UFO Conjecture(s)

Thursday, August 07, 2008

The Death Throes of Ufology [Redux]

3death.jpg

It’s not just the epithet “ufology” that is dying but the whole genre under that rubric.

The field of UFO study is sinking under its own weight, mostly by the tonnage of nonsense that the internet encourages.

What has happened is that a load of regurgitated UFO material now clots efforts to make sense of the UFO mystery.

Old flying saucer stories and events are being rehashed, not just by newbies but by old-timers, to the extent that ufology – a mantle we (and persons like Mac Tonnies) abhor – has become a cemetery where zombie-enthusiasts now congregate, hoping to resurrect a classic sighting or two which might harbor a clue to the UFO enigma.

3mac.jpg

A residue of UFO mavens – those who cherish the title “ufologist” – are flocking to inane UFO conferences with the purpose of forestalling the demise of the hobby they’ve invested their lives in.

Stanton Friedman is their ufological saint.

3stan.jpg

The UFO phenomenon – or phenomena – is encrusted with so much obtuse detritus that only the most rabid followers of the conundrum find it worthwhile for scrutiny, or time.

Sensible UFO aficionados (Paul Kimball for instance) have moved on pretty much, the UFO community having been subsumed by quidnuncs (Regan Lee comes to mind) and paranoid sociopaths (many named at our UFO web-site).

3regan.jpg

Yet it’s the UFO mystery itself which is leading to ufology’s comatose state: flying saucers refuse to be explained, or observed in ways that human senses can conjure with.

And the situation has gotten even more obscure as UFO sightings are more evanescent than ever, with photographs and/or video, in the ubiquitous era of YouTube, more amorphous than they should be with all the cameras extant.

While UFO vultures pick at the bones of old sightings, flying saucer archeologists (Kevin Randle) are left with a few rotting episodes, without a chance of finding or hearing about a current UFO event that proves the phenomenon still exists, in a corporeal state that matters.

3kevin.jpg

Ufology is going, going, and UFOs are gone.

Those who think otherwise are in a severe state of denial which, by the way, has been the sine qua non of ufology all along.

3 Comments:

  • I've no problem with the resurrection and examination of "classic" tales. I do this myself, but only in the sense of their folkloric value. And I think that's all that can be done with most historic accounts. A few stand out, meatier than most, and may have some statistical value. Most, however, are fun tales to tell around the camp fire, as it were.

    Serious UFOlogist do need to live in the present and look toward the future. And, yes, employ better these emerging technologies that would allow for a systematic analysis of the heavens, faster reporting, and more accurate data. Instead, tired methodologies are employed by rote, and nothing further is ever gained.

    Awash in acronyms, today's UFOlogists are more concerned with the past and paranoia than actively seeking out answers. I think this may stem from a deep-seated fear that the answers they will find will not be those they want to hear.

    By Blogger Cullan Hudson, at Thursday, August 07, 2008  

  • As usual, Cullan, you state the case exactly as it is.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Thursday, August 07, 2008  

  • I appreciate this site has an agenda, as of course have many on the "believer" fringe. However, I can't agree that reports are getting worse (except linguistically) or more scarce. There are now videos pouring in daily, taken by honest observers and showing things moving in the sky that do not seem readily explainable, even if a good portion of them may be.

    I would think an explanation of this phenomenon should be a scientific priority and subject to intense investigation. I'm no scientist, but am inclined to a Keel/Vallee interpretation: these are not crafts from outer space, but something coupled to the human mind as a kind of mirror. It would mean that our understanding of reality is fundamentally lacking. And what could be more interesting than that?

    By Blogger Jan, at Thursday, November 13, 2008  

Post a Comment

<< Home