The UFO “New Guard” is working to dethrone the UFO “Old Guard"?
Copyright 2019, InterAmerica, Inc.
I’ve noticed that a batch of middle-aged UFO enthusiasts – those between the ages of 40 and 50ish – are exerting efforts to replace, in the ufological scheme of things, those who’ve made a mark, of sorts, in the UFO (and paranormal) community: Stanton Friedman, Kevin Randle, Loren Coleman, Jerry Clark, Michael Swords, for example.
The wannabes include Micah Hanks, Curt Collins, Greg Bishop, Robbie Graham, MJ Banias, to name a few.
(I’m not including Nick Redfern; he doesn’t think like or have the same desires as other UFO fanatics. And Paul Kimball is free of guile, and mostly interested in finding ghosts.)
As to why anyone would want to be atop the pile we call Ufology, is barely understandable.
Fame is a funny thing. Those who don’t have it, would like its taste, even when money is not the object – money, generally, being a non-starter or non-sustaining factor in the UFO market place – because it offers a modicum of stature, even if only among the non-cognoscenti (of anything).
(In Fort Wayne, a typical American town, we have people struggling to best people in charge of such things as a yearly walk for Alzheimers or a place in the local Historical Society; they rush to replace those holding such minimally effective positions. This is not atypical of other small towns or even large cities; New York and Chicago are flush with those hoping to hold a place of prominence there.)
In the Ufology kingdom there have been a few names that ring (or rang) a bell with every UFO buff – I’ve provided the names before here (and recently).
But today, with UFO notables dying (of old age) or departing the UFO world because they’ve finally realized it is not going anywhere significant, we have those named and others who’ve left not a mark anywhere, for anything, going for the UFO “gold.”
It’s a pathetic thing, of concern (maybe) to only those interested in the vacuous state of deluded hubris.
Yet, there it is. A tribute to baloney and the egos of people who have achieved nothing of value in their society so they choose Ufology, where a pastiche of Facebook likes and internet attention is all they can muster to make themselves seem relevant in a society where fame is the measure of everything.
RR


9 Comments:
Don't you think you are grossly over-generalising here? Younger people are bound to want to replace the 'old fogies' as time goes on. 'Younger' here means middle-aged. The true younger ones probably avoid the subject altogether nowadays; they are far more interested in the modern world, not the world of the 50s and 60s.
Of course your response to this is to say I am over-generalising (yes me). Perfectly correct too. We oldies have exhausted all we have to say on ufology. So, in line with this, I'll shut up. For now anyway!
By
cda, at Monday, March 11, 2019
I'm seeing, CDA, an avid attempt by the hopeful "new guard" to wrest control of the UFO discussion, as battered as it is, from the oldies, who have made a mess of the topic in many ways.
I don't begrudge them their effort. I'm just acknowledging it.
RR
By
RRRGroup, at Monday, March 11, 2019
-> Yet, there it is. A tribute to baloney and the egos of people who have achieved nothing of value in their society so they choose Ufology, where a pastiche of Facebook likes and internet attention is all they can muster to make themselves seem relevant in a society where fame is the measure of everything.<-
*
Good grief,Rich,..You know how to empty a blog-room!...Where is everyone?....?
Considering what you have just commented, we would like to understand, YOUR interest on UFO NOW!? if you think it's all baloney..and yes, don't you think you are grossly over-generalising here, as cda seems to think?..I mean you can't have it both ways.
A belief in Ufos, and it's all baloney. What's going on here?...........?
By
Daniel, at Tuesday, March 12, 2019
I'm talking about the baloney of those trying to usurp the authority of the UFO old guard, not UFOs, Daniel.
Do I need to write more clearly?
RR
By
RRRGroup, at Tuesday, March 12, 2019
Thank you Rich, we were looking for confirmation, to be clear:)..
-> I'm talking about the baloney of those trying to usurp the authority of the UFO old guard, not UFO <-..........Got it!!
By
Daniel, at Tuesday, March 12, 2019
Rich -
The thing I enjoy is chasing down the information, such as my Chasing Footnotes blog posts. It is fun to follow the story to its beginning, to learn what truly happened, and find out that we might be able to solve an old case. In the world today, with the Internet, it is something that can be done from home. So, it's not about the money or the fame, it's about discovering something new and maybe solving a mystery.
Besides, someone has to clean up the messes that we've made over the years. It's just easier today than it was twenty years ago.
By
KRandle, at Wednesday, March 13, 2019
Kevin:
You remain my primary example of how to do UFO research: intrepid, honest, intelligent, and always a gentleman in dealings with UFO witnesses or fellow UFO enthusiasts.
For me Footnotes are (and have been for a long time) a source of real edification. I found the footnotes in my college texts often more enlightening than the texts from they came.
This remains true today.
With out the early efforts of the grizzled "old-timers" in the UFO community, the young turks of today would have nothing to grind their teeth on.
RR
By
RRRGroup, at Thursday, March 14, 2019
Rich -
You remind me of my undergraduate days studying astronomy under James van Allen at the University of Iowa... and when I say that, I mean he was chairman of the department, though he did lecture us on a couple of occasions. The class was taught by another astronomer we thought of as Spock's Idiot Brother because of his lecture techniques but I digress.
The point here, however, is that he gave a test each Friday, and they always included on question that required some math skills. One of the questions revolved (pun intended) a satellite of Jupiter and the time it would remain in eclipse. I had no idea how to solve the problem, but I did remember reading a caption under one of the illustrations in the textbook. It mentioned a time of 16 2/3 minutes. With no other answer available, that's what I wrote down. Turned out to be right. The instructor added a note to my answer that said,"Show your work next time."
That sort of proves the point. Sometimes the real information is not in the text, but in the footnotes or the illustrations.
By
KRandle, at Friday, March 15, 2019
Hahahaha..."Show your work next time" -- made me actually laugh {out loud).
RR
By
RRRGroup, at Friday, March 15, 2019
Post a Comment
<< Home