Thinking your way into the UFO phenomenon
Copyright 2022, InterAmerica, Inc.
My Anomalist pal Bill Murphy, along with my
at-arms-length buddy, Bryan Sentes, are falling all over themselves to adorn
newbie UFO “researcher” Michael Cifone (whose blog, Entaus, is an
academic joy to read, but nothing more than that) with accolades that are
pitifully sycophantic.
Michael presumes to wrest the mantle of UFO hierarch held, still, by Jacques Vallee.
(Take a look at Michael’s writings to see what I mean.)
The problem lies in the approach, which is also a failing of Bryan Sentes: they think they can deduce what UFOs are by an academic thought process: philosophy, physics, esoteric sciences even al- chemy I bet), reportorial syntax, anything with a collegiate ring to it, et cetera.
But that approach is as meaningless as the ongoing pursuit, by some, of the existence of God or what God is, the premise – God – remaining unknowable, just as UFOs remain unknowable.
I like Avi Loeb’s approach – looking for something from outer space, similar to the Oumuamua intruder, that fell into the ocean a month or so before Oumuamua showed up.
That could produce something concrete or other, rather than the academic wrangling that Cifone or Sentes prefer.
Nothing but a hands-on UFO will solve the UFO riddle, nothing. Even if UFOs are of an ephemera essence, only a capture of the ephemera, if possible, might tell us something meaningful.
The clot of persons involved with Loeb’s Galileo Project are ufolo- gically well-spread: skeptics, believers, those dealing with the phenomenon for years, and government insiders.
Cifone’s gathering of notable scholars or academics, most new to UFOs and many just academic sloughs who like to debate, any- thing, is a useless appendage to the UFO circle of enthusiasts.
Nope, UFOs are beyond the range of Cifone’s approach. That Bill Murphy and a few others think it doesn't goes to the heart of the UFO dilemma: the phenomenon continues to elude exposition, even by someone as erudite as Jacques Vallee.
Michael presumes to wrest the mantle of UFO hierarch held, still, by Jacques Vallee.
(Take a look at Michael’s writings to see what I mean.)
The problem lies in the approach, which is also a failing of Bryan Sentes: they think they can deduce what UFOs are by an academic thought process: philosophy, physics, esoteric sciences even al- chemy I bet), reportorial syntax, anything with a collegiate ring to it, et cetera.
But that approach is as meaningless as the ongoing pursuit, by some, of the existence of God or what God is, the premise – God – remaining unknowable, just as UFOs remain unknowable.
I like Avi Loeb’s approach – looking for something from outer space, similar to the Oumuamua intruder, that fell into the ocean a month or so before Oumuamua showed up.
That could produce something concrete or other, rather than the academic wrangling that Cifone or Sentes prefer.
Nothing but a hands-on UFO will solve the UFO riddle, nothing. Even if UFOs are of an ephemera essence, only a capture of the ephemera, if possible, might tell us something meaningful.
The clot of persons involved with Loeb’s Galileo Project are ufolo- gically well-spread: skeptics, believers, those dealing with the phenomenon for years, and government insiders.
Cifone’s gathering of notable scholars or academics, most new to UFOs and many just academic sloughs who like to debate, any- thing, is a useless appendage to the UFO circle of enthusiasts.
Nope, UFOs are beyond the range of Cifone’s approach. That Bill Murphy and a few others think it doesn't goes to the heart of the UFO dilemma: the phenomenon continues to elude exposition, even by someone as erudite as Jacques Vallee.
(Image atop from Discover magazine)
RR
RR


0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home