Five sightings: 1960-1981 (from Paul Dean's collection)

RR

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