The UFO Iconoclast(s)

Tuesday, April 24, 2007

Ufology's "modus operandi"

Bona fide (real) UFO researchers, such as Stanton Friedman, Jerry Clark, Kevin Randle, Brad Sparks, and Bruce Maccabee, have done the legwork for us and the rest of the UFO community.

(We didn’t add David Rudiak, who is imaginative and thorough to a fault, to the list because he allows too many “maybes” and “could haves” to his presentations, as he did in this exchange about Roswell for UFO UpDates:

“Bessie Brazel could conceivably have been at the Foster on July 4 & 5. The first day of the annual regional rodeo in Capitan was July 4 and it was the big event of the year. Mack Brazel might very well have picked up his family in Tulerosa, driven to the rodeo in Capitan on July 4, then taken the family on up to the ranch later the same day. At this point, on July 4, the family maybe picked up debris, as reported in Brazel's interview. Maybe Bessie Brazel's memories stem from this. In one account from Bill Brazel, his father first drove the family home before proceeding to Rowell to report his find. So if this happened, Bessie Brazel would have been there maybe late July 4 through early July 6. Another possibility is Brazel driving them home on July 5, then going to Corona that night, mentioning what he had found, and first being told about the flying saucers.”)

The bonafides investigate UFO episodes by visiting sighting locales, interviewing witnesses, perusing archival materials; then write books, or flesh out their web-sites and, blogs, and sometimes attend conferences to present their findings and conjectures.

UFO side-liners glom on to that work and those conjectures, rather than doing their own homework or studies and nit-pick or attempt to refute something minute among the vast enterprise that the group above produces or has produced.

With UFOs there are often hints of things that might explain or clarify the enigma, and actual researchers try to find out more from those hints.

Interlopers, too lazy to pursue sightings or data on their own, seek to undermine the work mustered by true ufologists.

(Even David Rudiak, despite his surmising, as noted above, has provided more relevant material than almost anyone else in the UFO community, but he’s often found in the backwaters of ufology because his work is too imaginative or unique for the common UFO maven or media to follow.)

We find that blogs and web-sites have provided a haven for those not able to set up their own sites where comments are the coin of the realm, and often those comments are based upon the work of others.

Connect the dots one comment-generator told us recently. We told him to connect the dots himself. We provided some clues, gathered from searches and our raft of UFO materials gathered over the years, and hoped that this might lead some to go further with our suggestions or meager hypotheses.

But our gadfly couldn’t extrapolate from the material presented, and if he found it wanting, ignore it – which is what a sane person would do.

We think he should get off his ass and do some original work himself, not parasitically use our efforts (as lame as they are) to try and score points with the rest of the laggard UFO crowd.

But it’s the true investigators who get short-changed by that kind of UFO mooch.

The work of James McDonald, John Mack, Ron Story, Brad Steiger, and dozens of others, who’ve paved the way for the current crop of UFO hobbyists, should not be besmirched by a few informational ruffians, using pseudonyms or anonymous as a crutch to criticize work they are incapable of doing on their own.

And bloggers, even us, can’t presume to have attained the heights that the persons named above have attained.

This doesn’t mean we’ll be less iconoclastic. It just means that we know who is the wheat and who is the chaff.

5 Comments:

  • With regards to Roswell (somewhat off topic I know but...), it is so hard to tell anymore what the witnesses or anybody else actually said...was it tinfoil or something more? Some stupid "secret balloons," as the airforce's official explanation would have us believe. This to me is a serious problem. Anyone can twist what somebody said around. I think at least voice recordings (with date, time, etc) of witness interviews should be standard...video of course would be much better!

    By Blogger Rich, at Tuesday, April 24, 2007  

  • Here here,
    I agree and have great respect for the researchers you mentioned they are out there when most rest of us sit on our computer thrones typing away.
    Let me also put in a plug for the witnesses with their courage to come forward and risk the scone and ridicule and career damage that we should also never forget.

    It is so amazing how these good people are reinvented from year to year by some of these researchers, just to have a new theory in print. I have also read where somehow a witnesses credibility gets wrapped up with a erroneous statements a researcher made later on for dramatic purposes. The witnesses are of course a blessing they are the ones you can go to year after year to clear the air, so to speak ,when some new kid on the block wants to rewrite history. The witnesses above all other keep the UFO mystery alive. Recently a Pilot, think about that, at O'Hare when interviewed on Rinse emphasized he saw a "craft not an object", that type of detailed observations transcends the explanations and live in the history of UFO fact which in turn challenges many reasonable people to think.

    Joseph Capp
    UFO Media Matters

    By Blogger Joseph Capp, at Wednesday, April 25, 2007  

  • Yes, Joseph,

    UFO witnesses can't be dismissed out of hand.

    That they are often maligned by media and people who have never seen a UFO is almost criminal.

    The real UFO researchers treat witnesses with respect, and that's why we respect them.

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Wednesday, April 25, 2007  

  • Stanton Friedman is in my opinion
    not the "gold standard" of UFO researchers, to say the least.

    I don't get why he is praised so much. You guys spend more time on this site trying to debunk Roswell,
    you offer "possibilities" excuse me, then you go on to praise him (even though he is a staunch supporter of the crash theory for Roswell!!). Also Mr. Friedman I believe still supports the laughable fraud (in my opinion) that are the MJ-12 documents.

    Just my thoughts....

    Mark R.
    California

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Wednesday, April 25, 2007  

  • Mark R:

    The thing with Stanton Friedman is that he dispenses with some questionable aspects of Roswell and the MJ-12 documents, zeroing in on the elements which he finds credible.

    He doesn't rave or rant, and he has a track record. He is an honorable man, even though you (and others) see his thinking as flawed.

    Roswell is iffy for us. Something happened there in 1947; what that was remains to be clarified.

    The MJ-12 documents strike us as fraudulent, but that hasn't been confirmed definitively either.

    So we give Stan Friedman a nod, and like the man (even respect him) very much.

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Wednesday, April 25, 2007  

Post a Comment

<< Home