UFO Conjectures

Tuesday, July 01, 2008

The Failure(s) of Ufology


For 60 years some persons have studied the flying saucer phenomenon, a few even making a career out of the thing called ufology.

In science many accomplishments have been achieved during the same 60 year period.

As examples, the following links touch upon a few of those accomplishments:




Now what are the ufological accomplishments we might list?

There aren’t any.

The study of UFOs, the research and investigation(s) have produced nothing, nothing at all that provides an inkling as to what UFOs are or even if they truly exist in tangible form.

Ufology hasn’t even come up with a working hypothesis which might lead to some kind explanation for the UFO phenomena.

This is shameful, considering the effort(s) that have gone into the study and ruminations about the elusive but palpable objects or images that have appeared in all the skies of the Earth, supposedly in numbers that indicate a UFO pandemic.

Taking all the materials about flying saucers and UFOs which have appeared since 1947, it is pathetically surprising that no one has made a dent in the UFO enigma.

Methodologies have been suggested, but have never been instigated in any viable way.

And while reams of “explanations” have been proffered, none – not one – has come close to resolving even one aspect of the UFO riddle.

Data accumulation about flying saucers and/or UFOs is rife, and some persons have done yeoman work in gathering that data, along with anecdotal accounts of sightings, even so-called abductions of humans by UFO entities.

Where does the problem lie? In the mystery itself: UFOs just can’t be explained or understood by humankind?

Are ufologists ill-equipped to fathom the UFO mystery, inept as it were?

Is a scientific, academic discipline needed and ufologists haven’t come up with one?

Nick Redfern gives voice to ufology’s premiere statesman, Stanton Friedman at one of his blogs:


But Mr. Friedman offers nothing concrete, just conjecture; interesting conjecture perhaps but containing a litany of UFO clichés that no longer provoke even a smidgen of response from UFO devotees.

Mr. Friedman’s analyses are old-hat, and lead ufologists nowhere unfortunately.

Redfern, along with persons like Mac Tonnies and Greg Bishop, also offer suggestions about what UFOs might be or where they may come from, but their suggestions, while intriguing, lack Friedman’s cachet, and only resonate with desperate UFO hobbyists who would love any kind of solution to the thing (UFOs) that gnaws at their curiosity gene.

The ufological dance has to come to an end, or has to take a new tack.

Paul Kimball’s idea that today’s ufologists must build upon (stand on the shoulders of) the work of old-guard ufologists like Jerry Clark doesn’t work for us.


That is a prescription for further failure. As old-timer Richard Hall, a logician of sorts, might have it: If the premise is wrong, everything that follows will be wrong.

And the premises of ufologists have been wrong, otherwise the UFO mystery would have been solved by now, as science has solved some of the issues it deals with.

Perhaps, as we state again, the UFO phenomenon is unsolvable, essentially so, like the mystery that is God.


But since we think UFOs are phenomena [sic], it seems to us that some element – one or two – could be resolved, at least.

And that might leave the core UFO mystery open to some brilliant person or group of persons of an Einsteinian bend who will uncloak the damnable things which remain unidentified.

We can hope….