One last bitch for a while...I promise

I just read this on Facebook:

Now, most of us know that Strieber took a fiction and morphed it into a calling, a career.

That Malcolm Robinson is now promoting the guy, because he gave Malcolm some air-time and is "a lovely human being" tackles Malcolm's credibility.

Are some of those people, like Robert Taylor or the A70 guys, given notice by Malcolm because they were lovely human beings, not because they told the truth?

Who can we believe if everyone is so easily conned, by "lovely human beings"?

The UFO field has always been doused with con-men and women, but nowadays the cons are running the show, from top to bottom.

And gullible people, like my pal Malcolm, are pulled down into the depths of stupidity because they were podcasted by a "lovely human being."

It really has to be called out -- not by a pipsqueak like me, but by somebody with credible, intelligent cachet. But who could that be?

There is no one around with the mantle. Everyone has become an ignoramus.

RR

The DeBrief: Micah Hanks on artificial intelligence

https://thedebrief.org/chatgpt-does-this-clever-chatbot-mark-the-dawn-of-a-new-era-in-ai/

Art? UFOs? And a cavalier kind of madness

The January 23 issue of The New Yorker had a piece by long-timer Calvin Tomkins about the Iranian artist Tala Madani [Page 42 ff.]

This is one of Ms. Madani's early pieces, but I ask you, Is it art? Really?

And here is a "drawing" from one of Albert Rosales' offerings on Facebook. We're using Albert's vast collection of UFO encounter accounts to find similarities among them. The drawings provide a flavor for the stories but we know there is artistic license involved, which is much better than the early output of artist Madani above.

Remember The Medium is the Message, as the great Marshall McLuhan intoned and I find the output of Preston Dennett and Albert (whether by him or someone else) more "artistic" than that which passes for art in The New Yorker and more informative.

We are at a time in society when hip-hop "speech" has replaced music in the popular culture. And the news is not news but social palaver for the common crowd, the great unwashed.

In the UFO community, what passes for information is, nowadays, a mish-mash of items and thinking that used to contain some element of ratiocination but, instead, are now strained contentions hoping to stir virality or attention.

Finally, I notice that my pal Bill Murphy (at the Anomalist) high- lighted my buddy Kevin Randle's disparaging take on Jacques Vallee's Trinity tale -- which I initially panned but have since "recanted" as the story of a pre-Roswell UFO crash (in 1945) shows up in native American folklore (which was noted here when I read about it in Daniel Harran's Who Are They Really?).

Now Bill Murphy and the Anomalist's Patrick Huyghe know this, so why are they lauding Kevin Randle's misguided harangue against Vallee's Trinity account?

This is where ufology and the UFO community goes wrong: no one is cleansing the patter of errant materials and foolish non-infor- mation runs rampant, even after it has been exposed as nonsense or ignorance.

I'm sorry to keep nagging readers here about the "madness" extant about UFOs or UAPs [sic] as the truly stupid keep pushing.

But like The New Yorker's insistence about art which isn't, the UFO scene is flush with a like kind of impervious misapplication of what is news and what is hogwash.

RR