UFO Conjecture(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.