Triangle “UFOs” and other irrelevant nonsense
Copyright 2022, InterAmerica, Inc.
Why is Micah Hanks – a brilliant guy – spending time on The
Paracast talking about UFO Triangles?
(See Academia.edu for a protracted discussion of triangular aircraft.)
The Hanks sojourn on the less-than-important Paracast makes my ongoing point about how diluted and pathetic the UFO topic has become and is.
Bryan Sentes has posted (at his Skunkworks blog) about a UFO newbie who hopes to establish a scientific approach to the UFO question.
How many times have we heard about someone making the attempt to push UFOs into a scientific discipline? That too is pathetic.
The UFO dilemma is beyond science and shapes geared to human configurations.
Those reading this – my fanboys – have got to be sick and tired, as I am, with all the folderol that has encompassed the UFO phenom- enon the past few years, and is proceeding at a rate that bespeaks a kind of psychopathic hysteria.
Some of us recognize that science, mysticism, philosophy, and maybe even psychological assumptions have nothing to do with UFOs, or can help decipher the enigma no matter how serious some grapple with such disciplines to solve the riddle.
Jacques Vallee came to such a conclusion long ago, as did John Keel, whose brain succumbed to the madness that UFOs impose on human thinking and behavior.
Triangular-shaped things in the sky have nothing to do with “real” UFOs and scientific musings from newbies are a waste of time and effort as I suggested previously here recently.
Just because Bryan Sentes is flummoxed by the phenomenon and The Paracast keeps trotting out its shopworn colloquies for its listeners doesn’t mean we have to pay attention.
Their silly promotions just deter a novel or sensible approach to resolving a mystery that deserves brilliant intelligence and research, something in short supply in the UFO community currently.
RR
(See Academia.edu for a protracted discussion of triangular aircraft.)
The Hanks sojourn on the less-than-important Paracast makes my ongoing point about how diluted and pathetic the UFO topic has become and is.
Bryan Sentes has posted (at his Skunkworks blog) about a UFO newbie who hopes to establish a scientific approach to the UFO question.
How many times have we heard about someone making the attempt to push UFOs into a scientific discipline? That too is pathetic.
The UFO dilemma is beyond science and shapes geared to human configurations.
Those reading this – my fanboys – have got to be sick and tired, as I am, with all the folderol that has encompassed the UFO phenom- enon the past few years, and is proceeding at a rate that bespeaks a kind of psychopathic hysteria.
Some of us recognize that science, mysticism, philosophy, and maybe even psychological assumptions have nothing to do with UFOs, or can help decipher the enigma no matter how serious some grapple with such disciplines to solve the riddle.
Jacques Vallee came to such a conclusion long ago, as did John Keel, whose brain succumbed to the madness that UFOs impose on human thinking and behavior.
Triangular-shaped things in the sky have nothing to do with “real” UFOs and scientific musings from newbies are a waste of time and effort as I suggested previously here recently.
Just because Bryan Sentes is flummoxed by the phenomenon and The Paracast keeps trotting out its shopworn colloquies for its listeners doesn’t mean we have to pay attention.
Their silly promotions just deter a novel or sensible approach to resolving a mystery that deserves brilliant intelligence and research, something in short supply in the UFO community currently.
RR


