The Metamorphoses of UFOs and Ufology
UFOs, as we’ve noted earlier, have morphed from chariots of the gods, to mysterious airships of the late 19th Century, to attendant lights of WWII, to flying saucers of the 50s, to human-capturing ships of the 60s, to airfoils of various kinds in the 70s and 80s, until their latest incarnation as delta-shaped craft of the 90s.
In 2007, UFOs have gone back to erratic lights in the sky pretty much.
What hasn’t changed is how UFO investigators and researchers go about scrutinizing the phenomena.
Ever since the Arnold 1947 sighting, and the Maury Island episode, ufologists have applied a mix of inept evaluations, including interviews of witnesses, photographic and video enhancements, and hypnosis (a remnant of Mesmer’s 18th Century suggestive technique).
What was de rigueur in 1947 for investigating crimes or scientific anomalies has been replaced in the 21st Century by physical and psychological forensics and scientific disciplines that were not even imagined in 1947, such as DNA analyses and quantum perturbations.
But ufology’s investigatory camp has remained tethered to the old practices, and that’s why the UFO riddle continues to be unsolved.
Friedman, Randle, Hall, Rudiak, Maccabee, Hopkins, Jacobs, and the dead among them, Hynek, Mack, Sprinkle, et alia are or were locked into the methodologies of the past, from which no results, of any kind, have been forthcoming, even after 60 years of their scrutiny.
Even those who are culled for TV interviews, such as the recent one with Larry King on CNN, provide nothing but the same old rhubarbs that have worn thin by the retelling of them, over and over again, with nothing new ever added to the material.
These are the old-guard of ufology. But there are new investigators or theorists who aren’t beholden to the methods or ideologies of the past.
The new breed of UFO investigators can be found in the blogosphere surely, but many are extant in an “invisible” academic milieu, which was made archetypal by Jacques Vallee.
Some of the new breed who are not invisible (or academic necessarily) include Mac Tonnies, John Greenewald, Nick Pope, Bruce Duensing, Joseph Capp, Frank Warren, Dirk Vander Ploeq, Stuart Miller, and Vincente-Juan Ballester Olmos, among a few others.
Some are not youngsters but they are persons who haven’t concretized their thinking, as have those who insist on holding forth with egotistical barbs at UFO venues where silliness often overtakes serious discussion.
However, there is also a sub rosa set of ufologists who research the UFO phenomenon and discuss, with no holds barred, arcane and obtuse explanations for the mysterious sightings which have flummoxed the old-timers.
This subliminal group may not be any more successful at providing a UFO denouement, but perhaps their imaginative ruminations and technical expertise, along with their forensic schooling, will take UFOs out of the hands of the mummified ufologists and help place the enigma in the arena of science, real science, not the faux science of ufology that has allowed UFOs to escape their final detection.
While UFOs have changed their configuration over the years, ufology hasn’t – until now.