infuriates; it’s the god-awful rumination (here and elsewhere) in the UFO
scene that persist in cluttering the UFO topic.
Podcasts, and shows, even one as perpetual as The Paracast,
and blogs (this one too) keep floating ideas about UFOs that stink or
presenting people who are the epitome of stupidiy who self-aggrandize over and
over again, as if fame in the fringe UFO sector of society means something. It
doesn’t.
There is a claque of “ufologists” who irk, again and again,
trotting out formulations and ideas that go nowhere but are used to reap
perceived accolades on those offering the platitudes and nonsense.
The Paracast is a place where such dolts are often
highlighted and promoted, but to what end?
Does news media pick up on that program’s guests? Is
Huffington Post interested?
Is the UFO phenomenon getting shilled by persons with addled
brains who take every opportunity to seek recognition?
RR
posted by RRRGroup at
Sunday, January 21, 2018
8 Comments:
As regards past sightings or events, you have to remember that the population is changing continuously, with new generations coming along, and that these people will, in the main, not be familiar with the past 70 years of Ufology. A few sightings remain classics but the majority are consigned to oblivion.
What I am saying is that the reason a few historic cases (whether solved or unsolved) pop up again and again is that a new generation of readers, enthusiasts and TV watchers is always present to hear about them for the first time.
Also remember that what is 'solved' for somebody may be still a 'mystery' for someone else. People always have differing viewpoints and attitudes, as you know.
That great Siberian 'meteorite' of 1908 still pops up now & again, as of course do some incidents of the 1896-97 'airship wave. The interest is still there!
By
cda, at Sunday, January 21, 2018
The interest is still there, for some of us, Christopher.
I saw David Attenborough on CBS this morning....at 91 he's still interested in the state of the Earth and its creatures, even though he's been dealing with both for a long time.
But in ufology we have the naysayers who want us to forget the odd sighting or incident that remains unexplained. Why?
RR
By
RRRGroup, at Sunday, January 21, 2018
The Paracast has been continuously providing guests of varying quality non-stop for almost 12 years. There has never been a repeat, there has never been a missed show. That's over 600 shows like clockwork. Now, if you think it's easy finding quality guests week in and week out, your sadly mistaken. This is the show that brought you multiple visits by Jacques Vallee, Jerry Clark, Brad Steiger, Loren Coleman, Ray Stanford, Kevin Randle, Nick Redfern, Greg Bishop, Stan Gordon. Micah Hanks and visits by Russell Targ, Jeffery Mishlove, George Knapp, Lloyd Auerbach, Phyllis Budinger plus other scientists and an upcoming show w/ Dean Radin. I think we have as good (if not better) a roster of guests than the vast majority of shows out there. We don't suffer fools gladly and extraordinary claims require at least some sort of evidence besides the wish for everyone to suspend their disbelief. Why single us out? There are literally hundreds of podcasts that give the so-called art-form a bad name...
By
Christopher O'Brien, at Monday, January 22, 2018
Christopher:
I think you and Gene are examples of ufologists with credible cachet.
I only singled out The Paracast by name as lately you fellows have been highlighting persons who really want UFO fame more than a UFO (paranormal) explanation: Bishop and Ecker for example.
I didn't name other podcasts because I don't follow them or wish to give readers a heads up about them.
You guys can make a case for your efforts -- and you did in your comment.
RR
By
RRRGroup, at Monday, January 22, 2018
Telling You What You Already Know: The paranormal, much like politics, is a field wherein people with little to show in the way of educational or professional credentials can win recognition as "experts," and even earn some coin. This populist expertise attracts like-minded fans, who fantasize that maybe they, too, may one day achieve paranormal stardom. I'm not saying there exist no well educated, professionally qualified people in ufology, but they're few and far between, and they're often operating well outside their field of expertise, viz., Roger Leir, podiatrist, David M. Jacobs, historian. So it goes. /mr/
By
Michael Redmond, at Monday, January 22, 2018
Rich: "But it’s not just the dumping of iconic flying saucer cases that infuriates; it’s the god-awful rumination (here and elsewhere) in the UFO scene that persist in cluttering the UFO topic."
In the ufo period I'm interested in (until the Keyhoe and Scully stories were syndicated in the daily papers, and before Menzel), I don't see any historical context in the work of ufologists in what I have read. It is as if they had scanned the newspapers for ufo stories and only read those, and not anything else in the paper. This leads to extreme tunnel vision, the lack of any context.
Over the years you've shown you have an appreciation of post WWII politics, especially domestic politics, and might appreciate that the Air Force, Navy, AEC, and FBI involvement in UFOs did not occur in isolation from these matters.
Best Regards,
Don
By
Don, at Thursday, January 25, 2018
I'm wondering Don if some in those groups you mention circumvented politics and merely wanted to find the truth.
There had to be truth seekers in the mix, yes?
RR
By
RRRGroup, at Thursday, January 25, 2018
Rich: "There had to be truth seekers in the mix, yes?"
There were a number of them in NICAP. It didn't do much good.
Best Regards,
Don
By
Don, at Thursday, January 25, 2018
Post a Comment
<< Home