Gilding the UFO lily?

Copyright 2019, InterAmerica, Inc.

My academic crony Bryan Sentes is inputting scholarly pieces about UFOs at his erudite internet site skunkworksblog.com all the time.

I have linked some here and just received a new piece entitled “…the Aliens gave us modern technology…”–a note to The Promethean Lure

And opening thus:

“Despite my critique of a certain tendency in Jacques Vallée’s thinking about the place of the UFO phenomenon in human history, I do find his work consistently compelling and an endless source of inspiration, if only for my more creative work, on Orthoteny.

Synchronicity has recently tossed my way a tidbit relevant to my all-too-brief reflection on the Promethean aspect of the Extraterrestrial …”

Okay, this is academia at its most exquisite sideways approach to things esoteric perhaps, but it’s a good read, for those who like esoterica.

However, while Bryan’s input is not going to get into many UFO circles, sadly, nor even a mention in mainstream circles, its value is immeasurable for those who like thinking that is unique and creative.

But has Bryan (and even me on occasion) dipped into areas that have nothing to do with the UFO phenomenon but clutter it with unintended accoutrements that detract from its simplicity as a mystery?

Yes, a mythos has been created, since 1947 probably, and enhanced by Aubeck, Vallee, and the Magonia crowd n Britain among others.

But the mythos is a roundabout approach to the phenomenon, bringing the enigma into socially acceptable circles, non-academic among them, and beclouding the mysterious things with an aura that has nothing – nothing at all – to do with the phenomenon, which should be addressed “scientifically” not within the societal, economic, political arenas.

While I, and some of you, I hope, enjoy the ramifications of Bryan’s (and Eric Wargo’s) attempts to bring an academic patina to UFOs, we are abetting an attempt to diffuse the mystery beyond recognition.

Yet, I expect that Bryan will bring his material together to provide a meaningful evaluation of UFOs and ufology that enlightens newbies and those who like a scholarly approach to everything extant, even something as flaky as UFOs.

RR

A Luis Elizondo interview. Give it a go and let me know what you think. (Give the guy a break)

http://www.openminds.tv/luis-elizondo-interview-transcript/42397

Again, Ufologists shoot themselves in the foot!

Copyright 2019, InterAmerica, Inc.

I’m talking about Luis Elizondo and the History Channel’s controversial Unidentified: Inside America’s UFO Investigation.

You have read here (and elsewhere), I hope, comments suggesting that the host of the History show, Elizondo, is said to have fudged his DoD and AATIP connections,

I’ve added and read the mish-mash, finding the allegation(s) of false upscaling of  Mr. Elizondo’s credentials awash in confusion and animas.

I’m not convinced, although I see the value in my long-time pal Paul Kimball's suggestion: “trust but verify.”

Let’s get this straight….I like Luis Elizondo, for no other reason but that he seems sincere in his attempt to find out what credible, honest Navy men and women pilots have reported; they encountered something(s) odd over American skies: UFOs. 

(UAP doesn’t make it for me. Pilots came into contact with things seemingly solid and under intelligent control. They didn’t cross paths with things ephemeral.)

My buddy Kevin Randall sees the History Channel’s show as redundant. The stories and reports of pilot encounters with UFOs are “old news” – not “fake news” -- but tales replete in the literature and Blue Book files often in the past.

My irrepressible chum Lance Moody is livid with Luis Elizondo and the Tic-Tac story, finding the hubbub just another hysterical UFO fantasy.

And all over the place, one can read commentary that is pro and con about Mr. Elizondo, but few that undermine the information disclosed about pilot encounters of UFOs.

And that’s my point.

Despite anything untoward about Luis Elizondo or Tom DeLonge and the History Channel’s new series, the released and documented, by Mr. Elizondo, accounts of military pilots and radar men (so far) are enough to determine that something truly odd is appearing or has appeared over American skies and elsewhere around the world.

That alone is worthy of scrutiny, not that the things encountered are ET craft – they might even be top-secret, advanced airships of the United States – but that a phenomenon we have all been interested in has been “proven” to exist and Luis Elizondo has brought the information to public and media attention.

To get sidetracked by attacks on Luis Elizondo’s alleged misinformation about his bona fides is something that UFO enthusiasts like to do: go after those who show up in the UFO community, where their character and backgrounds are grist for forensic analysis, while their information they impart is set aside to molder.

I would think that Ufologists would be delighted to see and hear pilot accounts, with videos and documentation, that indicate UFOs are flitting about the Earth, and we now have credible “proof” of that.

But, no….ufologists want to excoriate a man who has done more for the UFO cause than almost anyone who’s been in the long, often senseless fight to legitimate the UFO phenomenon.

It’s a sad commentary on the ufological community and it’s raison d’etre.

RR